|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
The romans had silphium, which went extinct, though apparently not through overuse. We do not know its properties, and likely never will. As for contraceptive and abortifacient herbs, none of those we know about today are reliable. In general, it can be said that trying to break a pregnancy through herbal means amounts to poisoning yourself and hoping the pregnancy is terminated before you are, with uncertain doses. It is not, generally speaking, a good idea. There are many poisonous herbs you can use for it, however.
The summons list is pretty large by now. Some are sort of problematic: Choco/Mog (how to deal with?), Golem (common monster), Eden (spaceship) and a few others. Others share a bit of design space: Ramuh, Quezacotl and Ixion are all lightning-themed.
And carbuncle should be a god of cuteness, antimagic and skin infections.
It is b*#%@%!~ to say that there are necessary roles that must be filled. It is not b&+%@+#+, however, to a) point out that there is already someone playing a paladin, for example, which would mean your character will be very similar to another, and b) let the party lacking some important capability to find it a serious problem. It is not the GM's job to only put in monsters that a wizard only party can easily deal with, nor to provide multiple copies of loot for gunslingers/whatever.
You can't. IP laws are unclear, because it keeps lawyers employed. It's a dangerous, dysfunctional system. As you say, it is completely insane to expect anyone to be able to know what every single spell, monster, feat etc ever published has been called. And you kind of need to know that to be able to comply for certain. Anything else, and you end up risking that someone claims you are taking their stuff (whether warranted or not), and end up choosing between ruin or withdrawing.
Again, this discussion is very clear on one thing. IP laws as they are do not function, at least not as intended. As was previously said in the thread, everyone has written stuff that someone else could raise a legal stink about. If that someone else does, and has enough money, the choice is surrendering or going out of business, probably including personal ruin, simply due to legal costs and loss of time. For the accused, the best possible scenario is getting legal costs paid, which is still a net loss due to lost time.
Do not believe you can ever feel certain you are steering clear of IP trouble. Even if you ask lawyers (which is not free), all they can tell you is a probable answer, which may give you some protection, but only if you have the money to back it up, then again, it might not. All in all, the deck is stacked in favour of anyone with money. The IP laws have not matured, they have not brought all the great blessings they intended to from the beginning... Because they are intentionally unclear, kept that way to give jobs to lawyers.
If Singer manages to prove, as he claims to be able to, that he was in Canada when the crime was to have taken place in Hawaii, I'd say it's pretty darn clear it's not a case of victim blaming of any kind, but rather, you know, the truth.
It will be interesting to see what happens.
As for the "more blatantly raped woman" above, when does someone actually BECOME a victim? When subjected to a crime? When going out with having been subjected to the crime? When the perpetrator of the crime is sentenced? What happens if DNA testing (for example) later exonerates the perpetrator? What happens if it's judged to be a false accusation in court? During which of these periods is the person a victim?
Ummm... I thought rape was cases where the sexual act did not have consent in and of itself. Using your position as a doctor/immigration officer/whatever is wrong, and illegal under other charges, but still not in itself rape. Doesn't America have things like sexual coercion and similar crimes, or is "rape" American for "sex that was bad in some way"?
So, the way it seems to work is that any big company can sue any small company out of the water for something the little company has no real control over (other than deep-scruitizing every single word in thousands of published books) and, through the use of copyright and trademark laws, destroy said little company.
a) Is it really the artist/writer/etc that is protected, or is it the market position of the big companies?
b) Explain to me again how it works, this thing they always say, that IP laws are okay because you can't own an idea? I mean, if it works as above.
The same way they repair and reconnect nerves for accidental amputations I would assume.
No. With an amputation, what you do is stitch together the severed ends of the nerve, letting the neurons grow back into the distal nerve a millimeter per day. Without an existing nerve, this is not possible. Ah well, I am no expert. If the article says it works, it probably does. It certainly will not "just work" on an adult, though.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
My absolute favourite time travel story is The Anubis Gates, maybe you should try that too.
Civil War was the end of my interest in a lot of things Marvel. It's stupid, ham-handed, uses pathetic attempts at symbolism and emotionality that consistently manage to feel as inspiring as Teletubbies, it manages an amount of characters doing bizarre things against their entire characters and/or stupidities not worth thinking about, it manages to entirely miss the entire point of the entire genre... I could go on. If it had been a movie, it would have been cozy somewhere between "Manos, hands of fate" and "Plan 9 from Outer Space".
The Onslaught storyline had the idea of all the non-mutant heroes ending up in a world where they were admired and appreciated, and the mutants getting the old Marvel Earth. It may have lacked in execution, but the idea was decent. A year or so later, this was rolled back. Civil War never was - I am certain the comic about the North Dakotan super team is selling magnificently.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
After reading page up and page down of you quoting liberal soundbites, slogans and slurs on everyone who doesn't share your views, I have to say this:
You ought to know, Orfamay.
Why not instate such a ban? After all, the government would be able to handle it responsibly, as has been repeated ad nauseam in this very thread.
As for the idea that you want to prevent World War II, I WOULD say it is a teensy bit late for that. Some eighty years late. And that is the problem with drastic solutions that are designed to prevent a reoccurrence of something. They only work to prevent THAT SPECIFIC instance. For example, the Maginot line. It would have worked perfectly if the Germans would have been kind enough to do things the exact way they did in WWI. By the same token, the ban on holocaust denial misses the point: Crushing poverty was what drove the Germans to Hitler. The propaganda worked because it played on already existing emotions. Preventing Hitler's rise to power by historical proxy is not going to work since time machines don't exist. It could make you miss some other dangerous politician who wants to be the strong man for a country because he never talked about jews or Holocausts. Pol Pot, for example, made quite a big splash in the murder department without talking about jews.
And the French constitutional court decided that laws forbidding denying of genocide (specifically Armenians 1915), are too dangerousfor the state to have. So, I guess they are just wrong then? Stupid libertarian lizard- believing flat earthers who should bow down to your superior legal understanding?