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

bugleyman's page

RPG Superstar 6 Season Star Voter, 7 Season Star Voter, 8 Season Star Voter. FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 7,775 posts (7,893 including aliases). 79 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 8 Pathfinder Society characters. 16 aliases.

1 to 50 of 1,044 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Digitalelf wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The private server thing is a complete non issue.
And if Russia DOES provide emails originating from her account?

Depends whether they did it specifically at Mr. Trump's behest. In which case, criminal charges might actually be in order...

...for Mr. Trump.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

People. Stop. This isn't funny any more. We are flirting with disaster.

I know we're all jaded by the incessant hyperbole in politics, but Trump is genuinely dangerous. He is fascist, racist, sexist, and a gleeful authoritarian. If you don't believe me, don't take my word for it. Don't take the media's word for it. Just look at what Trump himself has said. Take *his* word for it.

Opposition to the cynical demagoguery Mr. Trump is selling has to transcend partisan bickering. This man must never be president.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Digitalelf wrote:

And yet if you or I (or anyone else on these boards), were as "negligent" with top level security as Mrs. Clinton, we'd have been thrown into the deepest, darkest of prisons before you could say "scandal"!

Just look at Gen. Patraeus... All he did was share TS emails with a single person, and he was coerced into resigning from the C.I.A. Not only was Hilary accused of sharing TS emails with several people, her account is said to have been hacked by Russia!

Just goes to show that her supporters don't actually care about little things like the law.

I know, right! Look at all that time Patraeus -- who was actually guilty -- got!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bill O'Reily's response to Michelle Obama's speech.

Well Bill, I guess that makes it OK, then.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
RainyDayNinja wrote:
No, I didn't. Read closer.

*rubs eyes*

RainyDayNinja wrote:
...every non-issue that people like you elevate to a crisis...

Yup, still there.

BTW, I think this is the part where you complain about this website being unreasonably left wing and go off in a huff.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
RainyDayNinja wrote:

You sure are putting a lot of words in my mouth.

I'm no Trump fan, but every non-issue that people like you elevate to a crisis, just chips away at your credibility when it comes to the actually important things.

Wait...did you just complain about me putting words in your mouth, and then, in the next sentence, claim that "people like me" elevate every non-issue into a crisis?

I think I see the problem. :P

6 people marked this as a favorite.
RainyDayNinja wrote:

Or, you know, that some people can recognize an obvious joke.

The fact that the media is presenting an obvious joke like this as a serious proposal is exactly why Trump's supporters don't care what the media says about him.

Oh right...the liberal (yet 100% corporate owned) media did it!

Was it an "obvious joke" when he called illegal immigrants rapists? Is the rampant misogyny also a joke? Or the part where he sure did admire Saddam?

Wake up. The only "obvious joke" is his candidacy.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:

Donald Trump literally just told Russia to hack a former Secretary of State in order to obtain what he hopes is classified information, and promised they'd be rewarded for doing so.

That actually just happened.

And yet his numbers won't take a hit. Just goes to show that his supporters don't actually care about little things like the law.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
I see this a bell weather sign of the times. It started with boxes such as AppleTV and Rokku. The Cable hegemony has been showing signs of breakup for some time. HBO, Showtime, and others are now offering services which require nothing more than Internet access to acquire. Home entertainment is going to become more of an al-a carte affair.

I don't disagree. However, CBS All Access, at least in its present form (very limited access to recent shows, ALONG with ads) is crap.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Yeah, I saw that. That's Trump's style. All you small businessmen backing Trump. Remember that's how he treats you. Cuts you off, breaks the deal, doesn't pay and then fights you in court with better lawyers than you can afford until you settle for pennies on the dollar. That's what you're cheering for.

That's how we Make America Great Again...if you think the gilded age and robber barons were great.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure I've ever seen FUD quite like is currently being directed at Clinton.

Throw enough crap, and even though none of it sticks, the sheer volume of it starts to make it hard to see.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, are we still looking at a fascist megalomaniac vs. an arguably bland career politician?

I'll take the career politician for $200, Alex.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
To each his own. I consider Wrath of Khan the only one of the Star Trek films to have merit as a movie on it's own. None of the others would be worth watching if the Star Trek stuff were filed off of it, and several of them, First Contact in particular were painful to watch, and are in the category of "Never subject myself to this torture again!"

I've pretty much concluded Star Trek simply isn't a good fit for movies.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It was...meh. Better than Into Darkness, but worse than the first one.

It's still not Star Trek.


Who casts Edris Elba, but then covers him in make-up for 90% of the movie? WTF?

4 people marked this as a favorite.

While it is -- by definition -- true that all illegal immigrants are criminals, that's not a very useful distinction. By such a binary standard, literally everyone you know is a criminal. I'm not terribly concerned about people whose only crime is circumventing our broken-by-design immigration system. I can promise you I would do the same in their place.

As for racism...this so-called criminality doesn't explain the anger directed against illegal immigrants. Misguided economic resentment from the less sophisticated is a part, sure, but even that doesn't explain why Hispanics are nearly always singled out (in Trump's case, as "rapists" and "murderers"!).

Hell, given our demographic prospects, the United States should just let any healthy person under the age of 30 who is not guilty of any meaningful crime into the country legally, and then tax their wages. Problem solved.

P.S. I also just fixed Social Security. You're welcome. ;-)

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I have to wonder if we all share some responsibility for Trump's viability as a candidate. Has daily political discourse become so hyperbolic that words like "fascist" and "criminal" have lost any real meaning?

Opposition to things like racism, sexism, and demagoguery should be non-partisan. :(

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
On the right, it's all about scapegoats - you're worse off and it's all because of the lazy blacks living off your tax money and the illegals taking your jobs and the gays doing something or other.

LOL. The racism and xenophobia I "understand." But what DO people imagine homosexuals have to do with their economic marginalization?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
137ben wrote:
Michael Steele: Hillary Clinton is "absolutely qualified" to be president.

My immediate reaction is to ask why the republicans aren't nominating nominating Micheal Steele. At least in that interview, he comes off as a rational, articulate, and respectful man. In other words, the opposite of Donald Trump.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Trump understands very little, including the fact that he was born on third base (if not directly on home plate).

...or maybe he does, and he's a cynical evil genius. However, if that is the case I have no idea why he wants to be president.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sure. In theory, one should always borrow as much money as possible as long as one can earn a higher return on the money than what is paid in interest. In practice, it doesn't matter what the expected rate of return is if you encounter a liquidity crisis. All the bridges in the world won't matter if we miss a bond payment.

If I had my druthers I'd up the capital gains tax, the corporate tax rate (which, despite what you may have heard, isn't anywhere near the "highest in the world."), and the social security tax ceiling. I'd also quash offshore tax shelters. Then I'd invest the resulting windfall in education, infrastructure, and paying down debt. I'd also ramp down military spending, and release pretty much the entire non-violent prison population as quickly as feasible.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Niles wrote:
Man, if only there were a party that combined actual fiscal responsibility and individual liberties.

If only there were a VIABLE party. The only way Libertarians become viable in a two-party system is by replacing the Republicans.

Can we get on with that already?

3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Donald trump is the ontological manifestation of the republican party, the quintessential modern republican made flesh.

It's a party devoted to making the rich richer

It's a party devoted to the false narrative that the rich are richer because they're harder working, more moral, and all around better than poor people so that we can make the rich richer. Pretend that they were born not rich and just got a "small" 10 million dollar loan from dad, followed up by dad giving him the entire company. It's entirely a coincidence that Donald Trump is a billionaire real estate mogul who's father just happened to be... a billionaire real estate mogul.

It's a party devoted to to the idea that poor people are poor, lazy, and stupid because helping them would cost the rich money, and to convince the middle class that their money is going down instead of up. Don't mind the billions of dollars of tax payer and retirement fund dollars I'm skimming here, that black welfare mother has cookies!

It's a party built around the idea that government is bad, because government gets in the way of rich people being richer. Except those parts of big government that help the rich get richer, like the military, corrupt business practices hiding behind bankruptcy laws, and eminent domain, those are fine.

It's a party that needs irrational hate, anger, and fear to survive because its ideas die under any kind of rational scrutiny and minorities of all types make a great scapegoat.

It's a party that's anti science, anti fact, anti reason, and anti media because all of these point out what a pile of horsefeathers their policies are.

They made this orange monster. It was inside them entire time. that thin layer of skin hiding it was going to rip eventually.

Donald trump is the candidate the republican party deserves, and the candidate it needs to start taking a good look at, because its a pretty damned accurate mirror.

I literally couldn't have said it better myself. And if you know me, you know that's painful thing for me to admit. ;-)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rednal wrote:
Trump's whole campaign has been based on doing outrageous things and refusing to apologize for them. I'm not surprised that they would double down on a lie.

True. Why risk honesty at this point?

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

Coincidence. It's a thing.


But this isn't it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So all the usual suspects are now simply denying there was any plagiarism. Textbook big lie.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sadly, this won't make a difference to Trump's supporters. Anyone still drinking the Kool-Aid at this point is already a lost cause.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:

The most amazing thing about this is that she plagiarized the "values and morals" part of her speech.

I wonder how all of those convention attendees feel now that they know they were cheering and clapping for the words and ideas of Michelle Obama. Considering how the right has demonized her, I bet some wish they could bleach their brains.

The way Michelle Obama has been demonized is indefensible. But as for the convention attendees, I doubt that they have any idea the speech was plagiarized, let alone from whom. Head in the sand, and all that.

Plus, it's just the "liberal media" at it again.

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
Hillary (and Obama) talk a strong leftist game, but they play their hand for the interests of the rich.

You know what goes hand-in-hand with being 100% ideologically pure? Being 100% ineffective.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
If you're looking to get things done, though, I encourage you to consider that democratic politics is fundamentally about compromise, and acknowledging that it's okay to not be happy with every outcome associated with the politicians that you support, but to still support them anyway because they remain the most practical path to accomplishing what you want accomplished.

Well said, Scott.

Personally, I'm going to miss Obama.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

When it comes down to it, expecting one person -- even the POTUS -- to fix everything is silly.

The system is broken. That doesn't change the fact that the 2016 presidential election is binary. Even if Clinton is as corrupt as people claim (I'm not sure she's any worse than your typical politican, but that's another thread), Trump is so glaringly unfit to be president I'd vote for just about *anyone* else.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:

Requiring a 'balanced federal budget' is itself inherently 'irresponsible'. You need to be able to borrow to deal with economic slowdowns, natural disasters, wars, et cetera.

At that, so long as the economy is growing faster than loaned interest you are better off using debt to leverage growth.

All that being said... for the past ~50 years Democrats have consistently decreased the deficit while Republicans have consistently increased it. Thus, claims of no difference between the parties on this issue fly in the face of the data.

I don't believe anyone said "requiring." I appreciate the value of deficit spending during a downturn.

However, when the national debt is getting to a worrying % of GDP -- which it is here in the U.S. -- balancing the budget needs to be on the table. What I'm saying is neither major party has any credibility on that front.

As for the Democrats decreasing the debt and the Republicans increasing it...I"m not sure exactly what that means. Democratic Administration? Democratic Congress? Both? And I say this as a Democrat...

2 people marked this as a favorite.

How anyone can consider either major party in the U.S. to be responsible when it comes to spending is beyond me.

Neither party is serious about balancing the budget, because balancing the budget is going to be painful. Much easier to kick the can.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
Politics are largely a matter of compromise, so Sanders endorsing Hillary is just another compromise.

Functional politics are definitely a matter of compromise. Of course, when one believes that all government is bad, there is no incentive to compromise. Dysfunction is good, because it proves you were "right."

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Republicans need to oust the "no compromises" fringe if they want to remain relevant.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The reality -- unpleasant though it may be -- is that a vote for Gary Johnson is wasted. I can only hope that Johnson peels off more potential Trump voters than Clinton voters.

As far as I can tell, Trump is the Joker: He just wants to watch the world burn.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
I think the 4th Amendment died with all the PATRIOT act type stuff after 9/11. This is just poking the bloated corpse with a stick.

Good point.

There's an amazing difference between what we are and what we claim to be.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My guess is that it will be modestly successful and not really affect Pathfinder much.

But of course that's just that...a guess.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
That's... unexpected.

Agreed. I did NOT see that coming.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Oceanshieldwolf wrote:
Like I said, I understand that feeling. But his work on Iron Gods (and Eberron back in the day) is very good...

No is pretty darn subjective. I know many people like WAR. I just think a different game should look different, right down to art style. YMMV.

14 people marked this as a favorite.
Oceanshieldwolf wrote:
I'm not impressed by the art though. Please get WAR front and centre. ;)

No's past time for a new direction in RPG art. Besides, a distinct game deserves a distinct look.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

This entire thread is a catastrophic case of people talking past one another. Note to self: Alignment threads BAD.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charlie Bell wrote:
I'm amused that objective morality would shatter anyone's verisimilitude in a game with literal gods and demons.

Except the "gods" in Pathfinder are nothing of the sort. At least not in the modern western understanding. They're not omnipotent, they're not omniscient, and they didn't create the universe. They're mostly just people with a bigger stick.

"Atheists" in Golarion don't deny the obvious evidence that those beings exist; they deny that those beings are worthy of worship.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Patrick C. wrote:
And what is there to justify about enslaving a third (ok, let's be kinder and do it to only a fifth) of the population so the rest could live comfortably?

Enslavement? :P

Also the title of this thread is itself inflammatory, because it presupposes one sides holds an irrational position ("evil being good").

Add to that getting figuratively knifed by the normally-rational for merely stepping into the thread, and you know what is starting to look objectively evil to me? Alignment threads. >:(

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rules for beyond level 20

Seriously, though...1-20 covers people that can kill hundreds with a melee weapon, teleport between planets, and bring people back from the dead without so much as a molecule of the corpse. If you want more than that, perhaps you should be looking at something like Mutants & Masterminds?

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Welcome. I strongly suggest you join a message-board gang if you want to survive. ;-)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ross Byers wrote:
The easiest answer to this is that while 'Good' and 'Evil' (and 'Law' and 'Chaos') are absolutes, 'Right' is subjective. After all, Evil clerics don't think they're wrong - they get their power because they believe they are Right.

That's about as pedantic a dodge as I've ever seen.

Objective good is the entire issue!

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Should a creature made of adamantine bypass DR/adamantine? I think the answer is obviously yes, but by RAW, it appears the answer is no.

This is why overly codified rules can be as bad/worse than vague rules.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quadstriker wrote:
Stephen Ross wrote:

So if PCs negotiate a surrender you should award them full gold?

What about gold found from items on the opponents and gold found via searches (that they now cannot do)?

p35. Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Guide

"If, for example, your
players manage to roleplay their way through a combat and
successfully accomplish the goal of that encounter without
killing the antagonist, give the PCs the same reward they
would have gained had they defeated their opponent in
combat. If that scene specifically calls for the PCs to receive
gold piece rewards based on the gear collected from the
defeated combatants, instead allow the PCs to find a chest
of gold (or something similar) that gives them the same

You forgot to drop the mic at the end.

Edit: Would a mic drop require the Technologist feat? :P

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Haladir wrote:

The thing that annoys me about made-up names in RPGs is when players decide to make jokes about them, and then use the joke-name at all times.

** spoiler omitted **

In my Rise game...


"Commander Bayden" became "Master Batin'"

I was sad. :P


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Since, per strict RAW, one cannot hop, check out this special preview of my new book, Ultimate Ambulation:


You can move around using a only one leg.

Prerequisites: Dex 13

Benefit: As a move action, you can move at 1/4 your normal speed, even if one leg is somehow impeded or restrained. If you are damaged while moving this way, you must make a DC 15 acrobatics check or fall prone. You may not run while using this feat. Stealth checks made while hopping suffer a -5 penalty.

1 to 50 of 1,044 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.