|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Iceman, Marvel Girl, Beast, Angel and Cyclops were the first generation, no? Second is Storm, Colossus, Wolverine, Cyclops, Nightcrawler etc. After that it becomes far more difficult. Maggot and Marrow were far, far later - and as younger characters, not completely overdeveloped yet, they were more interesting to read about. I guess I could have phrased that better.
Another point to consider is that there are so utterly many characters in the Marvel universe by now. There certainly wouldn't have been a lack of characters to put in as children if they had wanted to.
Pretty odd ones if a statement itself is evidence, to be honest. The evidence for what witnesses say (the evidence for their statements) lies in the trustworthiness of their descriptions and so on. Taking their statements by themselves is no evidence of anything. By the way, thejeff, I happen to need to move a large sum of money internationally, and if you would just help me pay the fees for doing so, I would give you 10% of the total sum. :-)
Nobody has an obligation to stand by anyone else in any situation. We choose to. If one of my loved ones were accused of something terrible, I would stand by them, as I would expect most to do if it happened to theirs. If someone is accused of something, I can understand if people suspend interaction until the courts have decided.
However, people giving themselves the right to publicly denounce someone as a criminal because of accusations? Disgusting. This is specifically the reason we have courts, so that people don't get judged by the nearest interested lynch mob or demagogue.
When the matter is decided, that is when you call someone a rapist.
Judge, then. How about jury and executioner, is that also up to you as you see fit, thejeff?
In a culture like the American one, there is good money to be made in accusing people of various crimes, particularly if they are wealthy, and if others have made similar accusations, it also helps. Thus, I don't really understand the idea that if thirty people have made accusations, it's a matter of how many are true accusations. It seems quite possible that none are. That said, I have read nothing about the Cosby cases.
Lucky thing nobody is talking about forcing you to see anything, huh? The truth is, the debate here has been going between one side claiming again and again that "there should be less of it" without a single shred of practical suggestions as to how this would be acheived, and the other pointing out that without such suggestions, all it is is a cry for general censorship and banning, supported by nothing at all, and certainly no reason to institute any kind of censorship or banning.
It's impressive, really. Decade after decade, the call for censorship has gone out about the latest types of media. Decade after decade, would-be censors have researched the hell out of the area in search of the holy grail: evidence that society becomes worse in a measurable way with porn/swearing/D&D/dancing/rock music/whatever. And, decade after decade, they draw a blank. But the truly sad part is, despite this, there is never a shortage of people who buy into the completely unscientific argumentation anyway.
The best idea is to get help for a simple phobia. It doesn't even have to cost too much to get it. If the phobia hurts your life, you will get a new life after treating it.
If that is not possible, sure, you could remove the <thing> from all RPGing and be done with it. However, it's not always a good thing. These things can be VERY disruptive. For example, I had to deal with a huge bunch of people who had a triskadekaphobic among them - she was afraid of the number 13. And everyone had adapted to her. They wrote 12+1 when they meant 13, and so on. That is... too far.
A level 16 wizard? Well, he can't use wishes or imprisonment (yet, unless via scrolls, of course), but generally, an 11 level disparity is not something you will manage to deal with. Consider this: He knows where you are, since you have his book. All he needs to do is pop in while invisible and summon a few beasts with Summon Monster VIII when you are sleeping. If he even cares enough about you. Now, the book: he is not going to fall for explosive runes on it. It has been compromised. He has other spellbooks. How you die is merely a matter of how sadistic he is and the quality of his imagination. When depends on how important you are. If, well, if really isn't an issue. And, as was noted: Kiiiiinda rooting for him here as well.
Complete Book of Elves had a neat little story about what revenge can mean, and why rings of regeneration are not your friend.
Well, if it is the fact that nothing in your backstory can be changed, a misunderstanding of your character, reinterpreted, expanded or otherwise changed, indeed INCLUDING THINGS YOU NEVER TOLD THE GM WERE IMPORTANT TO YOU, the ONLY sane response for the GM is to avoid your backstory entirely, like the plague, and not try ANY sort of plotline connected to it. After all, any sort of idea touching on it might change something you consider sacrosanct, leading to you getting the GM to stop GMing, mid-session if necessary, right? Honestly, at that point it is probably better not to use backstory at all.
A large part of it is whether you see it as "screwing with the player".
I made an Exalted character once... A dragon blooded diplomat. She never exalted, so instead she was sent by her family to rein in her stupid but skilled warrior brother who exalted as a chosen of fire. On their first trip, the brother challenged a sleazy diplomat to single combat despite my character's warnings. She fled from the inn they were staying in, thereby severing her ties to her family, just before the inn was burnt down the night before the challenge by the challenged. Her family kept seeking her, but she fled far enough not to be found. Play started and went on for years, game time and real.
Then one day, she meets her mother. She wonders why she ran. Butbutbut... My brother died... My responsibility... Silly daughter, he was a chosen of fire. He survived and killed the would be assassin easily at the challenge.
I was gobsmacked. I never thought he would. I never once made the rather obvious connection. With this, my character's family, with a very strained relationship, became an interesting part of the campaign.
However, the GM never changed what I wrote.
Exactly. There was even a clear document about how evil never could be allowed to win/destroy innocents/destroy children/whatever. This was a product of 2nd edition sensibilities... but with 3rd edition, this changed. Scyllua Darkhope, the church of Bane, the Red Wizards, the Shades, and so on, the villains did get far more credible.
Now, what is really interesting: If you look carefully, reading through the 2nd edition books, it really isn't the classic picture you imagine, with heroes everywhere very successfully protecting everything and everyone. Instead, it's a few people trying their best to hold things together and keep it going for another week, all while the evil forces are pretty much everywhere. Yes, the Chosen of Mystra are powerful, but without their constant vigilance, even the areas they have chosen to protect would crumble under the onslaught. Much of the material is really interestingly written.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Another impassioned plea for protecting the IMPRESSIONABLE people with LOW SELF-ESTEEM. There is a similar problem with every single activity that shows ANYONE being good at anything, being praised, being in good shape, doing anything that might be a problem in any situation, and so on. Is it okay to show elite sports?
As you say, Shar predates EVERYONE. She is the background against which all other things appear. The light of the sun is the shield against Shar's ever-present malice and desire for annihilation. Within this tiny bubble of light, there can be all sorts of good things, but the void is still infinitely larger than the Light. So, even if other gods have died, they are still different entities than Shar. I would not see any problem with simply having her eternal and indestructible even if the others are not. Now, when you look at it, even if other gods have died in FR, it is hardly a permanent thing. Bane was reborn through Iyachtu Xvim, his own son. Myrkul left a variety of legacies, most notably the Crown of Horns, which is a sentient artifact. Bhaal left his Bhaalspawn (of questionable canonity), all possible ways to return. Leira too left several different resurrection routes, such as the metatext. Mystra, well, she was never really away, was she? Even after destroying herself as Mystryl, she lived on, notably as the goddess in charge of Time, including time travel. Death is such a mortal concept, and doesn't seem to apply much to the FR gods.
Heh. Consider this: Shelyn makes people fall in love with other people. This is obviously a violation of free will of the absolute highest order - and yet Shelyn is described as the most saccharine of goodie-goodie-two-shoes. Shouldn't she be utterly evil and monstrous for this playing with peoples' minds?
I would say it is a matter of legacy as well... But the question then becomes why they were originally pegged as good despite this (rape wasn't really legal in the fifties, you know?). I would say it is partly because dryads are mythological creatures with such myths about them, but also the idea that nature as embodied by fey is dangerous though not necessarily malicious. Also, I would say it is questionable that charming someone and making them your friend is worse than murdering them. At the very least, that is very modern thinking. Consider: The dryad doesn't really have any other weapons to defend herself with. If we can consider poison use acceptable for good people, something seriously condemned in 1st edition AD&D, I would say the wickedness of charming someone is mostly dependent on what you do with it.
Dryads are designed as creatures that WILL come into conflict with civilization. Their plight is not an issue that can really be solved amicably - it is either civilzation stands down or the dryads die. Consider this: Given that the loggers are most certainly human, some of them would feel moved by seeing a dryad. They also live off the forest, and dryads are a direct expression of something that nurtures them. Some would probably feel they did wrong to hurt a dryad, and some might choose to go AWOL to defend her. This expression of decency would of course be painted by the lumber bosses as dangerous, immoral, treason and whatnot - precisely the rumours described. Further, if a logger lives with the dryad for more than a little while, her alien nature would make itself known, and their relationship would be complicated. If the logger eventually leaves, it might be quite a bit easier to claim that she enspelled him than the truth.
Mythological creatures are reflections of human emotions, and are thus always simplified.
Well, I particularly remember one instance where one of the genus-people started out a lecture by saying "each and every man in this room is going to beat women". The evidence of which was Eva Lundgren and her incompetent statistics-backed paranoid drivel thesis "Slagen dam". Oh, and then of course a 45 minute tirade of how the powerful men in the patriarchy sent less well-off men to punish women for gaining influence in society.
Regarding economy, I believe we got very little regarding any of it. Perhaps it would have been different if I had studied the economy program.
EDIT: Thinking more about it, we got the basics of how the economy as it was worked. We also got group work to present one type of investment one could make. As I said, not that much.
In most of the dictatorships around the world, there were things aimed at producing adults with the correct views from children. This was Hitlerjugend, the Pioneers, and so on and so forth. Would you like to send your child to such an institution? What if you were a smart parent? The problem with having the state decide the curriculum is that you won't know when your country becomes something else.
I don't know if Russia generally uses the DSM, but I would suppose so. If they do, it sounds like it's a blanket ban for all sorts of psychiatric disorders. Which is a dick move of colossal proportions.
And just to clarify: While sexual preferences and gender identity are not psychiatric disorders, gender dysphoria and various paraphilias that make a person suffer (such as inability to function sexually without a fetish object, for example), are.
133, "We have a problem, sir."
If you read various GM tips sections of rulebooks, most of them will adress the issue of players who get their kicks from disrupting the game. It is not necessarily a matter of a player really wishing to play a rhino rider, it's a player who wants to disrupt the dungeon crawling with endless discussions about how his rhino squeezes through the corridors. Or, how the stinking lizard man shaman aggravates nobles at the parties they will be attending. The more they can get the GM to break suspension of disbelief, the happier they will be.
Players like this are something you need to be aware of, and act accordingly. Like bratty kids, it doesn't help to fight it, or to let them have their fun - both reinforce it. Either talk to the player, kick them out if they won't stop, or, I suppose, simply do not give their antics the spotlight. "No, you can't bring the rhino into the dungeon. Sorry. Leave it behind or stay behind. Now, what are you guys doing?" or "The nobles don't let a stinking lizard man in to their party. What are the rest of you doing?" would be the appropriate way to adress it. Soon enough, the player will hopefully get the hint.
Uhm, guys... there has been so much talk about how brilliant socialized health care is, and everyone's been looking at Sweden as the bright shining example. As a Swede, I think the idea that everyone should have the opportunity to get an education is far, far more important. There is a reason why Sweden has done as well as it has in research and technology. Let's face it: No country that wants to flourish can afford to let bright young people flip burgers. Believe me when I say 34 billion dollars is a VERY small price to pay.
I am not singling it out any more than you did, thejeff. I am sure I don't need to quote you on that. My point is that we as Westerners tend to assume that religion works largely the same no matter which one you're talking about. However, here is a large difference, where this assumption becomes dangerous. Islam does not have a concept of the separation of church and state (well, possibly some parts of it might, if I remember correctly, but those are very minor entities today).
Fanaticism is no less prevalent in christianity than in islam, but the ways it expresses itself are different. Fanaticism is something that happens within a person - we are all humans, and some feel that need, while most of us do not. Which religion is not really the issue for the question of growing fanatic.
As for political aspirations, christianity has been largely hamstrung in the West by statutes that enforce separation of church and state. Even so, there are christian parties everywhere in Europe. In the US, both political parties are largely christian entities. If we were to remove those statutes, I have no illusions that the West would be one little bit different from muslim countries. We would have religious police, religious councils approving political candidates, religious schools, religious family laws, religious courts, religious censorship bodies, and so on.
Justifying things historically? Christianity and islam have been at each others' throats for about a millennium by now, with some lulls in the fighting. It's a very long tragedy, nobody's hands are clean.
Fanaticism and political aspirations are not inherent into any particular religion. They are deeply ingrained into every major religion I have encountered so far. However, with the right precautions, a secular society can function despite a large element of religion in said society.
As you say, islam is far closer to state power in many countries than other religions today. Partly, this is because islam really doesn't make a difference between political and religious power. It is as much an ideology as a religion. Separation of church and state is a very Western concept. As a consequence of this, "political islam" is a misnomer, for it implies that islam as a whole is not political. Now, of course, there are many places where islam is nowhere near the halls of power, and in those places it can indeed be largely apolitical. And, of course, there will still be political factions of islam in those places.
Generally they would work the same as in the cards. They would be very basic creatures that shared their special abilities with other slivers within range. The real problem is that this setup is extremely difficult to put a good CR on, and once one dies, all the others become weaker to further complicate the issue.
137. They lug around long sticks, like extra long broom handles, for unknown reasons, despite the trouble it must mean to lug them through cramped corridors. The classic answer to why is "it's for checking for traps". However, nobody has actually seen them use it for that. So, sociologists speculate that it's some sort of membership/identification token for adventurers. More radical theories suggest it is a special sort of stick creature that feeds on the contents of their backpacks, and blinds its victims from seeing they are being influenced, much like a zombie fungus or other parasite. This could also explain much of the deviant behaviour these groups show. Another theory casts the 10' poles as a sort of phallic/sexual/fetish object.
This is the part of it I really have a hard time accepting. Women reduce themselves to sexual objects by dressing or acting sexy? First, is it wrong if a woman dresses or acts sexy? Is that being reduced if she does it of her own free will? Who decides what level of "decency" or "purity" is required of women? Isn't this reasoning pushing the agenda that women are responsible toward a lot of other people for what "morals" they show? I.e. Slut shaming? But then, somehow it is the fanservice's fault that women have problems with their bodies and sexuality? I am very sorry, I don't get it. To my thinking, we are all as adults free to express our emotions, even sexual feelings, in whatever way we choose, so long as we don't actively harm others. Or at least, should be...
You draw a parallel here between racism and fanservice. You say that you don't want fanservice completely gone, but you don't have to determine the appropriate level of it to give your argument weight. So, what do you consider "the appropriate level" of racism in the US? Because, you know, most people would probably say NONE. And yes, you DO have to say what sort of limits you want instated. A comics code, like American comics in the fifties forward? Do read the wikipedia page on that for a bit of history. A ban on anything that "depicts women as sexual objects" as decided by an approval board composed of people of what qualifications? You seem very fond of the word "unnecessary". It is the same word used in every discussion about censorship, from the Roman Catholic Church's Index Romanum Librorum Prohibitorum (unsure about the latin here, sorry), their list of forbidden books that reads like a who's who of Western thought. The point is, you don't get to claim you are only talking about "unnecessary" until you define who gets to make that call about a work.
If you don't like fanservice, then see anime that doesn't have it, start a site where people can review that part of anime series, join or start such a community, work toward a voluntary mark of fanservice-free anime for producers, give out prizes for fanservice-free anime, and so on. There is a lot you can do.
Full disclosure: I don't really enjoy fanservice. I find it rather tiresome. Still, I find censorship indicative of a pitiful view of one's fellow human beings, and I rather side with the perverts than the book-burners. Every time.