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

Tequila Sunrise's page

3,511 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 3,511 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Argh! Too much pre-debate speculation on the news, it's like listening to pre-game sports babble! I barely care about the debate itself; I just want November 8th to come so I can cast my vote, and then move on.

/First World Problems

/Verboten Topics

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:

Alexander is truly terrible, watch that.

** spoiler omitted **

hey that's one of my favorite movies!

...If I didn't know you personally, I'd be judging you right now.

Judging hard.

** spoiler omitted **

it's a lot of action and colorful costumes and sets. I'm (not] sorry it isn't the somber line by line reading of historic accounts of his life that most people wanted, but it kept me interested throughout.

Who wanted a line-by-line reading of history? People are strange.

The costumes are definitely fun.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:

Alexander is truly terrible, watch that.

** spoiler omitted **

hey that's one of my favorite movies!

...If I didn't know you personally, I'd be judging you right now.

Judging hard.

More seriously, what did you like about it? Oh, and we are talking about the one where Anthony Hopkins and Angelina Jolie talk a bit near the beginning and then there are 2.5 hours of...that other guy?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
Isn't that what sandwich meat is designed for. Maybe make a lot of grilled whatever and cheese sandwiches.

Not in Arizona. Just a couple weeks ago I ate pepperoni pizza that I had left out, and was then sick for a day before violently vomiting it up. :/

It was mighty good cajun-seasoned turkey breast, but it wasn't worth the risk.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

FRAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK ME!!! I brought some really really good deli meat home today...and then left it in my backpack for the past 3 hours!

Too bad I can't blame this one on the velveeta. :(

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alexander is truly terrible, watch that.

Okay, it has a couple of fun costumes that briefly appear, and pretty faces of course. But just watch it and then give it a positive overall review. Just you try.

thejeff wrote:
Digitalelf wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Hm, page 161 is full of wizard spells in my PHB.
There were three 2e PHBs. The original, with a yellowish-orange cover, the 1995 version with a black cover, and the WotC re-print of the 1995 version with a green cover. The page number I provided was for the 1995 and WotC versions. However, just look up the chapter on "Climbing" and the info is there.

Page 122 in the original.

As near as I can tell, there are no such rules in 1E. However, the organizational scheme of the rulebooks is such that I can't say that with certainty.

Ah, thanks! It's in the Time and Movement chapter.

Haladir wrote:
I find that old-school GMs are much more comfortable making table rulings to keep the game moving, then looking up the actual rules later. I know that's how I roll. I'll also modify the regular rules in some circumstances to keep things cinematic.

I wonder how much of this is old school culture & rulesets, and how much is age and personality. There was a time when I was concerned about following the rules (+my house rules) 100% of the time, but I've relaxed a bit over the years. I still like to follow established rules for the sake of consistency, but if something obscure comes up that can't be referenced within say a minute, I'm happy to make a call and look up the rule later.

Haladir wrote:
My penchant for table rulings and for overruling the regular rules from time-to-time is why I've never been interested in GMing for any organized play group: The requirement for play consistency cramps my GM style.

Similar problem here, but because of house rules. ;)

Digitalelf wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Really? Can you provide a page number off the top of your head? I could search thru my old books

I don't know the page number for the chance to hear something off-hand, but the information on climbing can be found starting on page #161 of the 1995 and 2014 versions of the 2nd edition PHB.

I'll try and find the information on the chances of non-thieves to hear something.

Hm, page 161 is full of wizard spells in my PHB.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
(Also, in a more tongue-in-cheek: I generally prefer waffle fries, or seasoned fries to french fries, sooooo... ;P)

Oh, fries! I have zero interest in french fries or home fries anymore, but put a dish of waffle fries in front of me, and be sure to pull your hand out of my way or you may lose it!

That waffle-fry seasoning is another example of 'Why isn't this the standard way of preparing this food?!'

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chef Yesterday wrote:

Especially if you add a bunch of cheese, bacon, and red peppers.

And then give it a snooty French name.

After all, all food is better if you think it's French.

I'm with King Gran on this one; I'll take my eggs fried and atop a good bagel, my sharp cheddar in a can of tomato soup, my bacon straight, and you can keep your peppers and the frenchman they rode in on.

GreyWolfLord wrote:

It doesn't go into a HUGE amount of depth of what those abilities are defined as, but does specify that if the thief rolls over those, they fail at that ability.

Hence, we gave them the same chance as everyone else did (for example, to see if the monster saw them you roll a 1 or 2, but if they were hiding in shadows and moving silently, that was an additional chance. So even if the other roll indicated they'd normally be seen, if they rolled their hiding in shadows successfully, obviously, they were NOT seen).

So, we used them as additional rules or supplemental rules to the original 3 booklets, and many did at that time.

Yeah, that's probably how I'd handle it, were I to DM TSR D&D again. Everyone gets an ability check, thieves get to roll their d100 as well, and if either roll succeeds the thief succeeds. Perhaps superhuman tasks -- climbing a sheer wall, pick-pocketing something from deep in a bag of holding, opening a lock with no key-hole, etc. -- allows a thief and only a thief to roll their d100 and only their d100 to attempt.

GreyWolfLord wrote:
I think you start seeing a LOT of people start playing it as the thief can be the only one who can do that type of stuff and a little more restrictive imagination on what characters can or cannot do in the AD&D years where the books became far more expansive than just a framework.

I can see it, for sure, now that I've matured a whole lot and I know a bit of D&D history. ;)

Come to think of it, this is like the feats issue in that their existence implies that characters without a feat can't attempt whatever that feat does, just as the existence of thief skills imply that non-thieves can't attempt those things. The difference being that there seems to be some consensus among grognards that non-thieves can attempt thief stuff, but no consensus that unfeated characters can attempt featly stuff.

Haladir wrote:
Well... that's one of the main features of those early rulesets (and also true of contemporary D&D retro-clones and "rules-light" game systems): GM rulings.

Oh, sure. Rulings aren't mutually exclusive with rules though, and even the 2e AD&D I remember is bizarrely rules-heavy in places. Admittedly most of those places involve weapons or armors, but I figure that someone somewhere somewhen at TSR may have decided to spell out the whole thief v. non-thief skill thing.

Relatively recently I ran into a retro-clone -- I forget the name, it was one of the free ones -- and I made a point to look at how it handles thief v. non-thief skills, because it was on my mind at the time. And it was just as undefined as I remember 2e being; in fact, most of the thief skills were described as entirely mundane tasks that anyone ought to be able to attempt.

Maybe there was more somewhere else in the pdf, or maybe the author is simply carrying on Gary's tradition of vaguery in this area of the rules. ;)

Digitalelf wrote:
The chances of success for non thieves are in the books, but they are pretty spread out, and easily missed... Non-thieves have a base 15% chance to hear something, and a base 40% to climb something for example.

Really? Can you provide a page number off the top of your head? I could search thru my old books, but if you've got it on the tip of your tongue I'd rather not spend the time. :D

GreyWolfLord wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
So you're the guy responsible for all the underpowered rogues out there? =)

Naw, that's Paizo, pre Unchained. ;-)

The Thief was pretty powerful and very very necessary, esp in those days of diabolical Gygaxian traps. They were't just "make a reflex safe and take 5d6 damage". You could be Tported naked, or trapping in a pit with a Gelatinous Cube or lose life levels, etc.

Not to mention that the Thief was the only character that could do things like open locks, disable tracks, and move silently. If your cleric wanted to walk past a senty,.... forget it.
Actually, not necessarily. The Thief could move silently, but anyone could attempt to walk quietly. The Thief had better chances overall. The first had to make a DEX check or other method, but the Thief...they not only got the DEX check (at least how we played it...remember OD&D was around BEFORE the Thief, and the methods to sneak past a sentry existed prior to the thief class), but could also decide that they were actually trying to move silently...

I was gonna say, I've heard that all characters are supposed to be capable of some degree of things that thieves can do [depending on the DM], that thieves can take those things to extraordinary degrees [again depending on the DM], and that Gary simply did a terrible job of explaining all this in the books. Which admittedly makes more sense than my perception as a young 2e AD&D gamer that the classes are basically Diablo characters. (Thieves and only thieves can climb, move silently, etc..)

Were there ever printed rules to describe how thieves vs. non-thieves interacted with tasks that appear on the thief skill list, like the one you mention? 'Cause I can see DMs ruling them several different ways...I wonder how the mechanics worked for DrDeth's thief(s)?

5 people marked this as a favorite.

So my boss asked me to stay late tonight so that I could train two contractors who need to make emergency repairs onsite...and then he hijacked the training before it began, leaving me sitting on my hands for an hour. Then at 6:30 he says "Hey TS, would you whip up some last minute paperwork before you leave?"


And then I came home and broke a knife on cheese. Velveeta cheese. All kinds of first world problems for me today!

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Also, my laptop battery just died because I played D3 for two hours and forgot to plug it in.

I blame FAWLT. It's FAWLT's fault. FAWLT is very faulty.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Just heard about the dumpster bomb in Chelsea. Freehold seems to be alright, hope CH and any other New Yorkers are too!

(Apparently there were no deaths; only injuries, but still.)

3 people marked this as a favorite.
SorrySleeping wrote:

I like this discussion but I want to add two things.

1) I tried to avoid talking about paladins because, by code, they would easily work with CG and only work with LE when the "greater good" could benefit from this.

2) There is no PC. There is not a problem in a campaign or with players. This is just a simple... complicated question of ethics and random ideas.

I think it's still very tempting to imagine LG as the goodest good, the wisest good, and to think that good ought to work with good to fight evil. So of course LG would get along better with CG than LE!

But as a great character once said: "We can only see two things about people: what they show us, and what we want to see." Being lawful doesn't free one of ethical/moral blind-spots, nor does it grant any special wisdom. Neither does it free one from internal conflicts of priority, which can easily result in the wrong judgments and choices being made.

We need only watch current world affairs to see LG people excusing and even supporting LE people, against CG and even NG people. All in defense of lawful values.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Having gone to both a community college and two private colleges, I've gained a lot of respect for the former and quite a bit of doubt in the latter.

EDIT: You're welcome to imagine me as unclothed as you like,, it's not in writing so I'm playing dumb.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:
The only rattlesnake I've ever encountered on a trail had its mouth full of mouse at the time, and was therefore unable to threaten me. It moved on, I moved on, and we were both the happier for it.

Yah. My boss asked me what I did with the snake -- I encountered it at work -- and my reply was "Left it the hell alone!"

captain yesterday wrote:

I found a baby timber rattlesnake when I was working on tearing out a yard, little guy made super adorable little *pings* when he attacked my shovel and tried vainly to bite through my steeltoe boots.

We let him free on the adjacent golf course. :-)

Dam, CY, what did those golf balls ever do to you?

Freehold DM wrote:
Damn. Just got turned down for a job I really, really wanted.

That sucks, FH. May you roll a nat 20 on your next high-hopes interview!

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Nearly stepped on a diamondback this morning. It's amazing how ancient instinct takes over the moment you hear that unmistakable rattle.

I feel as if I've gone thru a rite of passage, and am now a true Arizonian.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Loved D2, I beat hell difficulty with the sorceress before they patched in all those immunities for regular monsters. But yeah, it's clearly a digital descendant of D&D. Sooo uneven in so many ways!

I loved kicking monster mob butt and taking names as a necro...and then I cried when I got to a boss. Didn't even try fighting act bosses without a friend to take the heat.

And the sorceress...ah, the game's one class with the infinite mana skill! (Once you jacked it up, at least.) Like other classes, the skills are all over the place in power: One allows her to enchant her own (and only her own) weapon to deal a bit of fire damage -- because gish? -- and another allows her to freeze or annihilate everything on screen. ><(

Yeah, definitely D&D-style broken. I really ought to get around to D3 tho. I've owned it for about five years already...

EDIT: Oh, and what was with Duriel? Sooo much harder than Big D! It's like the devs were playing an old school D&D dungeon and said "You know what would make this featureless 10 by 10 room fun? An enormous slug-blade boss that freezes the PCs!!!"

Which one is the other PC?

I know this is a necroed thread, but...

This is such a strange topic! I read the title, and immediately thought "Wait, they can't be?"

I'm sure that if birds had language like we do, they'd have a word for knocking a wing into something during flight, trying to take off before fully releasing a perch from a talon, and the bird equivalent of tripping over an uneven paving stone -- "Ugh, I woke up on the wrong side of the nest this morning and <worded> over a bubble of cold air on my flight to work!" And surely losing one's balance or getting knocked off-kilter during flight is much more dangerous than doing so on the ground.

I guess fans can quibble over whether that <word> ought to be properly translated as 'trip,' and whether it's worth noting how bird-tripping works in the official rules. But PF is the only ttrpg with a separate skill for flying and only for flying, that I'm aware of. So surely, wondering why birds can't trip is a reasonable point of curiosity?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:

Is it unreasonable to not want to install Minecraft on our Mac.

Or am I being silly.

I feel as if I am the only gamer to have never played Minecraft.

Or am I being silly?

captain yesterday wrote:

Has anyone else wondered "What else is out there?" and by that i mean, do other game and toy companies have robust message boards filled with speculation, grand standing, and hot air.

And is that the beginning of the manifesto the maintenance guy warned me i would soon write now that the kids are in school.

Maybe i should get my own hard hat and vest and just go around the various construction sites and volunteer.

My best friend is a huge Alanis fan, and I have witnessed the Beyond. The pettiness and grand standing of internet music fans is the thing of nightmares.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:

What is a gem dragon again?

I kinda know they existed... I cut my teeth on 2nd edition.
But I have never used them or even read about them.

For shame, for their graven images and sordid descriptions are inscribed within the very Monstrous Manual of 2e!

Tacticslion wrote:
The 3.5 versions were amazing and the single most terrifying creatures printed: namely because it was retconned that, in addition to normal dragon stuff (including sorcerer caster thingies), they were psions of their discipline-type with a manifester level equal to their hit dice.

...Seriously? How did I miss this?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cap Yesterday, Mister Mom Dude wrote:

Pea Bear is off, next up, Tiny T-Rex.

One thing that's nice is middle school starts an hour earlier than elementary, really makes the logistics a lot easier. :-)

The district that I went to school in is so small that the elementary, middle, and high schools are all on the same campus. It was a surprise when I eventually learned that this is unusual, and every time I'm reminded of this it still feels weird.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
Syrus Terrigan wrote:
Cap'n Yesterday, FaWtL Tourism wrote:
Well you see, when you don't wear clothes, they sometimes refer to that as being "naked"

Very astute. Insightful, even.

But unclear.

Just as it sounds; the poster at the top of each page is posting in the nude.

That's what those clothing comments are about? I just thought that some FAWLTies had a weird thing about broadcasting their dress status.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
I really need super powers.

Don't we all? ;)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sharoth wrote:

Please remember the FAWLTY rules mantra.

1. No Politics
2. No Religion
3. No Sports
4. Respect each other.

Btw to whoever starts the next FAWLT thread: Can we have the verboten topics in the OP? It was a bit of a shock to stumble upon them as a FAWLTY newcomer.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

Aranna wrote:
Ok that makes a ton more sense. You are right I wouldn't date outside my religion, you know how bad religious arguments can be.

I dunno. My mom is Roman Catholic and dad is Methodist. The lady I house-/pet-sit for is RC and her husband is Baptist. I know an Episcopalian married to a non-Orthodox Jew. They seem to make it work.

I think open communication and mutual respect goes a long way in smoothing over the differences. A sense of humor helps too. After 36 years of marriage, my Dad still jokes about and halfheartedly complains about Mom's meatless days in Lent and similar; but he's always obvious that there is no meanness or ill-intent in his words. From the couples I know, they seem to have come to an early understanding that it's all different paths to the same Goal, and often they find ways for both partners to participate and share in the meaningful religious observances of both faiths.

There's a BIG difference between, "We choose to worship God in different ways", and "There is no God."

This is very true, though some couples seem to make even that work. I'm an atheist dating a Wiccan. We've been together for eight months, and are planning to move in together in another two. *knocks on wood* I have an irreligious uncle who married a Christian, and they've been together for 40+ years.

I suspect that for some people, it's very very important to share the same ir/religion with their partner, and for other people other things are more important. Values, politics, personality, etc..

There is probably an underlying theme to people who really really need to be with someone of the same faith and even denomination, and people who don't; but speculating on those themes would be straying even further into all kinds of verboten topics.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
Hopefully after I yelled at her my mom will spend more than 5 minutes vetting future matches for me.

Sorry to hear about your breakup and terrible date, Aranna. I've had some bad ones, but wow, yours was a winner! :/

I'm curious, does your mother set up most/all of your dates?

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Edit: Y'know, Ash was right, this is pretty off topic.

I've personally had enough of blurry rogues and near-sighted fisticuffs, but I'm also curious to see which bizarre direction my thread next takes.

What about precision damage + brilliant energy weapons vs. the greater fortitude armor enchantment? Has PF resolved that debate one way or another, or can my thread possibly go down this dark rabbit hole?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
Thankfully, the dark times draw to a close, as my shorts are out of the dryer, I don't know how people wear pants all the time.

We learned from the Aes Sedai.

(Also, some of us are paid to wear pants.)

I get paid to wear pants too, but it still sucks, even if it is only for 10-15 hours a week.

I work in a desert. I would pay to get to paid to work with pants on for only 10-15 hours a week. ;)

Freehold DM wrote:

best. Response. Ever.

Also, pants rule.

...Also, I belatedly realized that there is a double meaning in my response.

Oh well, happy accidents. :D

2 people marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
Thankfully, the dark times draw to a close, as my shorts are out of the dryer, I don't know how people wear pants all the time.

We learned from the Aes Sedai.

(Also, some of us are paid to wear pants.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drejk wrote:
Can we get synthetic teeth implants already or better bloodstream full-body-repair-and-maintenance nanies already, so we don't have to bother with such trivial details in our lives?


Why is it that sharks have the gift of continual tooth-regrowth, but we don't? Get on with the crispring already, I'm ready for my pointy teeth!

I have a root canal scheduled for Monday. :(

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Yesterday, Brut Squad wrote:

Speaking of work.

I get to work tonight, yay!

Or something.

I anticipate a lot of surly people upset that we don't have an infinite supply of school supplies, which we are most likely out of, except Paw Patrol, we're never out of Paw Patrol.

Also Lego blind bag gropers, we always get a lot of Lego gropers on Thursday.

I'm about to have a veeery long night at work.

Oh well, at least OT pay...

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I just woke up from a dream that ended with me sliding down a really high spiral staircase, and airplanes being blown up left and right as I try to navigate to safety thru a tarmac under fire.

Funny, I don't remember inviting Michael Bay to direct my dreams.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My gf has introduced me to Oregano's Pizza Bistro, and their amazing cookie dessert -- a big half-baked cookie with ice cream on top. I am not a cookie guy, not at all. There are a thousand things I would prefer to most cookies. But oh my gawd, these things are amazing!

What I want to know is: Why is this not the standard way of eating cookies!?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
I still have people who believe that Clinton is no different than Trump, because they believe that she'll back out of any promises she made to the Sanders crowd, they pretty much see her and Trump as two sides of the same coin.
I'm probably one of those. I think Clinton is perhaps even MORE dishonest then Trump...BUT....

If it hasn't been mentioned yet, those concerned with candidate honesty -- or the honesty of any popular figure -- should check out PolitiFact fact-checks all kinds of claims made by politicians and pundits, and includes sources with their judgments in case you want to look into things yourself. Not only that, they have honesty scorecards for many public figures, where you can see how many true v. false claims that figure has made. It's pretty damn convenient.

While Hillary's scorecard doesn't quite compare with Bernie's, she's had a whole lot more scrutiny than he has. We voters should absolutely be holding our politicians accountable for their beliefs and claims, and pulling them toward honesty rather than convenient lies and half-truths. But there are degrees of honesty, and Hillary comes out miles ahead of Drumpf. Frankly, it's the difference between a somewhat-more-honest-than-average politician and a compulsive liar.

And lest anyone think that PolitiFact is part of some insidious 'liberal media' that Drumpf and many conservatives like to winge about, PolitiFact nailed Hillary to the wall for her email claims, and the scorecards for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are not flattering at all.

We're incredibly lucky here in the USA to have a say in who governs us, and it kills me that so many people seem to buy into the sh!t-flinging, say "Well they're all liars and crooks," and then throw up their hands.

Grognardy Dangerfield wrote:
I think the Paladin went wrong and lost its respect when it stopped being a prestige class.

^^ Sometimes satire is truth. ^^

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Set wrote:
Ajaxis wrote:
In these days of absentee voting, and early voting, it would work wonders to get everybody voting.

While I don't think compulsory voting would work here (the fine would serve as yet another tax on poor people who *can't* take a day off to vote, for whatever reason), the notion of making Election Day a federal holiday (if it replaced Labor Day, every Republican would vote for it!), and giving a lot more people the day off, could be an option.

That said, the people who are most hindered from getting to the polls by their jobs and financial situation would be the one's least likely to get the day off anyway, since McDonalds and Bob's Auto Repair don't generally give holidays off (let alone paid holidays), so I'm probably just re-arranging deck chairs...

For a country that prides itself on being the world's Shining Bastion of Democracy/Republic, it oughtta be a crime that voting isn't an all-business mandatory holiday. Paid day off for everyone, unless you provide some essential service like power generation. In which case, employees can take shifts so that everyone has the true freedom to vote.

Squiggit wrote:
You know I think the worst part about bringing up 4e is that it's not even that well balanced.

Before 2010 the balance issue was "Pick one of 3 simple math hole fixes sometime before 11th level." But as soon as Mearls took the wheel and tried to go retro with 4e, yeah, the quality really tanked on the PC side.

Also, so glad to see that my undead thread has been hijacked by 4e complaints.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Paul Ryan: I'm running for reelection.

Trump: I'm not ready to endorse you.

PR: I never asked for your endorsement.

Me: *Lmao*

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My thread got necroed!

...Does that make me the tormented soul trapped within the husk of my former vessel, or just a hapless bystander about to have my brain eaten?

MageHunter wrote:
These justifications feel a bit like evil excuses to me...

People are frighteningly good at excusing convention without even realizing it.

Golem-making and -commanding have no moral consequences because 1) unlike the D&D golem, the mythological golem is a benevolent protector ensouled by wise rabbis, and 2) golems are not icky or scary like undead are. And as JJ says below, nobody with their name on the inside cover of a MM has thought much about it.

Philosophically, making and commanding golems in D&D probably ought to be evil, given the default fluff about binding earth spirits who occasionally go berserk.

James Jacobs wrote:
Tels wrote:

Why is golem crafting not evil?

You basically kidnap an elemental spirit from it's home plane, strip it's soul from it's body, torture it until it loses it's mind, imprison it in some man-made shell, and then enslave it to follow your commands.

Bestiary - Golem wrote:

Golems are magically created automatons of great power. They stand apart from other constructs in the nature of their animating force—golems are granted their magical life via an elemental spirit, typically that of an earth elemental. The process of creating a golem binds the spirit to the artificial body, merging it with this specially prepared vessel and subjecting it to the will of the golem's creator.

Being mindless, golems do nothing without orders from their creators. They follow instructions explicitly and are incapable of complex strategy or tactics. A golem's creator can command it if the golem is within 60 feet and can see and hear its creator. If uncommanded, a golem usually follows its last instruction to the best of its ability, though if attacked it returns the attack. The creator can give the golem a simple command to govern its actions in his absence, or can order the golem to obey the commands of another, but the golem's creator can always resume control by commanding the golem to obey him alone.

If I were designing the game, and if I were making that call, I would do one of the following:

1) Make golem crafting evil, because it requires the enslavement of a spirit.

2) Change the flavor of how you animate the golem to something less evil sounding.

Golem crafting is not evil because that bit slipped by the designers edition after edition, essentially. I have not yet been a designer of an edition, but addressing this discontinuity is something I would like to see cleaned up. It's not something that'll happen now though.

Wait, haven't JJ & Co in fact been the designers of a new edition? Or was this comment written pre-PF?

It's because the Law vs. Chaos axis isn't really an ethical spectrum; it's a collection of personality traits. Whereas many cultural and philosophical beliefs can be projected onto the Good vs. Evil axis, Law and Chaos are collections of personality traits*. And because personality traits are not at all mutually exclusive, determining what's Chaotic, Neutral, and Lawful can be nigh-impossible unless a creature falls neatly into one of those three boxes.

For example, I keep my word and largely tell the truth. When I'm on a team, I play for the team and can be relied upon to do at least my share. I can also be slow to react to new situations. However, I also strongly believe in personal freedom and don't particularly like being part of a team in the first place. I have a facile mind and imagination, and understand new concepts quickly. I don't believe in change for the sake of change, but nor do I believe in continuity for the sake of continuity. I have near-endless patience for putting things in order, but almost none for things that I consider trivial or politicking.

Am I Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic? I think you can see the problem.

*2e Law and Chaos are more philosophical/ethical, but the only vestige of this in 3.x is the "dedicated to balance" option for True Neutrals.

thegreenteagamer wrote:

Yeah, nobody thought Trump could win the primary, and laughed at the very idea... you all seem to laugh at the idea of him winning the general, and think it's going to be historic landslide?

You seriously underestimate how utterly horrible the average American is. He's run on a platform of hatred, bigotry, xenophobia, and insult after insult after insult...and his fans don't just like him, they absolutely love him.

Yeah, no doubt we'll all look back on this election with 20/20 hindsight and say "How could it have been any other way?" But I'm not at all confident that Hillary is the one with the election already in the bag, as half the country seems to think. We are after all talking about a con man brazen enough to blame his tax audits on religious persecution -- yes, of him, as a "strong Christian" -- and a whole lot of marks who want so desperately to believe they're being persecuted just like their savior that they eat it up and ask for more. Trump is a genius at telling people exactly what they want to hear in order to get whatever he wants.

Anyhow, I'm writing Bernie a letter to thank him for running and for endorsing Hillary. There may have been a time when I too would have wanted him to go down in a brilliant explosion of liberal glory, but now I think that playing the hand he was dealt is the best way to fight the good fight.

Dave Justus wrote:
Ventnor wrote:

My question is what is this metaphysical force? It doesn't seem to do much except empower Paladins. It's never even mentioned except in the context of Paladins!

I'm not sure why this seems particularly weird to you. In this game system magic can be powered by

Training to channel words, gestures and bits of matter into arcane forces (wizards etc.)
Deities (clerics etc.)
Your ancestors having contact with just about anything (sorcerers)
Being good at performing?? Nothing at all?? (Bards)
Mysterious concepts (oracles)
Undefined Spirits (shamans)
The Force (psychic magic)

just to name a few.

Given all that, what is the big deal about one group being powered by Honor and Righteousness?

It seems particularly weird because there's little/no mention of the powers of Chaos and/or Evil. It's not about the many and sundry ways that other classes are powered. It's about consistency, because inconsistency is weird for some of us.

I say this as a fan of cosmic ethical forces.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

TS's response to GM's question "Is there anything you want to do before the other PCs arrive?" during the first scene of TS's first Rifts scenario:

"Er...I hide my stash of blow, and wait for everyone to show up."

In my defense, I probably wouldn't have chosen the cyber-knight, had I known that that pregen had the Dudley Do-Right alignment.

1 to 50 of 3,511 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.