|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
The "built for lack of trust between GM and players" was the number one thing that killed interest in 4th edition for me.
Put me up for a snog with the Empress over taking the holy avenger any day. Seriously, it's a whack situation, it will have far-reaching consequences, it ties my character into the world, it makes an NPC more interesting in the campaign. What was the alternative again? A better chance to hit stuff?
Gandalf: Hey, why am I the Pink?
Tolkien: Because you're a f#&+~%.
Gandalf: Why can't we pick our own colors?
Tolkien: No way, no way. Tried it once, doesn't work. You got four guys all fighting over who's gonna be the Black, but they don't know each other, so nobody wants to back down. No way. I pick. You're the Pink. Be thankful you're not the Yellow.
Radagast: Yeah, but the Brown is a little too close to the S%!*.
Gandalf: the Pink sounds like the Pussy. How 'bout if I'm the Purple? That sounds good to me. I'll be the Purple.
Tolkien: You're not the Purple. Some guy in some other book is the Purple. You're the PINK.
Saruman: Who cares what your name is?
Gandalf: Yeah, that's easy for your to say, you're the White. You have a cool-sounding name. Alright look, if it's no big deal to be the Pink, you wanna trade?
Tolkien: Hey! NOBODY'S trading with ANYBODY. This ain't a g$*%##n, f@&~ing village council meeting, you know. Now listen up, the Pink. There's two ways you can go on this job: my way or the highway. Now what's it gonna be, the Pink?
Gandalf: Jesus Christ, John, f~~!ing forget about it. It's beneath me. I'm the Pink. Let's move on.
Tolkien: I'll move on when I feel like it... All you guys got the g+%@+%n message?... I'm so g%*~%%n mad, hollering at you guys I can hardly talk. Pssh. Let's go to work.
If we assume the government is only going to be corrupt, terrible, nasty and ignore everything in the rule book, this discussion is completely useless. However, it's not there quite yet. What they are not allowed to do IS STILL IMPORTANT to them.
Which means "don't give them any further leeway in choosing what to protect and not in speech" still holds serious weight. If we ignore the concept of imminent harm, and let them expand the territory of "stuff people will know after the fact if what they said was protected speech" into ANY sort of speech, so long as they can consider it "harmful", then that is just what they will do. As brutally as they can, in service of their own interests.
I am sorry, but it's a stupid idea to work on furthering censorship at this point in time. It usually is. Only, now it's catastrophic.
Find something better to do with your time than thinking up ways to get at hate speech.
That at least one state of fifty has laws that specifically protect children from religious parents letting them die should not be comforting to you, KC. If nothing else, that fact shows such a law is necessary. Do ALL states have such laws? Likewise, that MOST religions allow exceptions to their rules in life or death situations is not good enough. There are enough examples of religions that do not. Scientology and mental health is a famous one, Jehova's witnesses and blood transfusion is another.
Second, what about criticizing people who are doing bad things specifically because they are religious? People who murder obstetricians comes to mind. It is utterly clear that those cases have been motivated by religious fanaticism, i.e. without those religions, those people would not have done the deed. Is it okay to say "So-and-so is a fanatic murderer, his congregation should have reported him"?
Third, what about people with an official role in a church, with responsibility and power in the organization? Say, covering up child molestation on a grand scale, by people who had the opportunity to do those things because they were in a church hierarchy? It is so easy to conflate faith (which is each person's individual sense of the divine), and religion (which is the organizational entity) - but it is also enormously dangerous. So, is it okay to say "church so-and-so is a monstrous entity because its leadership allows its ministers to molest children and helps them cover it up"?
I wrecked some serious face with reach weapons. Sure, it's an intricate build, but...
Dwarf. Starts out as fighter for some feats and stuff, then druid to level 8 to get a variety of fun things, most importantly Huge Earth Elemental form for 24 hours a day with the feat that boosts wild shape levels. Also tremorsense and ability to cast deeper darkness. Then go into Stalwart defender, to get Bulwark and then Halting blow. Use a huge dwarven dorn-dergar.
You get the ability to smash people as far away as 45' or so, depending on the GM's interpretation of weapon sizes. Every time you hit someone you get an AoO on, they can't keep moving. And you can do it in perfect darkness, while still pinpointing exactly where everyone is standing. A wild stone plate gets you amazing AC, your saves and hp should be legendary, and your dorn-dergar is a pretty serious wrecking ball.
For clarity, I'll define hate speech as that which incites violence or prejudicial action against or by a group, or individual on the basis of their membership to the group, or because it disparages or intimidates a group, or individual on the basis of their membership to the group.
This is what you define as hate speech. What is your definition of "group" in this? I think you'll agree that it's rather central.
Are you talking about ethnic groups (which seems to be the case later on in your post) here? Is it about cultures? Do you see a difference? Nationality? Religion? Would that include scientology? Is it organizations? Or is it ANY possible group?
I would argue that primarily the goal of having free speech is to protect political dissent.
I am sure you are familiar with the old rag that "everything is political". If the government claims that, say, extramarital sex is criminal, does this change a protest against this into your concept of "speech that should be protected"? And if the government claims that it is destructive in the extreme to American society that people have extramarital sex, doesn't protesting against this fall into hate speech for "causing harm", as you say?
Cowboy Bebop is a fantastic show, which to me hits the exact right spot of serious/satire/meta. That is, it does have a fairly heavy commentary level, while at the same time standing on its own. If you consider seeing it, just be aware that the first episode is not its best one, so give it a bit more of a chance. The series truly takes off with Jamming with Edward.
Well, I just have to disagree. The movie is an amazing feat. What happens when people try to analyze it is they bog themselves down in the various levels of reality in the movie, but they miss the idea of the story (which is roughly the same in all settings). As Snyder said: This was a reality to women up until the late twentieth century, getting put in institutions for various reasons not having to do with mental illness. Seen in this light, from the viewpoint of an utterly powerless woman, even the slight step up of being desired and able to gamble on that is a step up.
You have all the weapons you need. Now FIGHT!
Yes. A lot of that is true. Guaranteed free housing certainly is not. Much of it is eroded by now: Pensions will not let you live on them. Universities, while free, rank lower and lower. The unions are mostly interested in high profile media cases. Etc. There are downsides too, of course, such as our massive tax rates. And here too, we have wealthy people not paying, and corrupt people making decisions. It is to be expected.
But that was not what I was saying. The term "economic justice" is either meaningless or has very different meanings. What do you mean by it, Fergie?
Economic justice is a non-starter. It is a meaningless term. If you disagree, I am willing to listen. It means either "everyone gets good money", which a huge number of people will not agree with - economic reward should be given for a reason. Or, it means "Everyone who works and takes responsibility should get good money", which the rest will not agree with on account of lots of people who need the money don't get it. Choose, market that term, and stop weaseling.
As for free trade, what a sad number of Americans (and others) don't realize is that free trade is a win for countries. Of course, that doesn't help those whose jobs get impacted, but ignoring trade would rapidly dump the size of the US economy. Where would that be felt? The cities, or the rural areas that lost those jobs? Yeah. In short, it IS possible to get production jobs back, but it not only necessitates stopping free trade, it also requires even more massive subsidies.
Third, I don't think the democrats have much to worry about. Trump wagered his future on bringing production jobs back. Whether he does or not, the entire situation is going to crash and burn. Two years in, the only thing the Democrats have to say is "Trump".
"If it hadn't been for Cotton Eye Joe" ... "Good afternoon <hmm> Cotton Eye Joe" is one of my biggest mishearings. The bad thing is that if you start off with Good afternoon, it is really difficult to hear anything else.
Another one is Demi Lovato's Heart Attack: "You make me glow" which becomes "you make me blow"...
The dragon also wakes up every morning to the same day, but has not figured out why.
Don't decide the hobgoblins can't be negotiated with. Let the players figure out enough about them to prevent the attack, it still doesn't change much.
The goal here is actually twofold. First is breaking the loop, of course, but the heroes must also decide what they want to leave for tomorrow when it comes. If the attack happens, the village is a smoking ruin when the loop ends. Let them get to understand the villagers and the hobgoblins and build an end result.
The classic RPG succubus gets someone to give something up by tempting with sex, whether it is their lives, their kingdoms, their souls, or something else. In the end, too, it is not necessarily sex that will happen. The opposite of that would be something along the line of getting someone to take responsibility, walk the straight and narrow, keep fighting, and grow as a person. The reward for doing this could be anything good, including sex. It wouldn't have to be with the angel, of course. Matchmaking is a perfectly fine alternative.
Tabula rasa is a mystery to me. Anyone who has held more than one tiny baby in their hands and isn't completely emotionally deficient will see that the babies actually have different personalities. What this says about parents of two or more kids, who believe in the tabula rasa fairy tale isn't pretty.
Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.