Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Mammon Cultist

Sissyl's page

8,816 posts (9,909 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 8 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 8,816 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I would play Kyria, mother of magic, ruler of the sky, the winged tyrant, etc etc etc. Lawful Evil, though not proud of it, she sees the wind and the wide open sky as a weapon, a way to coerce, force and compel the pitiful masses into a semblance of order and decent lives. Hers is the way of conquest, with shadows of flying islands and warships darkening the lives of her new subjects. She delves deeply into magic, but only of useful kinds like battlefield magic, air elementalism, and magic to control. And at the core, she wishes the world would stop forcing her to intercede on the behalf of people who don't know what is best for them, letting her explore and finally relax.

Her estate is a multi-level construct of flying cities, built in white marble and decorated with gold, but full of people who live in misery despite her best efforts to teach them the rules, discipline and control they need for an efficient life.

Kyria's favoured weapon is the composite longbow. Her domains are Magic, Air, Rulership, and Law. Her symbol is a crowned angel with large white wings. Her worshipers are winged elves, nobles, wizards, and would-be conquerors.


T's bn prbl m fr whl, cn't dn tht. Bt vntll lrn t gt b.

Th nxt pstr wll rcnt tl f rdcls vnt wth mnd flr.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Conversion rates between coins of various metals were really an insane headache through history. True, the powers that be did not understand it well at the time, but the principles of supply and demand still worked. Different coins were used for different things, and the different classes got different coins as payment, the value of each shifted dramatically with say, new mines, and a fixed conversion rate was a distant dream.


Focusing on defense means you are as relevant as a rock on the battlemat. And if you want to prevent people going after your healer, either make sure they can't see him, make sure they can't because the way is blocked, or mind control the enemies. Killing the healer is sort of the kind of tactical option you would need mind control to remove.


Best way to tank is carrying enough cans of whoop-ass that the enemy needs to take you out.


No.


Dammit!


362. Because nice things are no longer compliant with Ebay's policy.


See what people wrote above? Yeah. GET PROFESSIONAL HELP. A prescription for after-patent drugs (like most antidepressants) is actually dirt cheap. And the question you ask is the wrong one. No dad means kids who will always have to deal with that. ALWAYS. The relevant question is whether a depressed dad is better or worse than one who was depressed but got better and is now healthy. You know the answer to that one, don't you?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A surprise of lurkers above.

A ____________ of cacodaemons.


Ummmmm... Just thought I'd point out that Cerberus has ajob to do. He is not that bothered about letting people In, it is OUT that is a big no no. And so, if you actually KILL him... The endless masses of Hellbound dead will be able to return to the world............


Warm bodies?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Trust is something people expect too much. In a somewhat complex world, the people the heroes meet will have differing motivations. This may be taken by some to mean they are all untrustworthy. However, there is a deeper issue here. If you make a shades of gray world, you really need a different plot than "you need to save the world from the Evil Dark Lord of Dark Darkness and Eternal Darkness". I mean, obviously every vaguely sensible person would be prepared to sacrifice quite a lot to prevent that guy from taking over. If they do not (due to inscrutable motives) they will quite rightly be seen as untrustworthy. Don't make betrayals massive and unexpected, and absolutely do not deny the heroes their entire victory because of betrayal, such a setting is random and mainly one-up-manship. Be satisfied with little betrayals, and if you aim for bigger ones, give warning. By the same token, make some NPCs fight unexpectedly hard for the heroes, give them victories enough to keep fighting.


Just remember, folks:

THINK GOOD, SLOGANS BAD!!!


A tangle of hydras.

A _________ of nilbogs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Everyone says Leadership is so overpowered. I have not found it so. Sure, you can make a healer. Or a buffer. Big whoop. Fights last three rounds, leaving little time for buffing to be all that effective, and wands of CLW have superseded most combat healing. The fact of the matter is that the cohort will always be at least two levels weaker than the leader. Those two levels MATTER. And if the campaign goes mythic, Leadership is just a useless feat. The problem with Leadership is that it takes time. Then again, so do animal companions.


nonono... It's "don't jump with a high-energy weapon in your hand, or you might lose both legs and an arm".


A whisper of yetis.

A _____________ of ixitxachitl.


A troupe of fauns.

A _________ of leshys.


A lump of Shadowdancers.

A ___________ of fiendish flumphs


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I dunno. Cowboy bebop has skilled people, but a) they are a bit too humane to fulfill certain contracts, b) the contracts they do get are usually tiny, and c) even if they do get a big one, they invariably need to pay for repairs. Give them some credit, people!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Americans... You're the guys who go to the pyramids and drop your kids on them only to find the pyramid deflates, right?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The Allosaurus 2016!!! He can provide a service none of the other would: Eating the other candidates. Even the used lube guy and the guy with a mutant hairball alien eating his head.


iTunes has a pretty awesome EULA. A number of years ago it was 75 pages of thick legalese.

What you also want to do is make sure there are thousands of references throughout the text. Defining terms differently in different parts of the agreement is good. Conditional phrases are good, because if you can deny their condition, the rest doesn't mean squat.


They are generally mean folk, so no.

We could threaten to keep trying to invade their fortress by ever more unlikely methods until the cows come home?


Their elf eyes were, IIRC, not that different from the elves of Scarred Lands.


A disturbance of dweomercats.

An ecstacy of green slimes (don't ask).

A __________ of pseudodragons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Polar molars. A game of arctic dentistry!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
David M Mallon wrote:
Ireland = Ireland

Whoa... Really???


I saw an endless number of movies in late eighties and early nineties. Junk, quality, everything. And with some very good exceptions, it is formulaic, stupid and mostly useless. Cardboard characters, especially in stuff marketed to kids. Bad plots. Flimsy production values. Bad acting. Much of the reason we loved it was because there was no alternative. Animation was rare and bad quality.

Many movies today are far better. They challenge their own concepts, they deal with difficult subjects, they do not always provide easy answers. They have an awareness of their own genre and try to reach beyond the formulas. For animated movies, consider Up! And Wall-E. Both are brilliant, touching, smart, and interesting.

Yeah, I lived in the same lawn. You're all welcome to share it with me.


Argle bargle norf norf norf bonga.

Now return to your regular schedule. Thank you.


What, they FAQd the succubus? Oh well, maybe she likes the nerf bat.

Celibate people (people who abstain from sex for moral reasons) are a prime example of not sound mind.

There ought to be a Blown Kiss feat, that allows a succubus to kiss anyone within thirty feet.

Other than that, carry on.


A snarl of Leucrottas.

A ____________ of tarrasques.


No, tone is generally a useless complaint. If the tone you're reading into an argument is unpleasant to you, then that is mostly a problem within the head of the reader; reading tone is HARD. But the real problem is mostly the crowd of layabouts taking it on themselves to tell one side (the not socially approved one) that they need to shape up their tone. It is merely a way to suck up to their perceived authorities, to silence disagreement, and to score points. Yes, much would be far better without tone trolls.


Another good one from my table. One of the party is a halfling sorcerer, who is rather disillusioned, but also one of the smartest of the bunch. In Shackled city, they are exploring a cave city, and he can see there is something in the water he just levitated over, back to the entrance where they have a guard they already beat but did not kill. The guard is tied up but barely conscious. The rest of the gang stands across the water, some distance away. He decides to solve the situation expediently. He gets the guard to his feet, pushes him into view of the others, shouts "NOOOO! YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO IT!!!", rushes toward the surprised guard, and pushes him off the shelf, down the painful slope of jagged stone, into the water, where he is promptly eaten by the thing in the water.

When the rest of the party reach him, they ask what happened. "It was horrible, the poor man... I couldn't stop him from jumping!!!" He then proceeded to roll a Bluff check and got 34. Everyone accepted it.


An exposure of Wendigos.

A ____________ of Nymphs.


Joynt Jezebel wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
BNW: You honestly got ALL THAT from "independent research"??? Sorry, but that is downright ludicrous. *giggles*

Sissyl- Our large canine friend didn't say he got all that from independent research. Much of his post is describing what the scientific community would have to do avoid sources you call tainted or biased.

Sissyl, you have made 2 claims on this thread that are demonstrably wrong. One about the reasonable environmental record of awful regimes in the former USSR, China and Cuba. At least about the USSR this is not only mistaken but the opposite is true to an extraordinary degree. A little research will verify this.

And your claim Greenpeace organised the clubbing of seals so they can film it for propaganda purposes is just silly.

thaX has also made at least 2 factual errors, about CFCs and the last ice age.

But none of this has lead to any revision of your views. And why should it? You believe the scientific community is concealing data, biased et al when its conclusions are opposed to yours.

And if the scientific community were to go through all the rather preposterous steps Big Norse Wolf outlined and they still concluded what they do now, you still would not believe them.

Scott Betts- Its good to see someone who understands the scientific method. But as I suggested to Big Norse Wolf, we are wasting effort on this thread.

If you can show a person's premises are false and they revise their views, there is a point to discussion. If it makes no difference, there is not.

All right. We have a claim that I have made two demonstrably false claims on this thread: environment in authoritarian regimes, and Greenpeace clubbing seals. I will bring up the first now and save the second for later when I have more time.

My stance was: Authoritarian regimes are awful for the environment. Therefore, if you discuss things from an environmental standpoint, authoritarianism is a bad idea. Still, I have gotten some people claiming that China and Soviet were great for the environment n earlier threads, based on the state propaganda from those states. I claim that these people are naive, and I stand by that claim. This is what I have argued in this thread. So, what of what I wrote is "demonstrably false", Joynt? Do tell.

I will get back to you on Greenpeace clubbing seals, and we shall see if it is "just silly". Be sure to decide if you still stand by that viewpoint.


Irontruth: Not at all. Just saying that environmentalists screaming might not be the best qualification of a true statement.

BNW: You honestly got ALL THAT from "independent research"??? Sorry, but that is downright ludicrous. *giggles*


BigNorseWolf wrote:

So its only real science if...

-The environmental scientists have no relationships with any environmental groups.

-They have no relationships with any existing universities

-The project is not funded by any environmental group, government, or university thats ever done this before. Its funding is going to come from.. somewhere.

-The scientists don't use any "Tainted" data so.. no data ever, they have to collect all of their own on a world wide basis starting now so they'll have something useful in 50 t0 100 years.

-They can't use nasa's tainted satalites, because nasa is in on the fix and might alter their data

-They'll have to collect their own core samples, replicating decades of research ex nillo

-None of the new hermetically sealed scientists can recieve training from any of the proffessors involved in the old research.. but since proffessors are research scientsts that pretty much means they can't recieve any training at all.

-nothing they say can be taken out of context as saying something else, ever.

-They can't read any books written by global warming advocates, so they can't get training on their own

and last but not least, if the scientists reach a conclusion that something terrible is about to happen anyway they have to shut up about it so they don't taint their pure acedemia of the work.

No. Other. Field of science or human endeavor has ever been held to that standard. None. Its beyond unrealistic. Its whole heartedly throwing yourself into the arms of epistemic nihlism and ONLY for one side of the issue and only for one issue. It's deciding your position by the evidence rather than the other way around.

Its worse than the David Chapelle "Reasonable doubt" skit.

Indeed, that is a very tall order. Lucky how I never claimed all that, huh? It would be very interesting to see you support each of those points with quotes from me. Very interesting indeed.


In Sweden, we had TREE DEATH!!! in the eighties. We had massive numbers of trees just dying off, and the environmentalists of the time wasted no time connecting this to pollution, acid rain and so on. They staged protests where they blocked main throughfares in our cities, screaming "TREE MURDERERS!!!" to people driving cars, and so on.

The movement ended in time, as the people involved found other things to scream about (clubbed seals was big, and also paid for by Greenpeace). However, in the mid nineties, someone actually did a serious follow-up and found that some moron who was responsible for buying up massive numbers of plants from plant schools in Germany had forgotten to check the cold tolerance of the various plants they bought. Sweden has winters, most of the time anyway, and the trees couldn't cope.


Joynt Jezebel wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
I disconnected from hentai after Urotsukidoji and La Blue Girl. I suppose I don't have much to add.
You certainly don't look disconnected from Hentai. I mean look at your head.

OMG, it's a tentacle monster???


Yeah, about that... we recently had the coldest May in ages. If that is pointed out to the AGWers, it's called cherry picking. Weather, not climate, you know? And yet... every time there is a warm month, the very same AGWers holler about it, and it's not cherry picking, somehow. If one month's temperatures is weather, not climate, how is it relevant to scream about one warm month?


Women too, if they want to?

BESM had an unofficial addition about sex, BBSW. It contained rules for playing in the hentaiverse. The most important rule was that the amount of sex people got was inversely proportional to the amount of sex they wanted. It certainly seems to be the truth from my admittedly little experience.


But if science is not by itself interested in the politics of the issue, and it is not, then again, why tolerate the IPCC? There are huge fields of science funded in other ways, via the universities. They could do their science in peace and don't make the public play for attention at all. Wouldn't that be a better alternative?


Lord Snow wrote:

This video, I find, raises the point in a succinct and convincing manner. The speaker is an educator with a very firm grasp on the scientific method and with current scientific knowledge. He most certainly is not a high ranking member of Greenpeace or any other organization.

Climate change has to do with measuring an incredibly complex system. One can't expect the scientific community to reach the same level of agreement on it as they did on, say, Newtonian mechanics, at the time. The picture is always going to be messy and hard to see in its entirety. It is only a matter of statistics that some scientist would go down routes that lead to counter evidence. Mostly that comes from just not understanding (and quite possibly not having the capability of understanding) such a system to its fullest. Too many parameters.

Is Climate Change being mishandled by the media? Yes, of course. Is it being tugged at by politicians on both sides? Obviously. Has it been inspected rigorously by actual experts with good methodology and pure intent? Yes. It was. And the results speak for themselves. To the best of human knowledge there's a good reason to suspect human intervention may be a key component of a global change of climate.

Okay, question. Let us assume all climatologists are squeaky clean. It sounds as if the IPCC are most of the source of what is wrong with climate science. Why do the key scientists then not speak out against them?


What I said was that IF there is a distortion due to unreported results, it is pretty clear which direction that would take. I did not say anything about the existence of unreported results beyond that it is a rather common thing in science, common enough, as was pointed out above, to be called "the File Drawer problem".

If you wish to contend what I say, you therefore need to either attack my argument that conclusions could be drawn about the direction of the skew, or the existence of unreported results. Anything else is merely you sitting on that train of thought you describe and putting up straw men. You can do better than that, Rynjin.


I did not say that, Rynjin. Don't put words in my mouth. It's rude. If you had arguments to discuss with, you wouldn't need to be rude and insulting.


Indeed, you won't know that. What could make it easier to determine the direction of the skew due to unreported results is to see if the researchers have a vested interest. And of course, they do. Given the scrutiny of the field by the sceptics, and given the importance to give the impression of "the science is settled", it's a simple matter of the politicos at the top of the dung heap getting the money to the various researchers, who in turn know enough not to rock the boat by publishing things that could be interpreted as "the science is NOT settled". Given this, we can comfortably and confidently say that if real results were not being reported, it would be those NOT supporting AGW. True, it COULD be a career move to debunk AGW - but believe that each and every one of those involved know the field would be completely dismantled if that were to happen.


The problem is that the reported results of the scientific work in the issue are skewed because certain results are not reported, and other results that would have needed a second look never get it, thereby distorting the conclusions in the issue.


bugleyman wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
And if science IS such a good tool for figuring out things...

I'm really not sure how you're attaching an "if" there.

We've made more progress in understanding the world in the 400 years since Galileo than in the 40,000 years before before him (granted, Galileo as the father of the scientific method could be debated, but if anything, the advent of the scientific method is even more recent than 400 years). So yeah, science is good at figuring out things. :P

You don't have to convince me that the scientific method is a good thing. It doesn't mean the process is inviolable. Let's take an example:

The issue of negative results: Journals want people to buy their issues. So, they publish stuff that is as attention grabbing as possible. New! Spectacular! Interesting! That sells. However, one of the parts of the scientific method that can truly change our perception of something is when a study is replicated - and the original positive findings do not stand for scrutiny. Keep in mind that roughly one in twenty correlations found to be significant (at p < 0.05) ARE products of random chance. But, replications are no fun. They are very far from bestsellers, so journals don't want them, and scientists don't want to do them. Even worse: This applies to a much larger group of studies: those that did not find a significance. If you send in a study to a journal where you have diligently researched whether A correlates to B and you didn't get any significant results, it's not going to be a success story... even though from a larger viewpoint, it may well be a vital piece of information that there is no significant correlation. Sooo... what happens is that once the data is in, if the study design showed no positive correlations, the study gets dumped in a drawer and never sent in to a journal.

1 to 50 of 8,816 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, 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.