Congratulations to David Posener, winner of the "Create the Spawn of Dajobas" contest!
Click the link above to view an illo of his winning entry, the dread Iku-Tursas, brought to life by Andrew Hou!
The Iku Tursas will be featured in the upcoming Indulgence from Sinister called "Shrine of Frenzy" a gritty adventure pitting PCs against the mad cult of the Shark God in an abandoned cove on the Razor Coast.
Sweet. WHEN?! *taps money against palm impatiently*
What's the best format to bring it in? Burned to CD, jump drive, etc. Have you ever done this with something you had to purchase, and if so, was the name stamp in the file and a matching photo ID enough?
For format best to call where you're bringing it to, different stores have different capacity at any given time.
Yes an id is a good idea if you have a pdf that is watermarked. :)
Should I worry about them STILL not printing it even if I do have an ID?
Eyebite, that's a really interesting factor. The continuity of the read. Keeping that forward motion going in order to deliver the most visceral impact. When I read The Stand as a kid, I dropped the book at page 400, but when I returned to it a few weeks later I felt I needed to reread about fifty pages back in order to ground myself. When I put it back down at page 600 for another couple of weeks I didn't want to have to go back to page 550. Why bother? I was no longer feeling the book.
Now put a 260 page book in front of me? Gobble gobble done. I'm living it in my head for a week afterwards.
This is one of the reasons why I've liked the four Tim Rackley novels by Gregg Hurwitz so much. Short enough where I can buy the thing, drive home from work, read until about 1 in the morning, and have the thing done. The other reasons are more standard: cool characters, fun plots, and satisfying endings, that last of which, incidentally, Mr. Hurwitz is the master of.
I loved it too. If you're having trouble getting into it, get the unabridged audio read by Simon Prebble. If you're not having trouble getting into it, get the audio anyway. It's fantastic.
All I have to say about that story is Best. Villain. Ever. And I mean it. Better than Darth Vader. Better than Sauron. Better than... ...you get the idea. I have seen some awesome bad guys in my day, but nobody tops the villain in this book.
Some favorite scenes MASSIVE SPOILERS:
Spoiler:
The moment at which you realize John Childermass is also a wizard.
The encounter with Childermass and John Uskglass at the end.
The final fate of the Gentleman with the Thistledown Hair.
The final fate of Lascelles.
Jonathan Strange showing up as an avatar of wizardly might, Gilbert Norrel being terrified of him, and Jonathan Strange going: "I'm looking for my wife!"
Jonathan Strange deliberately driving himself mad to increase his magical insight.
Confirmation of Arabella not being dead.
Jonathan Strange, John Segundus, Vinculus, Arabella Strange, The Gentleman With the Thistledown Hair, and John Childermass in general.
Also, if you liked it, you might want to try Naomi Novik. The Temeraire series isn't QUITE as good as Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrel, but it's still excellent. The difference between and A+ and an A, if you will.
I had the Alpha2 printed at FedEx Kinkos. I used the print friendly version. The cover page was printed in color, the inside pages in black and white. They said .pdfs are their drug of choice. The document was printed double-sided, and was spiral bound, all for just over $16 including tax. I showed this to my players and they all wanted one, so I went back and made six more copies. The spiral binding added $4.99 to the cost, but was well worth it.
A few questions:
What's the best format to bring it in? Burned to CD, jump drive, etc.
Have you ever done this with something you had to purchase, and if so, was the name stamp in the file and a matching photo ID enough?
Just wondering, for anyone that had the Alpha document professionally printed, what kind of dollar amount were you looking at? I'm thinking in the long run this might be cheaper for me than running through my own ink on my printer, but I wanted to get an idea of how much this cost, and what did you have to do (i.e. if you took it to a place like Staples, did you have to explain that you could have it printed, etc.)
I figure I'll have my copy of BoXM II printed this way at some point. (I'll just buy the Pathfinder Beta Softcover in August.) I usually run off a print copy of PDF books and drop them in sheet protectors in a 3-ring binder; durable, to be sure, but kinda bulky.
I'd really like to see trapfinding given to rangers, maybe their not as good at it as rogues, or give rogues a flat bonus with their version of it, but give the option to rangers, and maybe bards aswell, to promote diversity.
Wow! Jason's so awesome that even his cut and paste errors are good ideas!
Hey, you guys at Dark Whispers have only done ONE PODCAST! ONE! Once you have some episodes built up, you'll go on the list! ;) It was pretty entertaining and (true story!) I never would have found the others without you. For those interested, the sequence of events went like this:
Nick Logue announced sinister adventures.
I checked out the website and noticed a podcast.
Some days later, I got tired of listening to talk radio at work. (Hillary vs. Barack, round 74, and why you should care)
I fired up the Sinister Adventures podcast on a shift at work.
The podcast was entertaining and informative! Alas, it did not fill my 8-hour shift.
Recently I've started getting into RPG podcats (I usually work alone in a room at my job; I have lots of time to listen to stuff). I've discovered several that I like, and I thought I'd share.
Sons of Kryos: I'll start with what I consider to be the best first. The Sons of Kryos are, to put it bluntly, flat-out awesome. Jeff & Judd (and later, Storn) are really serious about their fun. I have gained tons of great ideas from their podcasts. They don't play much d20 (well, Jeff does, but Judd & Storn don't, though Storn does post his art on the art forum over on the WotC boards), but it really doesn't matter much; the advice they dispense works well for pretty much any roleplaying. You can find them here.
Animalcast: A little bit lighter and more meandering, topically-speaking, than some of the others, this is still a fun podcast. These guys play Pathfinder, and have interviewed James Jacobs on one of their shows, which is pretty cool. You can find them here.
3.5 Private Sanctuary: These guys focus on a topic near & dear to many of our hearts: keeping 3.5 going. They've interviewed Wolfgang Baur, and have spent multiple shows going over the Pathfinder Betas. You can find them here.
These are the three that I've listened to multiple episodes of and enjoyed, and that I feel I can recommend right now. There will probably be more in the days & weeks to come.
So yeah; the beta will look relatively similar to the alpha, except that it'll contain all the other elements of the SRD that the alpha hasn't included yet.
By this I'm guessing you mean prestige classes, unmodified feats, spells, and so forth?
I don't know, I like trapfinding as an ability, but I agree that it should be limited to a few classes that should have it, but I can't argue against the ranger getting it, because that does make sense to me. But the only classes I can really see having it are the ranger and the rogue.
Although I did kind of like my "for classes without trapfinding, treat all traps with a DC of 20 or higher as having a DC of +10," instead of saying that finding those traps are impossible.
I think you could make a good case for the bard, too, but it should definitely stop there.
Perhaps to solidify the Ranger's "schtick" for tracking, maybe it should be limited like the Rogues ability to find traps...
Gods, no....
Needing to have a rogue if you're going to have traps and needing to have a Ranger if you're going to have tracking are both bad.
The thing about tracking is it lets me as a DM provide a way to tell the story to the PCs. Not having a Ranger in the party, I either have to not use it, give it away, or encourage the barbarian to take it.
I like the third choice.
The same is true for Trapfinding. If the rogue is the only one who can hope to find a trap, but I'm running a party of three and no one wants to be the rogue, someone 'dips' to qualify for the ability and advances in whatever class they normally want.
I don't think trapfinding needs to be a feat system, but I do think it needs to be available to more than one class. When you take something that crucial and restrict it to just one class, you're really limiting the options of your players.
Incidentally, I'd like to see some more combat styles for the ranger beyond just TWF and archery...
I just realized a mistake in his stat block. He does not have trapfinding and he should have wild empathy. That was an error from another block that was used to build this one. Sorry for the mix up.
It should also be noted that this particular ranger does not have spells due to his low Wisdom... poor guy.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
You know, Jason, giving rangers and bards trapfinding would do wonders to eliminate the problem of EVERY party needing a rogue or deciding by implication to disarm all traps with their faces. Now don't get me wrong, I LIKE the rogue class (especially now!), but as it currently stands, it's the only truly irreplaceable core class in the game; the one that MUST be in every party that's going to encounter traps. Far your melee monster you've got the choice of fighter, barbarian, paladin, monk or ranger. For healing, you can use a cleric, druid, paladin or bard. For blasting, a wizard, sorcerer, or druid. For sneaky antics, a rogue, ranger, monk, or bard. For trapfinding? A rogue. Period.
How about spreading that around a bit? Even just giving it to the ranger would be two choices rather than one, for an increase of 100%.
I've reached a point of fatigue on this one; I think I've said all I've got to say. Have fun debating, guys. I'm going to go back to keeping a scorecard of notable industry pros now working for Paizo and salivating after Alpha 3.
Atheists and humanists for whatever reason (at least in my anecdotal experience) seem to be exceedingly pissed-off, hostile people. I mean, like ALL THE TIME.
This is likely the kind of thing that comes up more because you only know their an Atheist when their actively arguing against your point of view. Most of the time when you come across Atheists you likely have no idea that they are Atheists becuase it simply does not come up.
I suspect that one can find the same thing in politics. If you happen to have strong leaning to either the left or the right your likely to view the other side as being particularly hostile and negative - after all you spend an inordinate amount of time in vehement arguments with them!
I reached that same conclusion with other posters about four pages back. ;) On the other hand, I don't loudly bash atheists, and sadly, in my experience, they often do not extend me the same courtesy.
Well, I'm glad we got the analogies straight! As far as considering that homosexuality's a sin, it's in the Bible, in both the old and new testaments as being one in pretty unequivocal language. It's as simple as that. I subscribe to a religion. That, by definition, means that I take some things on faith.
[snip]
As far as homosexuality being given extra "weight" in the Bible, I'm not sure I buy it. Adultery seems to be the big one, and quite frankly, it should be.
The thing is that homosexuality (and let's not forget that it actually says man laying with another man, nothing about lesbians in there) is mentioned alongside other sins, such as eating shellfish and wearing garments of two kinds of fabric... where are the outrage at those sins?
In the old testament, you have a point. In the new testament, not so much.
GentleGiant wrote:
And I'd bet that most of those in this thread who has a problem with homosexuality has committed at least one of those other sins... shouldn't we berate them for that too?
And although you might see adultery as a far greater sin I haven't seen any adultery-bashings or anti-adultery parades lately. ;-)
Have you seen me berating anybody for their sins anywhere in this thread? I've explicitly stated that I don't feel I have the right at least once and implied it a couple more times.
Quick request of the DM: you've said you're limiting us to two books each. I'd like to make my two books the BoED (I'd like to use the Ranged Smite Evil feat and the Divine Sacrifice spell) and Complete Adventurer (I'd like to use the Devoted Tracker feat; I envision Kyran as a multiclass paladin/ranger). Is this okay?
Seems reasonable to me. Consider the options approved.
I have never played a bard, not even once. Some months ago I started getting the itch to play one but for some reason I just can't bring myself to play it, maybe how you feel that you are suddenly only have 1 available role as a bard and thats a buffer. Probably why i never played a cleric either so i'm not seen as a heal battery.
Having played a number of clerics, the "heal battery" only lasts until around level 7 or so. After that, in my experience anyway, you alternate between "pious freight train" and "he/she who makes everybody in the party even better at what they do."
I found the book to be pretty spiffy. The $40 price tag may have to do with the fact that Iron Kingdoms isn't their core product line; their minis are.
Not making that exact comparison at all, really. In fact, I was almost making the opposite comparison; I deliberately took something FAR worse than homosexuality would be in the eyes of anyone but the most extreme of zealots as my example. In other words, "if you can still love someone who's utterly ruining their life and the lives of everyone around them, it's certainly possible to love someone who's doing something harmless, but maybe not moral by your worldview." It's just an example of how you can disapprove of something someone is doing without hating them for it. One could say the same of someone with a drinking, gambling, or shopping problem, somebody who spends too much time playing video games, wastes all of their time on message boards, doesn't save as much money as they should, games too much, picks at scabs, picks their nose, collects toenail clippings, has awful fashion sense, drives a gas-guzzling SUV, or undercooks foods that may contain Salmonela. Take your pick. The point is, you can disapprove of something that somebody is doing without hating them.
My apologies for misreading it!
It just seemed that because of the example you used, you were comparing homosexuality to drug use because you would hate both things without hating the person doing them. I hope you can see how I got to that conclusion.
I would like to ask you then:
Why do you consider homosexuality a sin (and I take it that you mean it as a biblical sin)?
And others can join in for this one:
Why is the biblical sin of homosexuality given so much weight compared to all the other sins you can commit according to the bible?
Well, I'm glad we got the analogies straight! As far as considering that homosexuality's a sin, it's in the Bible, in both the old and new testaments as being one in pretty unequivocal language. It's as simple as that. I subscribe to a religion. That, by definition, means that I take some things on faith. But again, see my earlier posts. I am not, nor do I claim to be, any sort of final moral authority whatsoever. Being abnormally low on "vices" counts for about as much as a pinch of dust as a down payment on a mortgage where any real scale of morality is concerned. I'm far from perfect. Farther than many people who have done things I've abstained from, I'd wager. I have done things that have hurt people I care about in my life.
As far as homosexuality being given extra "weight" in the Bible, I'm not sure I buy it. Adultery seems to be the big one, and quite frankly, it should be. (I may be biased on this; my wife's a really awesome person and I wouldn't want to hurt her. I'm pretty damn certain I could turn down ANYone without problems based on that alone. I also grew up observing my parents in a very happy, loving marriage.) Cheating on someone you're supposed to be committed to is pretty vile in all but the most extreme of circumstances. (I leave it to the judgment of the reader as to what the most extreme of circumstances would be.) The fallout also tends to rip through families, social networks, and workplaces like runaway shrapnel.
Actually, I believe the term in that case is 'premarital' since you've never been married. Extramarital specifically deals with having sex with a partner that isn't your spouse, while you ARE married. I'm sure if I am wrong on this, someone will correct me; but I'm pretty sure I'm right.
Actually it would be amarital if marriage isn't an option.
That's what I was going for. "Sex with someone you're not married to, whether you're married to someone else or single."
The Paladin thing is quite simple: The guy is gay. He can still smite. That means his god doesn't think it's a vile abomination or anything. Paladins have to live up to very high standards, so you can assume that if they're doing it without their aura turning grey, it's okay for you to do, too.
Timespike wrote:
And yeah, for the record, I do think extramarital sex, drug use, drunkenness, and smoking are wrong.
Is it extramarital if I never intend to marry?
Yes, but before you go attacking me, you'd better account for the very next sentence (and the ones that follow it) in the post you're quoting. Taking this one statement out of context and using it to blast me (if that's what you're intending to do) is playing pretty dirty.
Your "hate the sinner, not the sin" argument ignores the fact that drug use is a choice, homosexuality isn't. At least not according to the data I've seen.
So people choose to be addicted to drugs? Yup, its those Native Americans fault for the rampant alcholism on reservations.
No, they choose to use drugs which they know to be addictive. Huge difference between this and sexuality.
Timespike wrote:
If you want to say you can't love the sinner while hating the sin... ...can you love a family member with a severe drug problem while still acknowledging that it's ruining their life and hurting everyone around them and lobbying for them to STOP taking drugs? Because that's a very good example of a nonsexual instance of that in play.
Whoa there! Totally faulty example, since what you're basically saying is that homosexuality is "it's ruining their life and hurting everyone around them" on the same level as drug use. Sorry, but that's an extremely untrue and hurtful comparison.
Not making that exact comparison at all, really. In fact, I was almost making the opposite comparison; I deliberately took something FAR worse than homosexuality would be in the eyes of anyone but the most extreme of zealots as my example. In other words, "if you can still love someone who's utterly ruining their life and the lives of everyone around them, it's certainly possible to love someone who's doing something harmless, but maybe not moral by your worldview." It's just an example of how you can disapprove of something someone is doing without hating them for it. One could say the same of someone with a drinking, gambling, or shopping problem, somebody who spends too much time playing video games, wastes all of their time on message boards, doesn't save as much money as they should, games too much, picks at scabs, picks their nose, collects toenail clippings, has awful fashion sense, drives a gas-guzzling SUV, or undercooks foods that may contain Salmonela. Take your pick. The point is, you can disapprove of something that somebody is doing without hating them.
Paladins with ranged weapons are cool. If only Golarion had a bit more tech, you could have paladins in denim wearing two heavy revolvers, hunting men in black.
All Hail Gilead!
Gunslinging Morrowan paladins in the Iron Kingdoms are pretty awesome...
I'm one gay who is glad to see NPCs I can relate with, and absolutely when it adds something to the setting it should be included.
Timespike wrote:
This is one thing that strikes me as odd. It seems from this thread like a lot of gay players relate best to gay characters. I find that an NPC's sexual orientation has precious little to do with it....
I think it's really admirable how you can relate to homosexuals despite being a heterosexual.
Personally, I have a friend who is gay, we get along pretty well, but I find that I just don't get it sometimes when he's going on about his life. It doesn't keep me from liking him, nor does it harm our friendship in fact it's kind of funny sometimes. But, it is hard to relate....
I had a MUCH longer and more detailed post than this, but the boards ate it. Here's the short version:
I'm personally exceedingly ascetic. (First drink at 23, first sex at 24 on my wedding night. First cigarette never, first illegal drugs never.) As we usually assume others are at least mostly like us, I don't usually even take into account whatever people do to create pleasure in their lives, as long as they don't try to drag me into it. With that out the window, there's nothing left to relate to except what they actively share with you and how they're treating you at the moment. Plus, I tend to see disliking people for their appearance or "stuff" to be... ...odd, actually. What's the point? And yeah, for the record, I do think extramarital sex, drug use, drunkenness, and smoking are wrong. But I've also done stuff in my life that I look back on and know without a shadow of a doubt was immoral. So who am I to judge? To paraphrase some scripture, I'm still busy with the plank in my eye. If you've got a speck in yours, that's the least of my worries. Also, and I've said this before earlier in the thread, it's useless to try to get people behind your idea of "proper behavior" if they reject the corresponding philosophical underpinnings. It's just plain stupid of me to get upset when someone who's not a Christian doesn't act like I think a Christian should. They don't subscribe to the belief system, and my being all self-righteous and unpleasant towards them certainly isn't going to make them decide to adopt it. Now if you're hurting people, that's bad! I get really angry about about that. So much so that I've just finished acquiring an AAS in Criminal Justice and plan to become a police officer with it in the very near future.
People more down on the "party" end of the spectrum usually find me pretty amusing, though. I do none of the stuff they do, turn down offers to be included in it, and don't get on their case about it. Some of the reactions I've gotten to that set of behaviors over the years are priceless.
I'm one gay who is glad to see NPCs I can relate with, and absolutely when it adds something to the setting it should be included.
This is one thing that strikes me as odd. It seems from this thread like a lot of gay players relate best to gay characters. I find that an NPC's sexual orientation has precious little to do with it. I tend to relate best to non-chaotic, non-evil characters, regardless of their sexuality. I see who you're willing to take up arms against as being more important than who you want to sleep with.
Edit: then again, I'm willing to accept that I might be the odd one...
Put people in a room, wait, and they'll all find some reason to split into different corners and try to kill one another.
Prejudice is a byproduct of how the human mind works. Stereotypes are how we process, store and reference information; a stereotype tells us How to Behave when presented with a situation. Not only is it there to help us survive ("A big man covered in blood with a weapon = threat to me". He might be a butcher and not a threat, but the general stereotype of "big bloody man + weapon" = danger) but also as the brain's energy short-cut. If the brain stored EVERY situation, considering it an exception, that'd be a LOT of space to keep, and referencing that would be quite difficult.
The real bugger about the human brain is, to maintain our stereotypes, it will intentionally rememembers information that reinforces a belief or stereotype, but willfully ignores a situation or fact that disproves a belief or stereotype. Or worse, each situation/fact that goes against the pre-existing stereotype/belief is filed under "Exception to the rule". "My Buddy Jim is a Foo. Most Foos are very bad, but Jim is an example of a Good Foo, rare among Foos."
I believe that we as people must recognize the shortcomings of this system, and rise above it, rathe than give into it.
One question that seems to stem from an argument in this thread is: Is it not right to be intolerant of intolerance?
I that intolerant of intolerance is acceptable. However, blaming the suggested "Source" of that intolerance is not.
The way some people in this thread speak, "Some people who are religious use religion as an excuse to dislike gays. Therefore, I do not like religion at all because it gives these people an excuse to hate gays." That undermines the person's argument completely. Because it would be like saying "Some white people are racist against blacks. Therefore I do not like white people because some use their skin color to hate other people." It also looks very...
I tried to say this earlier, but you did a better job of it than me.
It's not like you have much to choose from in that department. I mean, you've got Valeros, Sajan, and maybe, MAYBE Lem to pick from. The others... Harsk? Ezren? I'm STRAIGHT and I realize Valeros is the only good choice.
Is pizza okay? I'm packing the cranky atheists and the cranky Christians in a poorly-seperated box and shipping them to you. You live on an otherwise-uninhabited tiny desert island in the middle of the Pacific that doesn't appear on any normal shipping or flight patterns, right? No? Dang. I sent it there already. The friendly agnostics are standing by, awaiting a shipping address.
<G>
Know what would happen on that island when those groups mixed? There would be one dominant question.
"Can any of you guys find food?"
Philosophic discussions would be saved for a time of sated bellies.
Yep. One would almost think that was the idea. <whistles innocently>
Even if it's just to be done with Seoni+Merisiel+Valeros fantasies. :p
I'm going to guess that it's Kyra, actually. "Pick the one you'd least expect," seems to work well on guessing a lot of Paizo stuff.
James Jacobs wrote:
Gurubabaramalamaswami wrote:
So once again...how about outing the gay iconic?
Even if it's just to be done with Seoni+Merisiel+Valeros fantasies. :p
There actually might be TWO gay iconics, to be honest.
That's a larger cross-section than the population as a whole, isn't it? That would imply that homosexuals on Golarion are particularly disposed towards killing monsters and taking their stuff.
You know...my first gaming experience with this issue was back in the 90s. Many many moons ago...
I had a friend who'd been with the group forever. We also had a friend who was homophobic to the point of paranoia playing with us. Friend 1 had a secret he was keeping because he didn't want to lose Friend 2's...uh...friendship.
Long story short...Friend 1 was gay and got outed out of spite by a guest player who had issues with him. There was a lot of drama over it but for me the issue came down to why couldn't I still hang with him and have fun whatever his orientation?
Friend 2 eventually realized that friends are friends no matter what...but it was a long hard road.
So why don't we all just be friends here and stop fighting about this issue?
I see no real reason. Even going on the assumption that homosexual activity is sin, it's not like anyone else hasn't done SOMETHING bad in their lives. Nobody's perfect. Not even close...
Atheists and humanists for whatever reason (at least in my anecdotal experience) seem to be exceedingly pissed-off, hostile people. I mean, like ALL THE TIME.
I'm an atheist and I'll destroy you for saying that. ;) No but really, I only know one hostile atheist personally. The rest are all pretty even tempered. I speak up when I see us non-believers getting lumped into any one box. We are as diverse as little fluffy white snowflakes.
If you know some laid-back, friendly atheists, would you mind boxing a few up and shipping them over here, please? Someone like Dave Barry or Terry Pratchett would be nice. I'll send you back some of the cranky ones. I think some shipments got switched or something. I'll even throw in some friendly agnostics. We have lots of those.
Like I said, I know my data's anecdotal, but dang...
I saw and appreciated that anecdotal disclaimer. I am boxing friendly atheists right now. I'm only able to afford ground shipping so have some food and a box cutter at the ready.
Is pizza okay? I'm packing the cranky atheists and the cranky Christians in a poorly-seperated box and shipping them to you. You live on an otherwise-uninhabited tiny desert island in the middle of the Pacific that doesn't appear on any normal shipping or flight patterns, right? No? Dang. I sent it there already. The friendly agnostics are standing by, awaiting a shipping address.
Wow! They're shipping them in the egg and everything!
(Incidentally, if you DO actually happen to be in the same general region as me, I am looking for a gaming group. Edit: checks Ross's profile. Dang! Nevermind. Florida & Illinois are a bit too far apart to be considered part of the same region on anything lower than a continental scale...)
Atheists and humanists for whatever reason (at least in my anecdotal experience) seem to be exceedingly pissed-off, hostile people. I mean, like ALL THE TIME.
I'm an atheist and I'll destroy you for saying that. ;) No but really, I only know one hostile atheist personally. The rest are all pretty even tempered. I speak up when I see us non-believers getting lumped into any one box. We are as diverse as little fluffy white snowflakes.
If you know some laid-back, friendly atheists, would you mind boxing a few up and shipping them over here, please? Someone like Dave Barry or Terry Pratchett would be nice. I'll send you back some of the cranky ones. I think some shipments got switched or something. I'll even throw in some friendly agnostics. We have lots of those.
Like I said, I know my data's anecdotal, but dang...
Sure, we have the "Crazed Lesbo" protagonist in the current AP.
You mean antagonist? (You're talking about Ileosa, right?) I see her more as a "crazed tyrant" than a "crazed lesbo". I mean, assassins? Plague? Stormtroopers? That goes way beyond any sexual/relationship issues she may have, man. WAY beyond.
Edit: if anything, I see Ileosa's sexuality as another function of her power-mad-ness. She'll sleep with whoever she needs to to get what she wants, be they male, female, or (possibly) draconic...
Bugleyman, I know you and I dislike each other as people, but just because you dislike me doesn't make everything I say incorrect. When you boil it down to its base components, you can lay all of the evils of humanity at the foot of one thing: human nature. The fact of the matter is, many evil things done in the name of religions are not condoned by the religion they're done in the name of's own teachings! Which points back to human nature. People WILL do bad stuff. Usually, they either admit it's bad themselves or at least know others will think it's bad, so they grab something higher than themselves to justify it. Religion has always been convenient for this. (Though in the last century, political systems like Fascism and Communism are certainly giving it a run for its money. Look at the body counts in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia alone!) However, if you eradicate religion, people will not stop being awful to each other, and (assuming you'd want to do it by force, which, incidentally, I don't assume of you, this is just to make a point) you would have to kill over 85% of the human race to accomplish that goal in the first place. Now, I'm no great ethicist, but even I'm reasonably sure killing over 4.5 billion people is far worse than thinking your gay neighbor is sinning when he goes to bed with his partner, especially if you keep it to yourself and treat him as well as any of your other neighbors (love the sinner, hate the sin). Almost everyone on the planet cares about religion, no matter which one they do (or don't in your case) practice. If you want to say you can't love the sinner while hating the sin... ...can you love a family member with a severe drug problem while still acknowledging that it's ruining their life and hurting everyone around them and lobbying for them to STOP taking drugs? Because that's a very good example of a nonsexual instance of that in play.
As far as the whole homosexuality thing goes, there seem to be people who have sexual traits that lead them to do other, much more harmful things than just getting intimate with members of the same sex (pedophilia, necrophilia, rape, etc.) so be careful if you use that argument as the cornerstone of your reasoning. Just to be clear, I am NOT equating homosexuality to those other, more deviant behaviors in any way except to call both traits (much like red hair, brown eyes, or introvertedness). In fact, unless the homosexuality trait is paired with the rapist or pedophile ones, I see it about as benign as the eye color one. (Though like the "likes the taste of broccoli" trait, I don't even possess a shred of it, though I must admit that two of the celebrities I'd actually not mind meeting are gay as can be. Tim Gunn & Ellen Degeneres, if you're wondering.) Just because someone's inclined to do something biologically or psychologically doesn't automatically make it good or bad. As far as the dogma argument goes: I see at LEAST as much hatred directed at benign people from furious secular humanists and atheists as I do from any religious groups. Atheists and humanists for whatever reason (at least in my anecdotal experience) seem to be exceedingly pissed-off, hostile people. I mean, like ALL THE TIME. If you're going to hate someone just because they're a Christian, I suppose that's your right, but it's no better than them hating you because you're an atheist. Both of you are as convinced as the other that they just KNOW their own side is right.
Whether you have faith or not, surely you see that some people actively promote intolerance in the name of religion? I don't think all religous people are evil, but certainly many do evil in the name of religion. I don't see groups of homosexuals out promoting intolerance or strapping bombs to themselves and running into hospitals, and until I do, I just don't see the hypocrisy.
People do evil in the name of all KINDS of things. Religion, politics (both left and right in roughly equal amounts, and if the scale's imbalanced, wait a few years), science, corporate interest, self-interest, the list goes on and on and on and ON. Religion hardly has a corner on bad behavior of any kind. For the record, I consider myself a Christian (a non-denominational protestant) and sit on the line between conservative and libertarian, politically-speaking. I have some somewhat traditional views of morality as it applies to my own conduct, but I see it pointless to try to hold anyone to them who doesn't willingly and voluntarily subscribe to the underlying belief system first. Jews probably see my eating of bacon to be horrifying (and dieticians, too, but oh well) but I think the average Jew on the street doesn't worry about my eating bacon as long as I don't make HIM do it (the average dietician is probably losing sleep over it, though). I feel that way about a number of behaviors, including extramarital sexual relations. (I waited. Almost none of my friends did. Neither did either of my siblings, for that matter. That's their choice. None of them ridiculed me for mine, so I'll gladly return the favor.) There are places where this "live & let live" idea doesn't work so well, though; but those behaviors are on the books as crimes.
That was the funniest chain of posts I've seen in a LONG time. Thanks, guys, I needed the laugh. :)
Toss me in for another vote for 3.5/3P support going forward; I'm subscribed until issue 10, I belive, and I have no real intention of going 4e either. If they'd figured out some way to not invalidate my 3e library (which has a face value of over $5,000 and grows to this day) I'd consider converting. At this point, I'm letting WotC go their way as I go mine.
I'm not really sure how much it matters at all, really. I think forcing PCs to have sex with an NPC as part of the required path through an adventure is probably pretty unlikely
The whole reloading thing is why bows play second-fiddle. I've seen many players "drop" their crossbow after firing and draw whatever weapon as they moved. Which is not an unrealistic combat maneuver anyway.
In any case, the Auras are not designed for a paladin to be in the back and a paladin can't be close because reloading still provokes an AoO. And since Paladin's don't wear fullplate (based on presented arguements).. provoking AoOs don't seem too smart.
Ever since seeing the Abadar article, I've been longing to play a light armored, highly mobile, paladin with a heavy repeating crossbow.
Yeah, add in Ranged Smite Evil from the BoED, wear a couple of subdivided quivers on your legs for different kinds of ammo, and add in a bayonet from Complete Adventurer. All that plus that amazing-looking gold armor = AWESOME. Throw in some black clothing for contrast for an even cooler look.
I'm not really sure how much it matters at all, really. I think forcing PCs to have sex with an NPC as part of the required path through an adventure is probably pretty unlikely (at least, I hope it is; such a thing would be in kinda poor taste), but having some of it going on in the background does add a level of believablity to the whole thing. As long as the APs don't get X-rated, I really don't care who does who as long as they don't do it to me, my character, or children.
Posts
