Zombieneighbours's page

Zombieneighbours wrote:

It offers an option.

It is up to individuals if they use it or not.

Obviously. It's also written with words. It's an archetype. It's in the cleric section! Now that all the obvious things have been pointed out...

It's a badly designed option. It's badly designed because it requires heavy negotiation with the GM to work in the first place, and involves a power hit with no compensation whatsoever, when the rules to do exactly the same thing are already in the core book.

Not only is it wasted pagespace to tell people they're allowed to do a thing they could already do, but it also implies that god domain pools are somehow a balancing factor (they're not), and that being able to mix and match domains is somehow a more-powerful option that needs to be offset by some sort of cost (it's not). It reinforces the same old tired horsecrap that wanting to play a cleric that isn't part of the already-made churches for the setting is something that needs to be punished, to prevent (imaginary) powergamers and to protect the purity of the setting or its canon.

On top of all of this, it obstructs roleplay in order to place a completely ineffective obstacle in the path of supposed powergamers. If someone is concerned only with the most effective character they can make, they'll simply choose the god that offers the most effective domains. (You stymie that player by making all of the domains more or less about as good as each other.) Instead, the only players affected by this are the ones with offbeat concepts, like the Death domain cleric of Iomedae or whatever. That player gets a less-effective character despite trying to make a more-interesting character, just because they aren't playing the way the designers wanted him to play.

That kind of crap has to stop.

All character creation requires negotiation with the storyteller.

Campaign power levels, base assumptions and setting all influence what is and is not an appropreate character in a campaign. A campign designed for fred and Tom, murder hobbos inc, has different character creation requirements to a campaign designed for the wizards guild of awesome. So making Magnus the red, god wizard of awesome, in fred and Tom, murder hobbos inc game is going to such for everyone. How exactly is 'I was thinking about maybe playing a Iomedae cleric from an order of undead slayers, using the sepatist archetype and the pharasma version of death domain', a massive increase to the discussion you should be having with your DM and fellow players before making the character?

Secondly, there is compensation for the power hit. It allows you to achieve something that a campaign setting does not normally allow. It opens up a wide variety of builds to you.

Your entire argument seems to be predicated on the concept that taking a power hit is a bad thing.

It isn't. Encounter difficulty should be tailored to the player characters. Super optimised parties should find their adventure just as difficult as the murder hobbos find their adventure.

Zombieneighbours wrote:

Which is where setting and DM feed back comes in.

Discussion at my table probably goes something like this.

Chris: Ben, i have this awesome idea. I sepatist cleric of Iomedae, with the undeath domain.
Ben: STFU Fool.*hits chris with rulebook*
Chris:Ow, WTF. Oh yeah, your right that would be silly wouldn't it...how about I take the pharasman version of the death domain and be from an order of undead slayers devoted to Iomedae instead?
Ben: *Give the thumbs up and a cheesie grin*

In which case, you're already using DM fiat and might as well just let him swap out one of the domains without having to take the archetype.

No DM fiat detected. Perhapes the attempt at humour makes it a little confusing.

The point is that you talk with the player, ppointing out that the choice doesn't fit the spirit of the campaign setting, or the god involved. You ask if their sure their isn't a way to achieve your concept without clashing with the setting?

You don't have to change the rules by fiat, you don't have to rule they can't do it.

Sure I could rule they could just use the godless cleric rules, but that would also go against the setting, and I don't buy that optimality outways concept and setting as considerations in character creation. It comes in after both, as a way to make a concept work as well as possible within role-playing constraints.

Zombieneighbours wrote:

Its an option in all campaigns, and most useful in those campaigns that share one specific setting constraint with golarion.

Well, it's meaningless except in campaigns with no clerics without a specific patron god, and also meaningless except in games where there are few gods with small pools of domains, and also meaningless unless those gods have (more or less) one homogenous monolatrist church. It's also (obviously) out the door if the gods cannot power or will not tolerate separatist clerics to begin with. Even in those specific campaigns, it has the odd effect of encoding the "correct" way to worship a god into the game rules and also the world's magic metaphysic, as clerics of a splinter cult are demonstrably weaker than the mainstream church. This is also an undesirable effect in some games.

You need house rules, a particular magic metaphysic, and a particular sort of pantheon for this to be a meaningful choice. It's not particular to Golarion, but it's inappropriate for a broad variety of otherwise-standard campaigns.

It offers an option.

It is up to individuals if they use it or not.

Some peoples world are like that, in which case, woot, they get it.

For other people, it may reflect their concept accurately, and they are happy to take a very slight hit to their power level, in which case awesome.

But it isn't an option that exists only in golarion.

Cleric: "Hey, Iomedae, I want to worship your undeath aspect!"

Iomedae: "My what?"
Cleric: "You know, your love of the shambling dead and all that."
Iomedae: *sigh* "Alright, you can have the domain powers, but no evil spells."
Cleric: "Woohoo!"

Iomedae: *shrug* "At least it keeps these nutters from turning to Urgathoa."

Which is where setting and DM feed back comes in.

Discussion at my table probably goes something like this.

Chris: Ben, i have this awesome idea. I sepatist cleric of Iomedae, with the undeath domain.
Ben: STFU Fool.*hits chris with rulebook*
Chris:Ow, WTF. Oh yeah, your right that would be silly wouldn't it...how about I take the pharasman version of the death domain and be from an order of undead slayers devoted to Iomedae instead?
Ben: *Give the thumbs up and a cheesie grin*

Jenner2057 wrote:

Nope! We've both already contributed equally to our curb when we paid state tax on our last bottle of Wild Turkey we bought.

Its impossible to know all the circumstances surrounding some hypothetical lemonade stand owner, and whether he enjoyed some advantages relative to some other (hypothetical) person. Luckily, we don't need to know them to say with absolute certainty that all of us owe a great deal to our fellow citizens, past and present.

Further, what remains in question is the strength of correlation between ability/drive/risk and achievement. The weaker the link, the less compelling the argument predicated on "meritocracy."

And in america(and britain too, to our eternal shame), where you start your life seems to be a far more important than any of those things.

Zombieneighbours wrote:

Doesn't it make more sense to give him the ten, than for him to mug you later and take everything you earned though? You might even be able to get him a good meal, and sobber for long enough to employ him, meaning one less guy with nothing and a grudge.

Make more sense to give him money so he doesn't take my money?

Please tell me you're not serious here. I realize you're playing within my silly scenario I set up, but the Mafia called and want their protection racket back. :)

In all serious, it WOULD make more sense to employ him. And if I'm a smart businessman I'll do just that!
But it's not YOUR or any other person's place to tell me to GIVE him that ten bucks so he can turn around and blow it on strippers again.

Your right I was playing with the silly. However, in the real world, there are occasions where actually it kind of is our collective right to ask certain things of one another. Atleast if we are going to live as part of the same society. Vaccination for instance.

Disease can in a large, densely populated and mobile society cause massive grief. Vaccination is one of the best ways of stopping it doing so.

While individual vaccination is effective, it is far more effective if the entire population is inoculated, a principle called Herd immunity. If you choose not to be inoculated, your decision not only endangers ourself, but also me and everyone else. If you wish to live in the same society as me, I ask that you be inoculated against common diseases.

Food, shelter and drugs are kind of the same in many ways. If i am hungry and addicted to alchol, you bet the chances that I will commit a crime are elevated from a non-hungry nor sated state. Ensuring that no member of a society is starving, without shelter, or in need of forfilling an addiction is arguably a more cost efficient way of reducing crime than incarceration. Prisons are massively expensive, as are running court and police services.

Jeremiziah wrote:

Jenner2057 wrote:

Well from my own experience it's usually "I'm a self-made businessman, I already pay taxes so why is everyone expecting me to pay even more?"

And here's the big issue. Just because someone benefited more -maybe from wise business choices?- they have to pay more back in?

I'm sorry, but if we're both homeless and a stranger gives us both $5, if you blow yours on strippers and I set up a lemonade stand and turn my 5 into 20, I'm not giving you ten bucks. :)

You are if you set your lemonade stand up on a curb that you and I both own.

Nope! We've both already contributed equally to our curb when we paid state tax on our last bottle of Wild Turkey we bought.

My profit is mine. Sorry, next time don't blow your money on strippers. :)

Doesn't it make more sense to give him the ten, than for him to mug you later and take everything you earned though? You might even be able to get him a good meal, and sobber for long enough to employ him, meaning one less guy with nothing and a grudge.

Zombieneighbours wrote:

The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:

Zombieneighbours wrote:

The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:

Actually, data shows a recent cooling trend period, don't have the exact years handy at the moment. It is "climate change" instead of global warming.

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies Disagree

In fact GISS, HadCRU and NCDC, provide data that show a 95% confidence that the trend is 0.17 +/- 0.03 degrees per decade

Note that I had already removed that statement from my post prior to this being posted.

Direst copy paste from your post after refresh Three seconds ago:

Actually, data shows a recent cooling trend period, don't have the exact years handy at the moment. It is "climate change" instead of global warming.

Then your stuff sucks becuae I checked my post after yours was made and before making mine. I even scrolled up the screen to look at the post when making this one.

Not what you say it is.
That's a fact.

I am not sure why your getting angry with me over a cache error.

regardless, you did say it. Good for you admitting your wrong and removing it. The information is still useful, as it supports ciretose point. I.e. That global temperature is rising and that isn't really up for debate.

I have edited the post to remove the attributation to you however.

Regarding ciretose's point about increases in global temperature.

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies Disagree

In fact GISS, HadCRU and NCDC, provide data that show a 95% confidence that the trend is 0.17 +/- 0.03 degrees per decade

I explained my belief to a co worker once like this. I see evidence of a greater being at everything I look at. When I see the night sky full of stars, the power of the sun and single celled organism through a microscope, I see God. The math just makes too much sense for it not to be designed in my eyes. Others look at the same thing and don't see it, but that's ok with me too. The greatest tragedy is when people tell each other they are wrong and deal in absolutes. The open minded can be just as close minded at times.

That's cool. I still think your wrong. I could explain why in detail, but there is no need. Your kind of belief isn't trying to prevent children from getting proper education, it is making you happy and the major problem I have with your church, if your anything like the Catholics I know IRL your even more angry about than I am. I see no reason why we couldn't get on perfectly well. And I suspect you'd find some of the beliefs of creationism just as amusing as I do, such as 'you cannot create new genetic information'. Your background is in environmental science, so I am guessing you know about enough about genetics to find such a claim amusing.

If there is one thing I don't agree with you on though. I don't think it is a tragedy when someone tells another they are wrong. Because we live in a world where there are right and wrong answer. While we can never be 100% certain that a position is right(we cannot know something with absolute certainty.) We can be sure enough to make rational decisions. I mean, you and I don't try leaving our houses by the window on the second floor, in the belief gravity is not real, do we? And we would discourage anyone who tried to do so. The strange and often funny beliefs of many creationists are as wrong as the belief one can fly, and when spread potentially even more dangerous.

The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:

Hiro wrote:

Awww, that was a good discussion. Too bad people had to ruin it by ridiculing people's beliefs and name calling. What happened? I thought we were having a grown up discussion.

What happened to the tax discussion? Taxation today is one form of tyranny of the majority and that is one thing the founding father's feared.

I take part of the blame for it disintegrating, now.

We were having a discussion til zn did this,...again

Zombieneighbours wrote:

Paul Watson wrote:

Climate Change links as refuting the same boring PRATTs on Climate Change is about as fun as refuting them on Evolution.

18 questions and answers from New Scientist

New Scientist Introduction to Climate change

Both are from 2006 and so will not have been updated with the latest research but should cover most of the alleged problems.

Do yo think? I mean, creationists are usually kind of funny. Their so out their that there is inherant fun, even if the repetition of the same list or reufations gets trotted out time and time again.

I find Climate change deniers just plain dull by comparison. And you have to still trott out the same refutations a hundred time.

Basically, I get tired of putting up with s*#! like that repeatedly from the same people. So, I decided to do something different.

I am a catholic who believes in creationism, that is why math is so prevalent in the universe and also have a BA in environmental science, but I have learned that it is far more interesting to hear people's beliefs and why they do, than to argue who is right and wrong. In my line of employment I am a minority who gets laughed at because I have a different belief. But I persevere and so should you.

Dude, if you can square that circle, and it doesn't affect your work. Good for you. I disagree with your conclusion that their is both a good, and that he created the universe. I just don't see any evidence to support that hypothosis.

But your not reflective of the group who refer to themselves as creationist. You do not near as I can tell, believe the world is 6,000 years old, made in seven days and that noah had awesome dinosaurs on a huge boat.

You have not expressed views with are counter to all the evidence of biological science, geology, physics and chemistry. You don't seem to believe that the flood was caused by the breaking of the firmimant and its fall to earth, or the land mass suddenly falling hundreds of meters and shooting jets of water into space, causing the craters on the moon.

To anyone with an education in the sciences such beliefs are tragically funny, because they are indicative of complete detachment from reality.

They are entitled to hold the view, but those beliefs have no inherant right to be protected from ridicule, than some one saying commoner is the best choice of class in hyper-optimised a game of pathfinder.

Zombieneighbours wrote:

The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:

You claimed the majority are from right wing think tanks.

Give anecdotal evidence that some aren't.

Looks like you made that up to me.

Work for in this case is colloquial. It includes, directly employed by, membership of, free lancing for, or working on projects for which funded by the organisation.

I then provided twenty eight individuals, from the first list I found going, of notable climate sketpics. Of the twenty eight, six where not directly employed or members of a right wing think tank. Of those, all but one(of the top of my head), I found had serious conflicts of interest.

I am more than prepared to work my way slowly through the rest of said list. Maybe even a few more from other lists, if I don't get bored first.

It isn't anacdotal, though the sample size is small.

You can think it is made up, that is your porogative, but just because you want to believe it so, doesn't make it so. If your really interested in the subject, a good place to start is Naomi Oreskes' book "merchants of Doubt."

If you don't have the entire sample or something that is DEMONSTRABLY a significant sample of those who hold a pov, reaching conclusions about the whole sample is making stuff up.

Do you just not understand anecdotal and what it means?

You are continuing to argue it means something it doesn't.

The sample is simple to large to be practical. I have come to the conclusion based on researching the subject. I can point you in the right direction for the books and papers you'll need to read to understand it. I can post video's that provide a summery of said books, I can point out the money trail from energy resource companmies to research, I can show you relatively representative snapshots of the data. I can explain the governing principles to you. I can provide specific examples of historic and current disinformation publication be these think tanks.

What I can't do is right you the 7,000+ words min essay, with meta analysis, that it would require demonstrate what your asking for to you without the need for you to do the work your self. At least, not without pay. Because their arn't enough hours in the day for me to waste them on it for you.

Buts them's the breaks.

If your really, desperately must have me demonstrate your wrong on this, thats fine. Pay me £200 + expenses, and I'll work on providing you the information by the end of the month. If your not willing to do that, do the work your self.

Climate Change links as refuting the same boring PRATTs on Climate Change is about as fun as refuting them on Evolution.

18 questions and answers from New Scientist

New Scientist Introduction to Climate change

Both are from 2006 and so will not have been updated with the latest research but should cover most of the alleged problems.

Do yo think? I mean, creationists are usually kind of funny. Their so out their that there is inherant fun, even if the repetition of the same list or reufations gets trotted out time and time again.

I find Climate change deniers just plain dull by comparison. And you have to still trott out the same refutations a hundred time.

You claimed the majority are from right wing think tanks.

Give anecdotal evidence that some aren't.

Looks like you made that up to me.

Work for in this case is colloquial. It includes, directly employed by, membership of, free lancing for, or working on projects for which funded by the organisation.

I then provided twenty eight individuals, from the first list I found going, of notable climate sketpics. Of the twenty eight, six where not directly employed or members of a right wing think tank. Of those, all but one(of the top of my head), I found had serious conflicts of interest.

I am more than prepared to work my way slowly through the rest of said list. Maybe even a few more from other lists, if I don't get bored first.

It isn't anacdotal, though the sample size is small.

You can think it is made up, that is your porogative, but just because you want to believe it so, doesn't make it so. If your really interested in the subject, a good place to start is Naomi Oreskes' book "merchants of Doubt."

Zombieneighbours wrote:

The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:

Third:

"The vast majority of climate scientists agree that it is happening, that it is largely driven by man made release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The evidence is agrees with this view. It's how they came to this view. These men and woman work for a variaty of governmental, intergovernmental and educational institutions all over the world, with opposing levels of ideological stand point, political and economic view points, often publishing results which are inconvenient for their host nation."

What zn fails to mention is that these nations to which an overwhelming number of these scientists belong stand to benefit greatly from the US tightening its controls on itself. That is why when Al Gore spoke (in Indonesia or the Philippines, I believe) and stated to the crowd (that had been giving him support) how all countries need to cut back and just not the US the audience was so quiet one could hear a pin drop.

Point being, that for every or nearly every group one can say has monetary interests to make them deny manmade climate change, there are ten groups (on a national scale, arbitrary number 10...) with monetary interests in supporting it completely separate from whether or not it exists. All the developing nations plus India and China are huge players in that way. They demand to not be held to the same restrictions as the US. Money interests in a major way.

But zn can only see money as being a factor for those opposing zn's viewpoint. It gives zn a reason to dismiss others without analyzing their position. That is zn's mudus operendi (sp?). Namecalling to dismiss.

Paranoid fantasy of the worst kind.

At the very least, it is in accurate as the united kingdom and the USA are two of the largest contributors to research on climate change.

That said...

It is possible that other nations might be putting pressure on their academic institutions for some sort of master plan involving making developed world

...

Who is them?

China? A country that is building coal fired power plants to fuel it's growth, for whom america is their largest trading partner? Get a grip. Movement towards a global low carbon economy would cripple china.

No one is arguing that only america has to change. We all have to move to low carbon, or we are in big trouble, even china admit this and have changed their building regulations substantially to lessen the impact of the carbonisation of their economy.

Ofcause that ignores the fact that the US and UK are the two countries producing most climate science papers.

In a college classroom everyone uses the same sidewalk to get there.

Everyone uses the same pencils. Everyone uses the same blackboard (or projection system as the case may be). Everyone uses the same seats. Everyone uses the same air conditioning. Everyone uses the same textbooks.

Clearly, no one deserves an A.

No everyone deserves the opportunity to get an A, and if that means that student 1's billionar father pays a little more tax, so that student B has an oppotunity to even attend the collage, then so be it.

Quote:

This predated the hockey stick email fiasco. That was more nonsense which was just a verification of what occurred in the report I am referencing.

The only thing the emails demonstrated was a willingness to substitute scandal for science. The non out of context release made it very clear that the scientists weren't doing anything remotely wrong.

The much touted "trick" in the reports was a method for making the climate data MORE accurate, something scientists are SUPPOSED to do.

Complaining that they were dismissive of opponents is irrelevant. In science your argument stands on your data. Being blatantly wrong gets you justly ridiculed in science. Its nothing new.

Thing that always amused me most about the non event that was climate gate is this. When a group of scriptkiddiez like Lulzsec crack the pentagon and it's all "Augh , this is a traversty!!!"

But apparently when CRU gets cracked, its a victory for truth.

Quote:

What zn fails to mention is that these nations to which an overwhelming number of these scientists belong stand to benefit greatly from the US tightening its controls on itself. That is why when Al Gore spoke (in Indonesia or the Philippines, I believe) and stated to the crowd (that had been giving him support) how all countries need to cut back and just not the US the audience was so quiet one could hear a pin drop.

You lost me here. This plan looks like gnome underwear economics.

Tighten CO2 Emissions----->?????--------? Profit

Or that most of the research is done by exactly the countries who stand to loose most in his world view.

Quote:

“we have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data

available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”.

That pretty much flies in the face of what scientific work is supposed to be. It is on page four.

I would imagine they're worried about the heartland institute doing to the raw data what defense attorneys try to do to DNA evidence.

It isn't as though their is no president for the Big Three (Cato, Heartland and G.C.M.) doing exactly that...[Cough]CRU[/cough]

Werthead wrote:

Quote:

That is why when Al Gore spoke (in Indonesia or the Philippines, I believe) and stated to the crowd (that had been giving him support) how all countries need to cut back and just not the US the audience was so quiet one could hear a pin drop.

That's been a key issue all along, though. The USA, Canada, Australia and Europe can - relatively straightforwardly if not for the current economic crisis - switch to much more sustainable energy sources if they exert the will to do so. In fact, a move in this direction is pretty much inevitable for reasons that have nothing to do with climate change at all: declining oil production will force the adoption of hydrogen cells for transport (since electric isn't working out as hoped, at least not yet) and nuclear power can take care of most domestic concerns (provided people aren't scared off it by the recent issues in Japan), though the lead-time in building nuclear power stations could be inconveniently long.

What is hugely problematic are developing countries who have effectively been told they can't go through a carbon-burning stage in their industrial development the same way that the USA and Europe did. Leapfrogging that stage straight to renewables is extremely expensive and difficult to do, but it's also vital since the world probably doesn't have enough easily-exploitable oil reserves left for the masses of China and India to go through what Europe and the USA did a century earlier. So we're telling them they need to tighten up their act as well and they don't like it, and I don't entirely blame them. But it's also true that they need to do it. The USA and Europe adopting renewables whilst China, India and poorer countries not doing so would be worse than useless.

We seem to be drifting rather far off-topic here.

Yes, but this is more interesting. ;-)

As for the devedloping countries, you're right. The thing is, if we don't do anything about it, why on Earth should they? We keep saying howe important it is then,...

So are we supporting Perry or Bachman? I mean we win either way right?

Third:

"The vast majority of climate scientists agree that it is happening, that it is largely driven by man made release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The evidence is agrees with this view. It's how they came to this view. These men and woman work for a variaty of governmental, intergovernmental and educational institutions all over the world, with opposing levels of ideological stand point, political and economic view points, often publishing results which are inconvenient for their host nation."

What zn fails to mention is that these nations to which an overwhelming number of these scientists belong stand to benefit greatly from the US tightening its controls on itself. That is why when Al Gore spoke (in Indonesia or the Philippines, I believe) and stated to the crowd (that had been giving him support) how all countries need to cut back and just not the US the audience was so quiet one could hear a pin drop.

Point being, that for every or nearly every group one can say has monetary interests to make them deny manmade climate change, there are ten groups (on a national scale, arbitrary number 10...) with monetary interests in supporting it completely separate from whether or not it exists. All the developing nations plus India and China are huge players in that way. They demand to not be held to the same restrictions as the US. Money interests in a major way.

But zn can only see money as being a factor for those opposing zn's viewpoint. It gives zn a reason to dismiss others without analyzing their position. That is zn's mudus operendi (sp?). Namecalling to dismiss.

Paranoid fantasy of the worst kind.

At the very least, it is in accurate as the united kingdom and the USA are two of the largest contributors to research on climate change.

That said...

It is possible that other nations might be putting pressure on their academic institutions for some sort of master plan involving making developed world stop producing so much carbon. But where is the evidence that they actually are.

That is the difference.

We have a clear money trail from Exxon and others, to GCM, Cato, and heartland, plus others.

There activities clearly and directly benefit those paying.

It is a matter of historical record that they have used this technique before.

And their current behaviour carries all the hallmarks of the same approach now.

On the other hand...
you have wild speculation involving underwear/????/profit

First, this:

"The vast majority of the tiny subset of climate scientists who hold views opposed to the consensus work for a small number of right wing american think tanks, who are demonstrably on the payroll of major oil companies(especially exxon)."
Made up horse hockey. The bias in the above quote is so obvious as to be laughable. Facts and figures need to be presented? Studies have been done that determine how many support which idea (specifically climate change is mostly manmade) and that valid scientific studies have also determined that a majority of those who fit a particular category are part of right wing think tank supported groups.

Yes, studies have been done which show general levels of support, for the various sides of the argument in climate science circles. Such as Naomi Oreskes' a leading historian of science, and Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California San Diego, who has made the study of the 'climate science debate' her speciality in the last decade. Meta data analysis of climate science abstracts carried out by Prof. Oreskes, finds little to no support for climate change denial in the literature.

Oreskes also finds that all major american scientific bodies support anthropogenic climate change.
While Anderegg,Prall Harold, and Schneider found in 2010 that of the top 200 climate scientists in the world(by expertise) about 2.5% disagreed with Anthropogenic climate change.

There are of cause some scientists who oppose the concept of Anthropogenic global climate change. Many of the most published, are not even climate scientists. The reason for this is of cause that their are very few climate scientists who actually disagree with the hypothesis.

It would be a nightmane to demonstrate a majority connection, not impossibly, but also not something I have any interested in doing with my free time without pay. However, I can with relative ease show a snapshot which illustrates the point rather nicely. Wikipedia has a list of "scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming."

Freeman Dysonv connected to: Heartland Institute and Cato Institute

Richard Lindzen connected to: George C. Marshall Institute, Heartland Institute and Cato Institute.

Garth Paltridge connected to: Heartland Institute and the Institute for public affairs.

Hendrik Tennekes connected to Science and Environmental Policy Project(SEPP) set up by Fred Singer, one of those responcible for the development of the tobacco tactic of disinformation.

Antonino Zichichi connected with Heartland Institute

Khabibullo Abdusamatov no connection found.

Sallie Baliunas connected with Heartland, George C. Marshall and Cato Intitute.

George V. Chilingar no connection found. However is a Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering, so has a vested interest.

Ian Clark connected with Heartland Institute, and Fraser Institute(exxon funded)

Chris De Freitas connected with Heartland Institute.

David Douglass connected to Heartland Institute.

Don Easterbrook connected to Heartland Institute.

William M. Gray connected to Heartland Institute.

William Happer connected to George C. Marshall Institute.

William Kininmonth connected to Heartland Institute and Fraser Institute.

David Legates connected to Heartland Institute and George C. Marshall Institute.

Tad Murty connected to Fraser Institute.

Tim Patterson connected to Heartland Institute.

Ian Plimer connected to Heartland Institute.

Tom Segalstad connected to Heartland Institute.

Nicola Scafetta connected to Heartland Institute.

Nir Shaviv no connection found found at a glance but is pushing own hypothosis for global climate change causes (with Jan Veizerno).

Fred Singer founder of Science and Environmental Policy Project, connected to Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation and Heartland Institute. key player in the development of tobacco tactic, connected to George C Marshall institute founders through work with Tobacco.

Willie Soon connected to George C. Marshall Institute, Fraser Institute, Heartland Institute and ExxonMobil Corporation.

Roy Spencer connected to Heartland Institute and George C. Marshall Institute.

Philip Stott no connection found at a glance

Henrik Svensmark no connection found at glance but is pushing own hypothosis for global climate change causes.

Jan Veizerno connection found at glance but is pushing own hypothosis for global climate change causes(with Nir Shaviv).

Would you like me to go through the rest of the list as well? Or has the point been made clear?

So, because some tax dollars are well spent, all of them are? I would say research within natural sciences falls well within what I would call education. Social sciences, and lately, so-called "climate research", however, are too far gone as political fields, and should be relegated to voluntary donations. Oops, there go most of the social studies programs and other previously tax-financed crap. Because, at the end of the day, people want new cancer medicines, but social studies is going to find itself running VERY dry on money if they have to find donations. Take a look at what happened in Russia after 91 - the political/social sciences were the first casualty because nobody needed or wanted them.

Ah, just caught up with this...

Sissyl, thank you for making my point so very eloquently.

Climatology, like any other aspect of physics is a science.

The theoretical underpinning of our understanding of global climate change is pretty well understood and their is a heap of evidence supporting both that it is occurring and that it is anthropogenic in nature (I.E. man made.)

The vast majority of climate scientists agree that it is happening, that it is largely driven by man made release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The evidence is agrees with this view. It's how they came to this view. These men and woman work for a variaty of governmental, intergovernmental and educational institutions all over the world, with opposing levels of ideological stand point, political and economic view points, often publishing results which are inconvenient for their host nation.

The vast majority of the tiny subset of climate scientists who hold views opposed to the consensus work for a small number of right wing american think tanks, who are demonstrably on the payroll of major oil companies(especially exxon). Most notably the George C Marshell Institute, founded and run by a group of men who formulated the tobacco industries campaign of disinformation with regards to primary health effect of tobacco, secondary effect and addictiveness of nicotine, and who have been on the wrong side of everything from acid rain to the CFC regulation. Groups who's published material on climate change bare all the haul marks of the same disinfomation campaigned used in the case of tobacco, Acid rain, and CFCs, and who have openly declared ideological disagreement enviromentalism (describing enviromentalist watermelons "green on the outside, red on the inside.")

You want to stop funding largely unbiased scientific enquiry into an area that maybe one of the most important in our near future, and leave it as the exclusive play ground of the propaganda machine of a self declared interest group? Yes, I think you have made my point very nicely indeed.

Zombieneighbours wrote:

Dude, you have nothing on the real communists I have know. I have been called a rightwing tool of autocracy and a bougeous twit by better goblins than you. But good luck building that scarecrow. I have straw for its constuction, i'll even give it to you for free.

Actually, ZN, I am a real communist and actually I do in fact believe in everything I wrote. (Well, I wasn't hired by Paizo, no.) I quit the ISO (American version of the Socialist Workers Party) when I was 17 and spent half a decade in the Spartacist League/US (in Britain they publish the Workers Hammer). The Occupy Wall Street stuff comes from a movement that's going on in New York right now (look up Occupy Wall Street on the internet).

Anyway, I prefer a mix of humor AND politics in my Paizo threads, but if that isn't to your taste, I shall bow out.

Yours for the revolution,
Comrade Anklebiter

It's not that it isn't to my taste, it is that I have never seen it end well here.

Looking back over my time posting here, I can thinks of a number discussions threads of serious topics that went well, and ended with agreement, polite disagreement or even on occations people admitting they cannot think of a rebuttle to an argument, but that they just 'feel a certain way about a subject' which on the internet is the closest to changing someones mind most people will ever get.

All those threads had one thing in common. For the most part people didn't try to 'lighten the mood' in a passive-aggressive manner, posting the dreaded blue avatars of doom on a thread and no one posted as a Poe.

I am not saying your doing any of those thing, i am just so used to those thing from the many many train wreck threads on serious topics that I have become slightly hyper sensitive to such things. Nothing annoys me more than see the dreaded blue avatars of doom descend upon a thread, because it signals the end of any serious attempt to talk about the subject, and the point of no return for a thread.

If you genuinely are a communist, i'd be happy to try and move your political views to the right a considerable distance and be as happy to have my views as I ever am, if your up for a discussion on the subject, humour and all, but this probably isn't the place. Anyway, enough unintentional derailing of the thread.

Hee hee!

It is I, Comrade Anklebiter, goblin paladin and Chairman of the Commonwealth Party of Galt (Marxist-Leninist) and shop steward for the Amalgamated Coxswains, Stevedores and Riverboat Sailors Local 25.

I don't think it's been announced yet, but I was recently hired by Paizo, Inc. to troll the messageboards and pollute political threads with my socialist propaganda. They're not paying me much, but, hey, it's a living.

So, here goes:

Instead of taxing the rich, the poor should just rise up and take all the bosses' stuff. Seize the factories, the banks, the railroads and the airports! Elect shopfloor committees to run production! 30 hours work for 40 hours pay! Organize the unorganized! Organize the unemployed! Rise like lions and shake your chains for ye are many and they are few! We are the 99%! Occupy Wall Street! And the City of London! And, well, I don't know where Canadians do their muckety-muck financial stuff, but there, too!

[Falls to the floor, exhausted and spent, drooling and dreaming of autonomous workers' communes spanning the globe]

Dude, you have nothing on the real communists I have know. I have been called a rightwing tool of autocracy and a bougeous twit by better goblins than you. But good luck building that scarecrow. I have straw for its constuction, i'll even give it to you for free.

Like it or not, marx is a major contributor to modern politics.

Not sole in a negative way. Much bad was spawned from his work, but bad men will take good ideas and make bad things from them. Just see what the nazi's did to nietzsche, or what Simon Cowell did to music( and music is one of the all time greats of good ideas).

And actually "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a damned sensible idea, even if much of marx's ideas about how to achieve such egality, are utter tosh.

What makes "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is it is self regulating. Ability implies that no more should be taken than is availible to be spared, and need that no more should be taken than is needed.

Most take it need to mean something more like 'want' I think.

P.S. I was slightly unfair, and judged you to harshly Herr Anklebiter on your mostivations, for that i am sorry.

Zombieneighbours wrote:

"From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."

Must make will save, must make will save....17. Good.

By all means fail it.

(Edit: Actually I am just going to pre-empt, in the hope of preventing a major side track. Just because one unverifiable, heavily translated and no contemporary source has something minory insightful, and easily innuited by baseline human morality, does not provide compelling evidence that the subject of the text has magic powers, or that he is related to any kind of highly improbable universe creating entity.

I use the section because it is a very nicely written, and widely known. Plus a mild perverse pleasure in using the suposed words of jesus against conservative Americans, with the associated high portability that they are Christian. But frankly that all has nothing top do with this thread, so if you want to try and be snarky about my use of it, perhaps you could create a thread dedicated to that purpose and let this one stay on topic. I might even bother to read it. But I am not really interested in continueing the discussion here.

1. Doesn't particularly matter how the start-up money was acquired, the work, ideas, effort, and sacrifices made by the owner are the reason behind the success of any business. The same resources used by this guy are available to anyone, so why doesn't everyone have a factory that makes millions for them?

Actually it does matter. If it didn't matter, we would much higher rates of social mobility. We have every reason to believe the potential for work, ideas, effort, and sacrifices are roughly evenly distributed through population. Yet, ability to raise personal wealth is not evenly distributed through out the population. Those with wealthy families are more likely to become personally wealthy than those who do not have such wealth.

Not every new business person has the same resources, to claim that they do is paintently silly. A Edinburgh ned does not have the same resources for when starting a business, as tarquin from the home counties.

They have different social networks, different educations, different support structures, different quantities of ready capital, and different sources of ready invester. Their prospect are in short, entirely different.

3.Yes, and all along he was paying his fair share. What entitles the rest of us to a bigger piece of his pie? We could do what he has done for ourselves, if we were willing to put forth the effort and make the sacrifices and take the risks of this hypothetical...

What I think you miss is that fair can mean different things to different people. There are those here that think fair means everyone pays the same percentage of income.

While others of use, consider to be paying enough to ensure that others can with hard work achieve as much as you. While I am a comitted atheist, I think that who ever wrote Luke got it right when they had Jesus say

"From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."

No one is saying that people shouldn#t be allowed the enjoy the fruits of their labour. But it is fair that those who benefit most for society i.e. the rich, do most to ensure that society continues to help others have the same chance to do well.

thejeff wrote:

Hiro wrote:

He works in remodeling, so most of his clients are restaurants, mom and pop shops and small business offices. When they get in financial trouble, it stresses him out because work drops.

I think we should just go to a flat tax rate with no deductions, just pay 17% on everything, I just picked that number out of the air.

The overwhelming majority of those restaurants, mom & pop shops and small business offices will make well under $250,000 net profit. Even if they did make more, remodeling would be a business expense, thus deductible from that profit. I understand that them being in trouble means less work for him, but high marginal tax rates aren't why they're in trouble.

<I started to write a long Flat Tax rant, but ZombieNeighbours said it better and simpler. >

How does higher taxes help them? It just does not pass the duck test to me. If I earn more money, then I should pay a higher tax percent then someone else who makes less than me? Where is the incentive to succeed? It just sounds like we should hate rich people because they have more than us. That sounds like Marxism or communism, where the worker has a right to the factory the owner built.

Because higher taxation allows higher rates of spending on things which A, help the economy to grow (better infrastructural, better communications, more stable geo-politics) or makes their society more stable(better policing, better education, lower rates of crime, bet healthcare) healthy and stable populations with higher disposable income can spend their money one the services which make use of your father, who in turn improves his business.

It isn't about hating rich people, it is about sharing the burdon of society fairly.

If have £1000 of dispossibly income per month, I am going to miss 7% of it as much as a person with £10s of disposible income is going to miss 5% of his income.

It is also about producing a society in which having that good idea and working at it allows you to translate your social status. America live in the least socially mobile nation in the developed world. The simple truth is that if your born rich you stay rich, if your born poor you stay poor. You want what you work for to matter, right? Well, in countries which have greater levels of income equality (either because of payment decisions because of cultural norms or through tax redistribution) working hard and building a better life for yourself counts for more.

Isn't that a good thing? Isn't that what we all aspire too? Being able to work hard and do well? Countries where the rich say, you know what, other deserve the same opportunities I had, achieve that.

And that is what Warren is saying. If you do well, you have a responsibly to help others do well, because the chances are, some one helped you to get where you are today.

thejeff wrote:

Hiro wrote:

Looks like my post was cut off, but my Dad already pays taxes for roads and stuff like everyone else. He does not make 250,000 a year, that would be nice, but he is not comfortable enough to hire anyone else now, even though he needs the help. So raising taxes will put him out of business. If people do not like companies like GE from not paying taxes then simplify the tax code and vote for representatives that support your cause. The government is in power only because we the people allow it, so we can only blame ourselves for the way things are now.

So raising taxes on income over $250,000 or on certain deductions for people making over $1 million will put him out of business even though he isn't in those categories? Those are the only Democratic proposals on the table at the moment.

No one is proposing special taxes on small businesses below that cap.

There is a proposal, the only one Republicans have shown any support for, to simplify the tax code by removing deductions and lowering the top rate. That might save him a little, depending on where his income falls, but is more likely to cost him, and the rest of us, in lost deductions.

He works in remodeling, so most of his clients are restaurants, mom and pop shops and small business offices. When they get in financial trouble, it stresses him out because work drops.

I think we should just go to a flat tax rate with no deductions, just pay 17% on everything, I just picked that number out of the air.

How do you deal with the fact that 17% of the income of the very poorest is crippling taxation, and for the very richest has absolutely zero discernible impact on quality of life?

Not to mention the fact that such a tax would seriously harm your fathers businessin a way the proposed changes would not.

Zombieneighbours wrote:

Do you mean like those pesky fruit fly experiements in paris, france?

I really gotta hear this...

You see, problem with your approach is that most people don't have a clue. It a horrible truth about our respective societies, but a pertinent one none the less. People just don't understand the ways in which money they see as 'wasted' by government, actually fuels our society's scientific advancement or economic growth.

One example of this is the parable of Sarah Palin and the Humble Fruit fly. During her bid to be one seventy something heart attack away from being president, she who must not be invoked gave a speech, in which the following lines played a prominent part.

"You've heard about some of these pet projects, they really don't make a whole lot of sense and sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not."

She was talking about cutting other peoples 'stupid pet project' to fund her own pet project, autism research. I played well to the audience there, and received massive cheers.

But life is rarely as simple as political rhetoric wants us to believe, because you see, the humble fruit fly is a marvellous beast. With only four chromosomes, the fruit fly has a tiny genome, but it also exibits versions of an estimated 75% of human disease causing genes. Fruit flies, or more accurately Drosophila melanogaster, is "arguably on a par with the mouse as the founding model organism for the field of genetics."

Fruitflies, along side mice, our the future of medical research, because of the usefulness of their genome in the exploration of genetic causes of disease.

The fruit fly itself has opened up important avenues of research. Carolina Institute for Developmental Disabilities, at UNC, issued this statement in the wake of she-who-must-be-ignored's speech.

"The discovery, made in Drosophila fruit flies, may lead to advances in understanding autism spectrum disorders, as recently, human neurexins have been identified as a genetic risk factor for autism."

Palin got a massive cheer, for deriding the source of possible cures for autism, while trying to provide funding for the self same thing.

This trend flows through modern society.

We live in a time of scientific and technical renaissance. Now, a large portion of that is down to private industry. But such advancements are almost exclusively technological. New medicines, faster computers, that kind of thing. Amazing, wonderful things....but they are all built on the back of scientific advance, advancement almost exclusively paid for by use, through our governments.

This conversation might well not be happening without wouldn't be happening without British military advancements in computing for cryptography, or European in CERN, where many important internet protocols where born, and american investment in communications networking that gave birth Internet proper. It almost certainly wouldn't be happening without US investment in basic research into physics, especially quantum physics which gave us the transistor.

Curiosity driven research funded by government has been the driving force behind scientific advancement in the last two centuries. Even the theory of evolution by natural selection owes its existance to some degree to the investment of governments in scientific research(the vessal on which darwin travelled, as on a map making expedition for navy.)

There is good reason to believe that should government stop funding such 'wasteful' project, the difference in funding would not be made up elsewhere.

The LHC at CERN for instance, if it finds what it is looking for or not, will advance our understanding greatly, but it is in no way certain to provide any profitable application for companies. It cost is so vast, that no single company, nor coalition their off could afford to fund its construction and the running of the experiment, with the risk of no returns. Governments can take that risk, and science can say 'well s&&#, everything we thought we knew about physics is wrong, time to start looking for a different explanation' Which we all benefit from in the long term, but is an answer that would probably kill a company.

We already know charity can't do it either. It was the historical model, individual patrons funding research, or persuing it themselves. While it did provide some advancement, it was considerably slower than that which has occurred since the professionalisation of science. Even now, rates of charitably giving to science research, outside of a very few diseases, is almost no existant, as a share of charitable activity.

People just don't get how important this stuff is to their life.

As a result, they won't choose to pay for it.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I like the way you think Sissyl. We should set up more toll booths to collect the road money, and have the police bill citizens after each call. We can put all schools on the college tuition system. And then when we need to go to war, the public can just hire mercenaries to get the job done. And studies can be done based on the public need instead of government need. Maybe finally get that single payer health plan people have been talking about.

Not quite my meaning. I was thinking more along the lines of an extremely simplified police tax, road tax and education tax. Politicians using money for other things will simply have to finance it through voluntary measures. After all, if the politicians claim that the people stands behind invading, say, Burma, then there should be no doubt that they can get enough donations for it, right?

Do you mean like those pesky fruit fly experiements in paris, france?

Zombieneighbours wrote:

...or the inclusion of moral choices with only negative outcome (and/or situtations where the opposition is to powerful to attack, and the best way to overcome there advantage is to compromise your morality in some way.)....

The reason this gets called out is that it's entirely too easy to do it solely to pick on the party Paladin. Challenging players is fine, singling out A player is pretty poor form on the whole.

And you sign up for it when you play a paladin. The whole narrative purpose of the paladin is to be faced with the choice between sticking to your guns, and being and exempler of goodness and suffering for it in some way, or falling from grace.

In the heroes journey it can fit in at either the "The Road of Trials" or "Woman as temptress".

It isn't singling them out. It is providing them one of the high points of their characters story arch.

And I can think of nothing more depressing than a game in which my characters actions never improve anything, and always end up making it worse for the people he is trying to help.

But then, no one is arguing for such a game (are you ZN?), the same as no one is arguing for a 'Dudley-Do-Right hero always wins' game. (At least, I'm not.)

In fact, rereading Mikaze's post, he straight up says 'yes I want the PC to suffer setbacks. But when there is no chance to overcome those setbacks, I feel cheated'. So I'm not sure what you're arguing against.

Mikaze wrote:

Note that this is not, and some will certainly try to read it this way, a suggestion that such characters' experiences should be all sunshine and rainbows. If the world is set up with them on the outs, they should face challenges because of it. But they should also be able to overcome those challenges and have the opportunity to do so.

I mean, that certainly doesn't sound like 'I want to be loved by everyone and never challenged' does it?

No, I'm not. Even delta green, and wraith, two of the most doom laiden game I can think of need small victories.

That said it does sometimes feel, despite what Mikaze said in your quote, that there is a strong trend amongst many Pathfinder players to want to avoid any kind of tough choice or repercussion for their build choices based upon setting(or even mechanics).

Just see what happens if someone suggests rest disruption, spellbook attack and Hit and run tactics, as a balancing technique to the wizards god like powers, or the inclusion of moral choices with only negative outcome (and/or situtations where the opposition is to powerful to attack, and the best way to overcome there advantage is to compromise your morality in some way.)

All I am really saying is that:

At the end of the day, some settings have racism as an element, and some don't. In those that don't, their is not need to include it as a regular thing. In those that do include it, making it an element, and run with it.

It should be that simple.

If that player has no real hope of getting the world to react to what they're doing, then why should they bother with the game?

Not all roleplayers set out to 'win'. I have always had the most fun in games about fighting the good fight despite the lemons the world throws at you. In which the way you fail and the small victories you achieve upon the way, are worth it, because they buy a few more happy blessed days for the ignorant masses. One need only look at delta green for a setting where the PCs cannot win. Where the very conspiracy which give the setting it's name is doomed to failure, and death, along with humanity as a whole.

Some setting are set up in such a way, that if your telling the stories the setting was designed for, PCs are going to be the subject of hate, and that can be Hella fun. If your not into it, I can understand that(atleast on an academic level), but frankly I don't have the slightest interest in playing in games or settings where you play 'duddly do right' white hat hero loved by everyone, who never suffers set back, who never has to compromise on his morals (or for that matter suffer, suffer to maintain them), and who never see's his accomplishments come to nought.

I can think of nothing more boring, and it grates.

I used to play and run a fair amount of WFRP(stopped because their isn't a community of WFRP players here in colchester). I still run and play Call of Cthulhu, with a focus on the 1920s.

In WFRP, when I play a non-human, I expect institutional racism against my character and often treat humans who have not proven themselves worthy of respect like uppity children. Because that is the way the setting works. Race in WFRP is an issue, and I would be selling the setting short not to treat it as such, both as a player and as Games master. Almost al the keen WFRP fans I have played with, have felt the same.

Call of Cthulhu is the same, though it takes a slight backseat as my games tend to focus on the UK, rather than the US. I don't keep the in setting bigotry to racism either, gender, sexuality, mental illness and disability are up for grabs too, because it is set in the 1920's, because sufferage, the rise of fascism and pre-civil rights movement race issues are part of the bread and butter of the age, and make a nice counterpoint to the horrors of the mythos. If I play a gay, female or black character in such a setting, I expect to have that character be the subject of prejudice at some point, not only from the NPCs, but quite possibly the other PCs. It helps maintain the Verisimilitude of the game. I am very lucky to have a group who feel as I do on this subject, and who rise to the challenge playing characters alienated from their own lives.

The basic system for exalted, fits all three.

Tick based weapon speed: If you use a dagger you strike more often than if you use a great sword, but a great sword user can still potentially get the first blow.

Armour soaks up damage, rather than determining if your hit or not. Heavy weapons do more damage so go through armour better.

Stamina effects your ability to resist damage, undertake prolonged activity, and resist disease, but doesn't mean you can take more damage.

It also has a social conflict resolution system, and a stunt system, which encourages rich, exciting and fun description.

Very well, just remember that you lose 5 points for every magic item your build is dependent on. (I've decided to use Top Gear scoring here... UK style) I will be your Clarkson for this analysis.

Arg...A clarkson..Kill it!!!!!

There are lots and lots of options for Wizards, and blasting is one of them. It's not often the best option though.

But it can be a lot of fun :D

Zombieneighbours wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

I'm a little confused as to your point zombie. You seem to be saying that the game mechanics for Asian weapons aren't superior, but that we should repaint all of the western weapons as eastern ones so that they match mechanically?

Not really.

The "long sword" is the real worlds best known, most iconic example of the the long straight "one handed" sword. There have been long straight swords in other cultures, but generally speaking when we use them in games, we treat them as long swords.

All I am saying is that the Nodachi is probably the best known real world example of the curved bladed two handed sword, so we do with the Nodachi, what we do with the Longsword. And no, the falchion as described in dnd/pathfinder doesn't perform the role, because A, it isn't as mechanically good as it should be, and B, real world falchions are broad bladed scimitars, no two handed scimitars.

So in the same way that I can take the Ninja class, and use it to make an greek thanotic death-dealing assassin of fate, and I can take a european alchemist and make an taoist internal alchemist, I can use the Nodachi as a catch all term for curved two-handed swords, without blanching, because I already do something similar for the vast majority of the weapons as is.

Hope that is clearer.

wsell actually what D&D calls a long sword in the Real world would have been called an Arming Sword, and the D&D bastard sword would have been called a long sword, or War sword. I understand your point, butthen they did not need to make a new weapon, just errata falchion and put a not that the Nodachi was the equvilent of a Falchion.

And if you say "Arming sword" to a randomly selected sample of one hundred people, the chances are none of them will know what your talking about.(In a randomly selected sample of roleplayers, two will know, what it is, one of those will care, and probably insist that it is a travisty that it isn't the best weapon in their system of choice.)

You could do that, but you'd be perpetuating even more annoying (to me) discrepancy of pretending falchions are two handed curved blades. The Nodachi is simply the most iconic of such blades. It ain't no big deal. I mean the european weapon names by and large dominate the naming conventions, it isn't the end of the world that a japanese weapon gets to be the iconic for the curved two handed sword.

I'm a little confused as to your point zombie. You seem to be saying that the game mechanics for Asian weapons aren't superior, but that we should repaint all of the western weapons as eastern ones so that they match mechanically?

Not really.

The "long sword" is the real worlds best known, most iconic example of the the long straight "one handed" sword. There have been long straight swords in other cultures, but generally speaking when we use them in games, we treat them as long swords.

All I am saying is that the Nodachi is probably the best known real world example of the curved bladed two handed sword, so we do with the Nodachi, what we do with the Longsword. And no, the falchion as described in dnd/pathfinder doesn't perform the role, because A, it isn't as mechanically good as it should be, and B, real world falchions are broad bladed scimitars, no two handed scimitars.

So in the same way that I can take the Ninja class, and use it to make an greek thanotic death-dealing assassin of fate, and I can take a european alchemist and make an taoist internal alchemist, I can use the Nodachi as a catch all term for curved two-handed swords, without blanching, because I already do something similar for the vast majority of the weapons as is.

Hope that is clearer.

Zombieneighbours wrote:

Elthbert wrote:

ProfPotts wrote:

Zombieneighbours wrote:

I don't think the 'asian is always better' thing exists, or rather its a made up complaint by people who don't like asian stuff.

I'd respectfully disagree, and point to the nodachi (the falchion is dead), four-mirror armour (chainmail is dead), and similar things as way of proof.

Now, I do like Asian/wuxia stuff... I just don't like it being automatically flat-out better than everything else.

Yes of course, just like all Katanas are masterwork.

Eastern swords cut through steel ibeams and stuff don't you know, western swords suck, they ae brutish sloppy weapons. I mean didn't you see the Highlander, Conner new that, thats why hekept the Katana and dumped the sword he had trained ith all his life.

Plus eastern hand to hand is much better than those silly Western skill, Talhoffers wrestling, all those silly greek Pankration specialist, boxing, they all are humbeled before the might of Kung Fu.

The fact that Medieval swords have better steel than virtually any Katana, or that these men were increadinble skilled, and that there were schools of marital arts all over the western world.

Ehh stupid europeans its a wonder they survived with their backword ways. Certianly they could have enever fought successful battles against the mighty easterners with their metal cutting swords and thier lightning fast light armour.

Sarcasm off.

This is a long standing problem in D&D, it is a function ofthe problem in western culture. It is annoying, but I don' see it going away anytime soon.

No one here(that I have seen) is claiming that...

Prof Potts least of all.

His argument is that the Eastern Weapons are needlessly better than their European versions. He didn't say they should be better.

And I agree, however if your going to bother making them at all, they do need to be different, and personally I am in favour of having more options, and being able to

...

And they have two western swords which are same rough group, which are arguably even better, IE. the bastard sword and great sword. The Nodachi isn't as good as the the Falchion should be. The only bell and whistle is brace, up there is the best weapons. If you can't look at the Nodachi and say, okay, so this is the stats for a two-handed curved blade, I shall use it for blades which fall into that description, from around our world and myriad fantasy worlds, renaming it as needed, then I am sorry, but I think that says more about baggage against asian weaponry than any bias towards such weapons on the part of the designers.

This Is my line up of merit badges for my current Call of Cthulhu Campaign:

My games will tell an interesting Story

My games will be Scary

My games focuses on Exploration & Mystery

There will be Player vs Player combat allowed in my games

I will Mirror back player ideas I think are interesting in the game

The GM is In Charge in my games and "rule-zero" is in effect

My games rely on a lot of Improvisation rather than pre scripted content

My games include Disturbing content

My games focus on interesting Characters and Drama

Players characters Death is a likely event in my games

My game is primarily Non-Combat in nature

Players in my game should be prepared to Run when the odds are against them

ProfPotts wrote:

Zombieneighbours wrote:

I don't think the 'asian is always better' thing exists, or rather its a made up complaint by people who don't like asian stuff.

I'd respectfully disagree, and point to the nodachi (the falchion is dead), four-mirror armour (chainmail is dead), and similar things as way of proof.

Now, I do like Asian/wuxia stuff... I just don't like it being automatically flat-out better than everything else.

Yes of course, just like all Katanas are masterwork.

Eastern swords cut through steel ibeams and stuff don't you know, western swords suck, they ae brutish sloppy weapons. I mean didn't you see the Highlander, Conner new that, thats why hekept the Katana and dumped the sword he had trained ith all his life.

Plus eastern hand to hand is much better than those silly Western skill, Talhoffers wrestling, all those silly greek Pankration specialist, boxing, they all are humbeled before the might of Kung Fu.

The fact that Medieval swords have better steel than virtually any Katana, or that these men were increadinble skilled, and that there were schools of marital arts all over the western world.

Ehh stupid europeans its a wonder they survived with their backword ways. Certianly they could have enever fought successful battles against the mighty easterners with their metal cutting swords and thier lightning fast light armour.

Sarcasm off.

This is a long standing problem in D&D, it is a function ofthe problem in western culture. It is annoying, but I don' see it going away anytime soon.

No one here(that I have seen) is claiming that...

Prof Potts least of all.

His argument is that the Eastern Weapons are needlessly better than their European versions. He didn't say they should be better.

And I agree, however if your going to bother making them at all, they do need to be different, and personally I am in favour of having more options, and being able to choose between them.

I also disagree that like for like, the asian weapons are mechanically better than the european. First of, many have no european weapon to compare too, for instance the Sansetsukon and Kusarigama just don't have european versions to my knowledge, and certainly don't in the Pathfinder weapons section. In other cases, such as the nodachi, he isn't comparing like for like(or is comparing it to a weapon that is less powerful than perhaps it should be falshion as discribed is a curved greatsword, kukri's are effectively curved short swords, and scimitars curved longswords, if falchions followed the example set down by these weapons they would deal d10 damage, not 2d4. In other words, the same damage as the Nodachi)

You appear to be building up a straw man.

Zombieneighbours wrote:

I don't think the 'asian is always better' thing exists, or rather its a made up complaint by people who don't like asian stuff.

I'd respectfully disagree, and point to the nodachi (the falchion is dead), four-mirror armour (chainmail is dead), and similar things as way of proof.

Now, I do like Asian/wuxia stuff... I just don't like it being automatically flat-out better than everything else.

But that is comparing an imaginary near eastern weapon to a real far eastern weapon.

Real world Falchions should probably have the same stats as a falcata. They are effectively a heavy chopping sword, in the same class as the falcata. Pathfinder falchions are obsolete already(with one possible exception being crit feat characters), because it didn't keep up with the greatsword. Now compare the greatsword and the Nodachi, and use the Nodachi stats for two-handed scimitars and things look a little better right?

As for four mirror armour and chain mail. You trade price for weight. Appart from that, they are identical. Not sure how it means chain mail is dead. I would happily still use chain, if I thought it fit the character better(especially if encumbrance is in play).

My biggest problem with it is that it isn't different enough. Four mirror armour, in the real world is a composite partial plate armour. It's probably better done as slightly worse half-plate, with some sort of funky anti magic effect.

Yep - stuff like the kukri (and I guess the falcata) are very good at what they're designed to do; that is to say, hacking into relatively unprotected flesh. Neither would do much of anything trying to hack through plate armour. Of course, a kukri user is trained to stab with the point as well as just hack, so even then they'd have a pretty good option when attacking the guy in plate.

The rules-set we have, of course, doesn't reflect these limits and options. You can't stab with a kukri, because it's a 'slashing damage' only weapon. On the other hand, it hacks through armour like a hot knife through butter, because all you need to do is exceed the AC, then apply full damage. Armour as DR actually makes it worse, since more potential raw damage = better armour bypass.

While keeping the combat system at a certain level of abstraction is generally a pretty good idea, what you tend to end up with is a situation where certain weapons (most notably the 'medieval European' stuff - like the longsword (Pathfinder's 'bastard sword') and the like) losing out because the things they were designed to be good at aren't being modelled in the system.

One Ultimate Combat disappointment for me was the lack of support for Talhoffer-esque medieval European combat styles: using the whole of the sword for cuts, thrusts, 'murder blows' with the hilt whilst holding the blade, tripping and grappling with the crosspiece - all that good stuff. Asian martial arts are fine and dandy for wuxia-style games, which are also cool to play, but the whole 'eastern is always better than western' school of thought on fighting arts, armour, and weaponry just tends to bug me... My 2cp I guess...

I don't think the 'asian is always better' thing exists, or rather its a made up complaint by people who don't like asian stuff.

Rather I think what is going on here is that a, UC had as part of its brief to provide material that would be useful for Jade regent, so Asian influenced stuff was included, and b. It is easy to create Wuxia flavour within the pathfinder's system.

Wuxia flavour is easy to do. You can make a game that feels right for that with relative easy. While hyper detailed combat, is based on real medieval european, or asian fighting styles is very difficult, and near impossible within pathfinder as writen.

There isn't a western 'wuxia-esque' subsystem provided, because actually, DnD/pathfinder is the western Wuxia.

I personally believe many of the aforementioned weapons were powerful for their time, compared to others of their time. The sling, the kukri, the roman shortsword, all were great weapons of the time.

But none of them would still compare with the knightly weaponry. Military picks, poleaxes, cavalry mace, lance and longsword became the superior medieval weaponry for a reason.

One has to take that into account if you wish to make the weapon more powerful.

And the Pike overtook them in turn. But no one is going to argue that the pike is some how a superior personal weapon to the kukri. Your confusing the evolution of military tactics, and the weapons that compliment said tactic, with the quality of said weapons in small unit combat.

The Kukri is also used as a modern military weapon. It is still drilled with and used, when gurkha rifles fix bayonets. If your argument were true, wouldn't that mean that Kukri is superior to Chivalric weapons

"Quarterstaff = long walking stick.

Bo staff = fighting staff"

Oh, please. ((Edit - I think I initially misread part of your post)) To say the user's skill should be reflected in the base weapon stats is like saying there should be separate stats for a dagger worn by a farmer and an assassin. There is already a term for weapons made better than the norm - the masterwork quality. If you want to go the other direction, a really crude long stick would be an improvised weapon. From then on it's not about the stick, but what the user can do with it. For that matter, the concept of a skilled warrior using a "peasant" weapon for various reasons is certainly a valid option for characters, and not one they need to blow an exotic proficiency feat on.

The difference between the two, as per the PF system, is almost non-existent. The bo staff is described as almost identical to a quarterstaff anyway. I don't see how this "slightly" justifies it being made into an exotic weapon, or significantly different stats. Otherwise we are just cluttering the system with minute differences. The "variant eastern weapons and other assorted BS" part of the UC book really wasn't necessary.

Back to the original point:
- slings could use a minor boost, or at least have the option for a rapid reload feat
- tridents or similar spears should have x3 critical or 19-20 threat range to have a piercing 1d8 one-handed martial weapon on par with the longsword/battleaxe. I think we can eliminate their throwing option, though - I don't see how tridents are inherently easier to throw than, say, light maces or hand axes.
- most exotic weapons right now aren't worth spending a trait on, much less a feat; they should be buffed or folded back into the simple/martial weapon they are most similar to. Apart from fluff reasons, is there any reason to take, say, a butterfly knife?

In a suitibly simulationist game, it would be possible to make the differentiation between said Shepard knife and said assassins dagger, taking into account how it is uses to slash or to stab, weight, surface area of the stabbing point, hardness of the metal, the variaty of the guard ect.

As it stands, I can make that differentiation in pathfinder too, all be it is broad strokes. The shepard's knife, designed as a tool for cutting twine, preparing food, ect. might be a improvided weapon (small dagger), while the assassin's dagger is a poisoned masterwork dagger.

The inclusions of multiple versions of the staff weapons, means that I can make encounters that range from beggars with sticks(Improve clubs or improve quarterstaffs) through to Shepard worshipers of Haita with masterwork Bo and their levels in monk.

Effectively I can use a bo, if the staff weapon has been fire hardened, and a staff if it hasn't.

The exotic weapon prof, in this case is effectively "staff defense training", and I see no reason why bo shouldn't be treated by as a staff, if you lack exotic weapon prof.

1. Artesia: Adventures in the known world (Do damned near anything, but with real character and relatively robust mechanics)

2. Mage: The Ascention (Do damned near anything with cool flavour but rules which change every time you read them. Cool backlash system)

3. WFRP 2nd ed (Cool flavour, but very limited range of effects. Very cool backlash system)

and I have heard good things about The Dresden Files RPG

I'm taking an impromptu poll to see if anyone would shed tears of scarlet if the generic gnolls (hereafter referred to as "generignolls") can from earlier stuff. Named and leveled gnolls get the new ert, but the outta-the-box guys get stuff from PF 19 and 20. Any beefs?

And thanks for the positive reviews! I'm hoping to fix the low reviews back when the set was, like, 1/12th the size.

Glad you liked the Unchosen, bignate. I came THIS close to re-drawing them, but that could just be the usual artistic dissatisfaction.

I wouldn't shed tears of purest crimson or anything, but a few more generignolls would increase the value of the set. As it would increase the range of generignolls available to use your adoring fans.

It is one of the oldest and most played call of cthulhu investigations going. The haunting, has been around for close to as long than I have been alive, and this afternoon I ran it for the second time ever, as part of my newly started Tatters of the King campaign.

I am running it, but with slight change of setting(London 1922) and premise (Checking out a friends newly inherited property, after he heard some rum rumours about the place)

It's a really cool little scenario.

The very best moment of the night for me moment was when Gilbert Colegrove and Ruth Bradstock (who have been long term romantic partners), arranged to meet early at Corbitt's house early, believing the whole haunting thing to be a lot of old piffle, and started to have a 'picnic' in corbitts former bedroom, without the slightest hint of guidance from me.

Midway through their "activities", it seemed only right to conform with the rules of the great british summertime. If their is a picnic, it must rain. Nothing like a three large heavy drops of blood to change the mood, I always say.

Oh, and I drew one of the PCs to the window with the scratching noice.

Bet session in a long time.

There is another reason optimisation can damage roleplaying games as a whole though.

It's a shell game.

The point of combat, tricks and traps, in role-playing games is to provide risk, and act as a force of drama in the narrative.

If you make your character more optimised, all it means is that the DM has to match that level of Optimisation, or the threat is lost. And down that road dwells rocket tag, which is really no fun for anyone.