|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
pH unbalanced wrote:
Evil as a physical property is illogical. Not only is it not real, but it can't be explained, except by repeating that it is evil.
It's fine that that doesn't bother you -- that's great. Suspension of disbelief for the win. That doesn't mean it makes sense.
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.
All we really know is that the spell is evil. That's all we've got in the rules. Why it's evil is left undefined.
Which is the whole point, really. No one is disputing the rules say those spells are evil. They're pointing out that it an arbitrary designation that doesn't bear any relationship to the already established meaning of the word "evil."
The rules could state that love is evil. All that would accomplish is chaos (as is the case here).
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?
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. >:(
Patrick C. wrote:
Except this isn't about the ends justifying the means. There is literally nothing to justify about raising skeletons to do good deeds. No one is harmed. It's only "evil" because the rules say it is, in defiance of any reasonable definition of the word in any other context.
"Helping people whilst harming NO ONE is bad...because reasons."
Dude...what's with the hostility? the guy asked. I'm not the one ranting...
P.S. You're better than that.
People have -- and will continue to have -- this argument because the concept of objective evil literally makes no sense. Calling a spell evil is like calling a screwdriver evil.
Consider using Animate Dead to create skeletons in order to protect orphans from attack, or to evacuate a burning building full of invalids, or to work the fields and stave off starvation when there aren't enough laborers.
They might as well have a rule that says down is up.
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?
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!
You forgot to drop the mic at the end.
Edit: Would a mic drop require the Technologist feat? :P
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.
The problem is that that "feat" looks like a adjudication guide to existing use of Diplomacy! The UI skill section has to go out of its way to constrain the diplomacy skill to "make room" for this feat.
Unfortunately, now that it is a feat, the PFS GM has two choices:
1. Continue to allow the person who has diplomacy, but not the feat, to call for a truce. This is unfair to the player who took the feat.
2. Disallow calling a truce without the feat, thereby reducing the utility of the diplomacy skill for everyone else.
To me, this is a pretty clear cut case of excessive rules curtailing options, then even more rules "selling" those options back in the form of a feat tax. Worse, as far as I can tell, feats like this exist solely to sell more books by padding the feat count. After all, mechanics sell.
Blech. No thanks.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Not saying you're wrong, but I'd draw a clear distinction between being effective and getting promoted. Personally, I think CHA is probably the most important stat for the latter. Since I have the charisma of a burning, venomous cactus...
P.S. Thanks for not misspelling "column." :P
Very close to my own, though I'd probably switch Thor and Thor 2, and both Ant-Man and Guardians would slot in above Avengers 2.
I suppose I should clarify what I mean when I say Int is useless in Corporate America. For some jobs, it is necessary, but not sufficient, if you wish to do well. No one with an IQ of 75 is going to excel in, say, financial accounting or product engineering. Marketing or management, however, and all bets are off. ;-)
In any case, things like drive, charisma, and the ability to read a social situation and position oneself accordingly seem far more important than intelligence when it comes to climbing the corporate ladder. Hell, sometimes self confidence, warranted or not, is the most important factor. YMMV.
Here's one thing I find interesting about Str in particular: It's not fixed.
I'm 6' tall, somewhat stocky, and a very fat 280lbs. I figure my strength is 10 based on the following: I'm stronger than almost any woman I've met, I'm easily stronger than my 17 years old son, and I have heft 50lbs without much difficulty.
BUT if I undertook a serious strength training regimen, my strength would be 12 in two months, and probably 14 in six to nine months.
Con is the same way, though to a lesser extent.
Hell, Int is probably the hardest stat to change. Wisdom comes with age, and I can exercise to increase Str, Con, and Dex. I can make a conscious effort to be nicer to people, or just come to empathize more with them and therefore treat them better. But there's not that much I can do to make myself smarter. More knowledgeable? Sure. But not smarter.
And for the record, high Int isn't all that great. I'm someplace north of 130 (though honestly probably not very far), and I can tell you that, in Corporate America at least, intelligence is roughly as useful as a bucket of steaming hamster vomit. Actually less so, because you could dump out the vomit and be left with a perfectly good, albeit dirty, bucket. :P
Every single time I see this topic online or in real life, people give themselves very high int, moderately high cha, and low wis. This is the first time I've seen the majority of people give themselves high wis and low cha instead. Maybe it's due to the TTRPG gamer demographic becoming older, more self-reflective, and realizing that they're introverted nerds.
I think people who would understand, let alone answer, this particular question probably have a higher than average Int and lower than average Cha.
For myself, My IQ has been empirically measured to be at least 130 on multiple occasions. I've tested into MENSA, scored in the 89th or 90th percentile of the LSAT with almost no preparation, and excelled in honors and "gifted" courses throughout my academic career.
On the other hand, in the unlikely event that anyone doubts my Cha of 7, I invite them to review my posting history. ;-)
Right....of course, then we're getting into questions like "what level is Stephen Hawking?" :P
I have certainly encountered people far smarter than myself. If we're going to say 18 is the maximum human intelligence, then my own intelligence is more like a 12 or 13. I guess it really depends on what, exactly, a straight 3d6 is intended to represent.
As for you, IQ 145 is the definition of genius, so 140 is not far off. Remember, of course, that 145 is the bottom of genius. And when you're talking about smart, it's all relative. My IQ is around 130, and I like to put it this way: I'm often the smartest person in the room...as long as I'm in a fairly small room. ;-)
I'd say an IQ of 140 is a solid 18. There's no 1 in 216 people have an IQ of 140+; it's probably more like 1 in 300. IQ 145, which is 3 standard deviations above the mean, is .15% of the population, or ~1/666. Worst case, erring on the low side you could go with 17.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
It's entirely possible for 90% of a population to be above average. If you don't see why, you are very likely confusing mean and median. Don't feel bad, it's a common mistake...even for someone with an Int of 14+. ;-)
That time again?
I'm reasonably sure I'm human, so assuming I put my +2 in Int, I would be, what, like a 2 point buy?
Also, an argument could be made for me having a 10 Wis and Dex, which would actually make me -1 point buy.
Clearly it's wizard or bust for me!
Cole Deschain wrote:
Given the sheer amount of pirated material I have personally seen over the years, I think a certain reluctance to embrace easily-transferred electronic formats for new releases intended to generate fresh revenue is hardly incomprehensible.
What's incomprehensible is the persistence of the idea that not releasing PDFs somehow impedes piracy.
But dead horses and all that...
The sad thing is these same people would be complaining if various NPCs were named John or Bob or Jane. You know, easily-pronounced names.
Because the "problem" is them? Nice. >:(
Let's be honest...Paizo has come up with some pretty bad names. That's kinda unavoidable, though, given the volume of stuff they create. For some people, some of those odder names can server as an amusing shared experience. It's no problem if you don't share those experiences, but this thread doesn't have to be about criticizing -- or defending -- Paizo. There is nothing "sad" here. This is not SERIOUS BUSINESS(tm).