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

Zombieneighbours's page

Goblin Squad Member. RPG Superstar 9 Season Marathon Voter. Pathfinder Society Member. 4,083 posts (4,160 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 10 aliases.


1 to 50 of 4,083 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:
Shadow Demon wrote:
Per Circular 34, I can definitely use it in a list for an NPC, monster, or character. In fact, since the format and terminology of the spell description is present in the 5e SRD, the spell could simply be rewritten and fall under Fair Use. There is no reason to do that because the 5e SRD is about writing new not trying to copy existing material.

I believe everything in your post is fundamentally correct, except that the phrase "the spell could simply be rewritten" glosses over something that I think is actually quite tricky.

The problem is that in games, the line between the game mechanic (which is not copyrightable) and the expression of that mechanic (which is copyrightable) is often blurry. Take the Fireball spell from the 5.0 SRD:

5.0 SRD wrote:


3rd-level evocation
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 150 feet
Components: V, S, M (a tiny ball of bat guano and sulfur)
Duration: Instantaneous

A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.

The fire spreads around corners. It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried.

At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, the damage increases by 1d6 for each slot level above 3rd.

Clearly they can't lay claim to the word "Fireball." And sure, those three paragraphs at the bottom can easily be rewritten. But what about those other 5 lines at the top? Is "Casting Time: 1 action" a non-protectable mechanic, or a protected expression of a mechanic?

If you change "1 action" to, say, "1 step," or if you remove it entirely, it no longer makes sense in the game, so maybe that argues...

Does the fact that, in each case(save the name and the exact material component), the game mechanics in those five lines appear in the SRD on existing spells mean that the terms are in effect Open games content, even if the spell is not?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Tru20, Iron Heros, and evolved Arcana had a relatively tiny readerships, most of which (near as I can tell), continued to purchases official DnD at about the same rate.

A serious competitor only emerged when WotC seriously upset a very significant portion of their readership.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Have sent a message asking for clarification on the subject.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay, has anyone worked out how the DMs guild works with art assets that are creative commons or in the public domain.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

And if either Tom or James cannot advocate for themselves, say because of social angsyity and are unwilling to give up something they otherwise enjoy?

But lets cut the friends out of it. What about James and Tom. Are they wrong to ask for that change?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
No, this is just a SJW looking to make inroads in gaming to gain a foothold and influence. Same old same old. Telling people to feel bad, what they are doing wrong, etc.

So, it's your opinion that if it's culturally acceptable to be mean to people, others aren't allowed to point it out?

For example, I see someone yelling at a small child (not their own), saying rude comments and generally being mean... I'd be a SJW for telling them to stop? Cause that's what you're saying. I understand you don't think you're saying that, but you are.

No, false equivalancy and poor comparison.

RPGs for purchase with potentially disagreeable content =/= yelling at a child on the street.

Get your priorities straight.

Tom has a mental illness. Tom attends a book club with his three best friends every month. Each session of book club, the host repeatedly makes falls claims about Tom's illness many of which are insulting and hurtful. The host does not mean harm, he is just ignorant.

Are tom's friends wrong to ask the host to change his behaviour?

James has a mental illness. James attends a games night with his three best friends every month. Each session, the host repeatedly makes falls claims about Tom's illness many of which are insulting and hurtful. The host does not mean harm, he is just going by what the game say.

Are james's friends wrong to ask the host to change his behaviour?

Depends on what your trying to achieve.

Trying to ride hard over a long distance? Well that is a constitution check.

Trying to calm spooked horses? Well that is wisdom.

Trying to reach down to the ground to grab a bag as you ride by? Well, that is dexterity.

Want to pathfind your way down a difficult slope, well that might be wisdom or intelligence.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would actually be fairly interested in a roleplaying game about actual, real world mental illness, and ways it might interact with a fantasy setting. A murderhobo based story game where your characters progression is a downward spiral into PTSD could be really interesting for instance.

I don't think we'll see one anytime soon. A, it would be a fairly hard game to design, and B, the design of one that wasn't exploitative would be even harder.

That said I have exactly no problem with most classic sanity systems. I say that as someone who has suffered from mental illness, and has a family with several mentally ill people in it.


Because, the insanity depicted in such games isn't mental illness. It has only a passing resemblance to some sorts of mental illness. It's has different causes, different effects and exists for a different set of reasons.

That said. If a person at my table says, "I'm not okay with sanity mechanics...", and their reason is something other than "wah wah wah I want power fantasy!!!!", I will totally stop running games with sanity mechanics.

If they say "wah, wah, wah, I want power fantasy!!!!" I will do my best to hook them up with a gaming group that is a better fit for them.

BigDTBone wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
Can you provide examples specific cases of this having happened, in a manner that could conseivably causes harm?
Times we have put genes into organisms that don't normally express them? Yea. How many do you want?
You seem to have missed the, '...that could conceivably cause harm' clause.
There is the real concern that anytime we add protein coding genes into an organism that doesn't have regulatory pathways to deal with it that it is potentially dangerous.

There is a real concern that at anytime the earth might be struck by a large iron meteor of a size that could wipe out human life.

BigDTBone wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
Nearly every serious complaint that can conceivibly be leveled at GMOs is in fact, not a problem with GMOs, but with Intellectual property law and the behaviour of companies.
Protein expression by organisms which have no normal regulatory pathways for those genes having the potential to result in unforseen and possibly dangerous outcomes; is an IP issue?

Can you provide examples specific cases of this having happened, in a manner that could conseivably causes harm?

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Nearly every serious complaint that can conceivibly be leveled at GMOs is in fact, not a problem with GMOs, but with Intellectual property law and the behaviour of companies.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:

Yes. I was focusing just on the legal issues, but Zombieneighbors and thejeff are right that the news coverage of Exxon's deceptions will be a big deal in the 'information wars'. It becomes more difficult to sell the public a false narrative when much of the news media is actually bothering to report the truth.

Of course... a legal finding against Exxon would really make things difficult for the conspiracy theorists. :]

I was going to say more, specifically that the main reason I am interested in the subject is actually the details of how the

tobacco tactic works , and ways in which it can be countered. Anything that shines light on Cato, heartland and George C. Marshal, and their activities as spreaders of misinformation is useful.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:

Getting back to Exxon and the growing evidenc ethey have intentionally misled the public... it has actually been rather well understood that they have been doing this for a while.

Interestingly, the book that really covers the extent to which this is an intentional approach to spreading disinformation is merchants of doubt. Apparently it has recently been made into a documentry.

Actually, the fact that they misled the public is largely irrelevant. As you note, that has been known for some time... and is generally protected by free speech. Lying to the public, especially for political purposes, is usually completely legal.

However, there are three potential areas where they could get in to trouble;

1: Product liability - If you tell people that your product is safe when it isn't then you can be sued for damages. This was a big problem for the tobacco companies, but may be less so for fossil fuel companies because there isn't as direct a connection between the individual product use and the individual damages.
2: Sales fraud - If you lie in an effort to get people to buy your product then you can be sued to recover any value which people were misled into believing they would receive. Again, this gets a little tricky with fossil fuels as they provided the promised benefits... so the question becomes whether value lost due to denial of drawbacks can be recovered.
3: Securities fraud - Finally, if you tell investors that everything is great with your stock when you know that there are factors that can or will drag it down in the future then you've defrauded your investors and they can sue to recover moneys they invested based on your fraudulent claims.

On this last point I think Exxon is toast. They've been telling investors that climate change is a fraud, not man made, won't have a significant impact, et cetera for decades. They only started listing it as a possible drag on their business in the past few years... but we now know they were well aware that it...

The legal recourse side of this sounds pretty interesting, certainly I hadn't considered that any of these legal avenues might be effective ways of taking action against exxon.

Getting back to Exxon and the growing evidenc ethey have intentionally misled the public... it has actually been rather well understood that they have been doing this for a while.

Interestingly, the book that really covers the extent to which this is an intentional approach to spreading disinformation is merchants of doubt. Apparently it has recently been made into a documentry.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I know, right?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sissyl, being asked to meet the basic burden of proof on your claims is not unreasonable. It isn't as though your being sealioned

I haven't yet got to the stage of digging into the spell list, with that kind of detail yet.

What I can say without looking at it too closely, is that large numbers of people teleporting all over the world is entirely outside of the spirit of the campaign setting.

A lot of the solution to this comes from the fact that spell casting is exceedingly rare, and high level spell casting is rarer still. I'd need to look at the spell in depth before I could give a definitive answer though.

My initial reaction is that I will replace it with a spell that allows movement through the fey realm or underworld, with some material world time dilation and significant cost (year of your life kinda stuff).

Orcs suck, they really do, they are just the most dull and pointless enemies in most fantasy settings. Are these orcs a little bit more interesting?

Incidentally, I think that Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 are examples of some of the only interesting orcs in fantasy RPG cannon.

Marathon Voter Season 9

Mikko Kallio wrote:
* The background is too distracting. I find myself unable to view the map because the walls are so hypnotizing... hypno... tizing...

I appreciate it isn't something your into, however, it is part of my style, and one of the things most of the people who follow my work like so, it isn't going anywhere.

Mikko Kallio wrote:
* There isn't a lot of room for the PCs. One of the PCs will be doing all the fighting while the buddies are cheering, buffing him, or trying to hit the foes with ranged attacks from behind cover.

Some of my best experience playing DnD can be described that way ;), but there are a lot of opportunities for the party or the monsters might use the environment to change this

Mikko Kallio wrote:
* It's a pretty standard dungeon crawl map, nothing terribly new or exciting about it. For RPGSS, I'd recommend something more imaginative for the location.

That might be a valid concern, but not one that is likely to change my approach. I'd rather do a "standard dungeon" that makes narrative sense, and do it well, than "gonzo-nonsensical land of adventure version 4.0". I would be infinately happier creating this this, than any of the maps who's designers are still in rpg superstar.

Marathon Voter Season 9

Trekkie90909 wrote:

The map actually lacks dedicated choke points; it's largely a series of 5' wide corridors

Just going over it quickly I can count at least 13 locations where a group can maintain a 2:1 melee advantage via choke point. Not to mention that every one of those 5' corridors functions as an enforces 1:1. So yes, there are choke points. Lot of them, all over the map.

Trekkie90909 wrote:
it's claustrophobic

It is a set of caves and catacombs. You know what caves and catacombs are? They are Claustrophobic. You believe this is a criticism, but what your in fact saying is that I made a map that conforms to the tropes and purpose for which it was drawn.

Trekkie90909 wrote:
and prevents any real teamwork.

The very claustrophomic nature of the environment allows all sorts of interesting teamwork, from the springing of meaningful ambushes, through to staggered retreat to more defensible positions.

Trekkie90909 wrote:
and dimensionality.

There are six stair cases, two piles of crates, a cliff and a waterfall. But sure, it lacks dimensionality. <.< >.> <.<

In fairness, it does have less than I would like (in fact, less than the finished piece would as there is meant to be a collapse through from the very highest layer adjoining the secret door, down through to the stairs, that I seem to have turned off the layer for when I exported this version), but hey, there is a limit to the amount and types of elevation change that would have made sense in the map.

All that isn't to say that their isn't meaningful feed back that could be given. The most obvious is that it really only offers a single linier path to competion, and there is very poor connectivity between the the different areas. That means meaningful choices regarding exploration of the map is going to be limited.

I am not opposed to getting feedback (it isn't what I posted it for but I'll take it ), but that feed back aught to actually be you know useful and accurate.

Marathon Voter Season 9

A, not posted for review. Shared in an idle moment for people to enjoy. If I wanted review of it this is not where I'd come for it. I'd ask Dyson Logos, simon forester or one of the othe members of the cartography brain trust ;). As for looking lazy...dude, if I have no need of a thing, I am not going to waste effort on it. The scale and style is outside my normal playground, so the last few bits of polish were not going to be useful practice. If you consider that lazy, fin, for I am comfortable considering it economical use of effort.The entry may include up to 50 words of explanation not presented on the map itself.

B. The rules for round 2 say "The entry [b]may[/] include up to 50 words of explanation not presented on the map itself".
Text was not a requirement. My understanding is that will not be allowed at all, as of next year.
B2.I was not sharing my entry, I was sharing the work I did on the map I would have entered.

Marathon Voter Season 9

Trekkie90909 wrote:
It's interesting, if a little busy. Looks like an abandoned crypt that's been taken over by smugglers; I'd definitely use it. That said there could be a stronger tactical emphasis, a legend, some highth notes for the different terrain features, a name, and a 50 word description.

You realise that the reason it doesn't have a key, is that it is unfinished.

This is pretty much the state it was in when the top 32 came out. That said, I suspect that if I were to drop this into one of the G+ mapping communities, all but one feature would be instantly understood byost viewers. Dungeon Maps have a language.

As for text.

No a good map speaks for itself.

To illustrate:
-you understood what the map was as a whole.

-you understood the difference in theme between the two major regions.

-you understand the map has dimensionality

As for a stronger tactical emphasis,the map has:

-Numerous chock points
-Water obsticles
-water based hiding places
-uneven footing(fifghts on the rough hewn stairs)
-ambush points.
-points where the pc or their foes can lap around and attack their oposition in the rear.
- freight that can pushed over onto the enemy

Do you really think it needs more, cause honestly there are a fair number opportunities just in that list.

Marathon Voter Season 9

This is the map I was working on in the run up for use if I had made it through. It isn't great(not my best to be certain, but I usually work with different scales), especially when compared to the people I consider to be good map designers, but hey I still like it. here

Torment, baldur's gate, baldur's gate 2, Icewind dale, and icewind dale 2. in that order of preference.

What is it you enjoy about roleplaying?

Are you willing to try things further out beyond 4e and 5e?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

One of the pleasures of removing the connection between wealth and level comes at the other end. You don't have to give them much loot.

Try giving them a handful of gold an adventure, but keep closs track of rations, healing potion and torch usage. Go into detail about the terrible food and lousy nights sleep from low lifestyle expenditure.

Zhangar wrote:

@ Zombieneighbors - Here's this thing that'll instantly kill you if it notices you (and by all rights, if you can see it, it should notice you, but some reason it doesn't), but if you jump through a bunch of hoops, you can kill it through a plot event -

That sounds more like it's out of a Sierra game than it sounds like Old School table top adventuring =P

(Mainly because if you actually ran that scenario in a table top environment, the beholder would notice the low level party and kill them. The only way the party even survives that situation is GM fiat. (And I would consider playing the beholder super stupidly to be GM fiat.))

Because the chances of entity A seeing a group at elevation relative to it in both heavy shadow and cover when it is busy engaged in study are exactly as good as the chances of the group of adreniline fueled adventurers and highly focused, looking down on it from high above wherenit sits in bright light out in the open. Especially when one group is actively hiding and the other has no reason to suspect intruders.

Neither of those are nessisserially plot events though both could be set up as possible solutions, and one is very much more likely to have been done so.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

*Shrugs* I enjoy my wrong bad fun much more than maximising my DPR, what can I say. ;)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I never claimed it did happen that way morebin the seventies and early 80s. I wasn't there. However, it is exactly the kind of thing the old school movement hold up as being old school, and since they aee the group who describe their play style as old school, I do think they have some legitimate claim as to expertise on what they mean by old school.

Jacob Saltband wrote:
You know, this might just be me as well, but if your encountering Beholders before 9th+ level then you might want to try a different GM.

not within the old school paradigm.

In that style of play you might well find a beholder at low level. The challenge is realising it is not an encounter that can be overcome easily or perhaps at all by combat(depending on edition)

Old school players say...don't know what that thing is but it is huge and floats and has lots of eyes, lets:

- Find a different way forwards.
- go back upto the underground river, and divert it flow here with dam at the edge of the abyss. All the door ways on this level are those weird air lock things so we should be able to direct the flow. We can just drown it. Best bit we can use that weird goblet with the gate in it to drain the water onto another plane when it is dead.
- go back to the room directly above this and turn of the levetation device holding up the hundred ton sphere of metal. Because if I have mapped this place correctly there is only maybe 10' of stone between the two rooms. It might well fall through into this room and kill this thing.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fetches haveminds that are totaly inhuman, but designed to let them hide amongst us.

They feel no empathy, but are able to emmulate it. This means they can be both charming and manipulative; but also horrible cruel at times. They are all driven by a fround urge to secracy as regards their nature, this can express itself in many ways, but the most common is for fetches to shape their behavour to the expectations of others. After all, they reason, with no life of their own, why sould what they want matter?

However they are fey creatures, and there sense of what is an appropreate way to forefill the expectations of others tends toward the extravigant. A parent who praise them, tells them to be kind and good, and to help others, will likely produce a hero nine-times out of ten. On the other hand, a bad environment turns the quickly into cruel and implacable villains.

Physically they age like humans. Their wooden bodies grow and change. They are each surrounded by a glamour that makes them appear to be the human they would have replaced.

- Life style (and retirement fund)
- training (language and tool proficiencies)
- raising armies.
- building fortresses
- gifts for NPCs
- better non magical equipment.
- ships
- civic improvements
- bribes


fosterlings and fetches, two sides of the same coin.

Social Engineering, Careful Research, and probably Poison.

Marathon Voter Season 9

Well, having looked at all the maps and taken some time to think, I have to ask, is anyone else left deeply disappointed by the general level of quality?

Marathon Voter Season 9

Oh, I was unaware of that item. That is pretty cool, but not the same thing ;)

DrDeth wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Chainmail wrote:
I remember starting in a setting called Dragonlance. The story begins where clerics do not get to have any spells at start until the Disks are found in the adventure. I do not think this would fly today.

I can tell you now it totally would fly today.

The key thing is that the GM would be expected to announce before people made characters that clerics would start without spellcasting and it would have to be earned mid-game.

This might mean that none of your players choose to take clerics and that's ok.

Lots!!!! of fun, if you consider resting for days after every little combat= "fun".

What it means is that; no combat is a little combat.

I am actually using a set of house rules for 5e that will mean that natural healing is an important aspect of the game.

Marathon Voter Season 9

Trekkie90909 wrote:

Hungry Ghost Incense

Aura faint abjuration and conjuration; CL 3rd
Slot none; Price 150 gp; Weight —.
This light grey stick of incense smells faintly like rotting flesh. When lit, it burns away rapidly, creating smoke that fills a 10-foot cube (treat the effect as a fog cloud spell, except that a moderate or stronger wind dissipates the smoke in 1 round, and it does not obscure vision or provide any form of concealment). The stick is consumed after 1 round, and the smoke dissipates naturally after 1 minute.
The smoke prevents incorporeal undead from making physical contact with living creatures within the smoke. As a result, the natural weapon attacks of incorporeal undead to fail when targeted against living creatures within the smoke.
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, protection from evil, fog cloud; Cost 75 gp


Everything seems in order.

Does this add something to the game?

I recall ghost salt doing the same thing if placed in a circle or used to line doors/entryways; a quick search of the pfsrd does not support this – corroboration from the community one way or another?

Would I want this in my games?
As a Player?

I’m going to assume that I’m just not remembering the correct name, and that there’s an item which already does this. I do like the effect.

As a GM?


Point at which I would stop up-voting: Pre to First cull.

Having gone throught through PFSRD's magic items, with a search terms of "incorporial undead", and "undead", I am relatively certain that no such item exists.

Marathon Voter Season 9

Hands down the best of the maps. One of a handful of maps that was genuinely clear as to what it depicted. One of only a small handful of maps that was interesting in and of itself.

While it isn't a voting criteria, this is also one of only a very small number of maps in the competition that was in anyway aesthetically pleasing to look at.

Ambrosia Slaad:

LotFP is pretty close to a one man band, at the publisher level. It is James Raggi and that is about it. The article your linked too looks pretty much in keeping with Raggi's approach to things, and it mirrors stuff he has been saying on G+. He has certainly said that he thinks the new content policy is a "bad thing". He has also expressed concern that his content is at risk from the new policy.

The overall problem is that, while LotFP is a fairly middle of the road psudo-retro-clone with some very interesting mature content, there are a fair number of very toxic individual.

Raggi regularly says some pretty stupid and unplesant things, including having signal boosted the games design work of a european white power hate group leader. Worst, I am growing increasingly to believe that it is all performative, a way to market his game on shock.

Then you have Zak S, who is basically poison (don't get me wrong, poison who has done some relatively interesting work, but a really unpleasant individual too)

I turned a blind eye to some of the more crazy s!*~ raggi did for a long time, because I was initially taken in by LotFP, as something which bucked the occasionally puritanical culture of american gaming. I thought it was kind the DnD equivilant of old school WFRP with more naked breasts and some lovecraft. I wish I'd realised how wrong I was sooner

A place for the spill over about all things meat in the climate and conspiracy theories thread.

Aniuś the Talewise wrote:

I'm still not convinced that enough people will ever become vegan to render the meat industry defunct that way, seeing as that diet is simply not for everyone and not everyone has access to it for economic or health reasons even if it's what they want.

I think a more effective way to destroy the meat industry is to attack the structure of the industry itself and the structures that underlie it, but I am not educated in that matter, so don't ask me how that could be done.

It doesn't have to, if the aim of the vegan, vegetarian, or person eating less meat is A, reduce their own culpability in the suffering caused, B, to reduce the amount of suffering.

If all those vegans, ect all eat meet like the average american, then the total level of suffering.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:

And then she has nothing to do with this.

If you are a vegetarian for ethical reasons but still eat dairy your ethics are inconsistent. No amount of ethical calculus, flam flam, rationalization, or goal post moving changes that.

If that fact makes you uncomfortable, either eat meat or stop eating dairy.

If me calling you ethically inconsistent bothers you, then either examine your ethics and resolve the inconsistency (see above) or grow up and stop caring if some random person on the internet likes you or your life choices.

They are not inconstant, they are just not absolutist.

There are significant welfare issues relating to milk cows sure, but the numbers of animals in the dairy industry is relatively small(around 9 million milk cows in the US ). By contrast, the hog farming industry alone has somewhere in the region of 67.8 million pigs the U.S. according to the Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Census(2007).

Even if the suffering of an the average individual dairy cow is three times that of the average pig (which in modern pig units is questionable) the pigs alone have it by a country mile. In fact, an individual milk cow has to suffer seven and a half times as much to make the dairy industry a bigger welfare issue than the hog industry.

Krensky wrote:

If you choose not eat meat but choose to eat dairy there are two explanations:

1. You are a hypocrite.
2. You are ignorant of the realities of dairy farming.

There are no other options.

No matter how much you rationalize it or justify it dairy farming creates just as much pain and suffering as meat farming, largely because they'r essentially the same thing.

But again, whatever makes you feel better about yourself.

This is not even remotely true.

If course A caused X suffering and course B cause Y suffering, and X>Y, then it is a consistent utilitarian ethical stance to say that B is more ethical than A.

In this case, so long as your in take of eggs and dairy does not increase beyond in take of your pre-vegetarian diet, then the maths is clear, the vegetarian diet is more ethically sound.

Even if your intake increase, it it entirely possible that your diet is more ethical, upto fairly large intakes of dairy and eggs, because the sum of suffering caused by meat consumption was very high.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

ThaX you said

'"greenhouse" gasses have been around well before the industrial revolution, yet the overall want for woe seems to give credence to theories that would not even be considered a century ago'

Now your saying

'A hundred years ago? You mean in 1917? or in the 1800's that I was talking around about?'

You sir, are moving the goal posts.

However, you did not move them far enough. As others have pointed out, Svante Arrhenius had had published his findings within the 19th century.

1 person marked this as a favorite.


The nutriant group your looking for is proteins food (or rather, the amino acids that the proteins are made up of). Although it is possible you might mean fats.

The fact is that actually we can get every amino from non-animal sources. There are many people who in fact do live entirely healthy lifes without eating meat or fish.

That isn't to say that meat isn't a palitable and highquality source of protein and fat. It is. It enrichs our diet certainly.

But your know what, people in developed nations do not need to eat it two to three meals a day. Which is what I mean by cut down the amount of meat we eat. Their are good public health, animal wealth fare, environmental(without even getting into livestock produced methane) and ecology reason to reduce the amount of meat we use.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Funnily enough anthropogenic global climate change was suggested as a result of burning fossil fuels more than a hundred years ago. See Svante Arrhenius.

While emmissions per car is lower, the number of cars is larger. Meanwhile, amounts of fossil fuels burned to produce electricity also rise.

"Living in Indiana (and Indianapolis), the overall area has trees all over the place, and it seems to help overall." This makes absolutely no sense.

Farts contain Methane; Methane is an even more significant greenhouse gas than CO2.

Not to mention that there are many other good reasons for us to move towards lower levels of meat consumption.

1 to 50 of 4,083 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.