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. FullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 7,676 posts (7,793 including aliases). 79 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 8 Pathfinder Society characters. 15 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 7,676 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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.


thejeff wrote:
It's a fantasy world. The rocks can be happy if they want to be. You can ask them.

Pathfinder fails to establish that rocks are sentient. Therefore, all that is accomplished is confusion and dilution of the definition of "happy."


People..."evil" has a meaning. Applying the label in a way that ignores the definition of the word is no more useful than declaring that rocks are happy.

"See? It says rocks are happy right there in the rules!"

Still meaningless. :P


pH unbalanced wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
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.

A screwdriver can be evil...if it is composed of evil.

On Golarion, a person, or a screwdriver, or a spell is evil in exactly the same way that a solution is acidic.

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.


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.


thejeff wrote:
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).


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Sure there is. It's explicitly an evil spell, which means casting it is an evil action. That's not "nothing."

That's an archetypal circular argument.

But I have way, Way, WAY less of an emotional investment in this topic than some appear to, so by all means, have fun. :P


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. >:(


Patrick C. wrote:

Consider raising human orphans in order to harvest their organs for future transplants.

Does the idea disturb you in any way?

How about bashing baby Hitler's skull in before the WWII nastiness could happen?

Enslaving a third of the population so the other two could live comfortably, maybe?

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."

Nonsense.


thejeff wrote:

And we're off again with a new contestant making the same argument.

House rule it. Add some consequences that make it make sense to you. Suspend your disbelief so you can enjoy the game.

Or you know, rant about how one more thing in the Pathfinder rule set doesn't make sense as world building.

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.


*drums fingers*

I need this to kill-, er, challenge some characters.


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!


Wait...is there actually a debate going on about how many lbs. of adamantine are in an adamantine golem?

Personally, I don't find that interesting or enjoyable. To each their own, I guess. :)


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
rewards."

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...

Spoiler:

"Commander Bayden" became "Master Batin'"

I was sad. :P

***

4 people marked this as a favorite.

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

Hop

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.

***

4 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


Aelryinth wrote:

or Hide in shadows/move silently into Stealth, or Open Locks/Remove Traps into disable device?

==Aelryinth

For whatever reason, the Open Locks Remove Traps thing doesn't bother me as much as the others, but yeah. :)


Axial wrote:
In my opinion "Norgorber" doesn't sound serious or intimidating enough,

"Norgorber" makes me thing of someone with a serious case of chest congestion. :P


It would be less wrong than combining Spot and Listen into Perception. ;-)


Orfamay Quest wrote:

Almost all jobs today are MAD.

The reason for this is that the SAD jobs, by and large, have been automated away. There's no job requiring only Strength that can't be done better, faster, and cheaper by machinery, and of course machines have unlimited stamina and hence will beat any human at the Constitution department. Even Intelligence, untempered by common sense or social skills, is pretty valueless because those are the jobs that computers have been used for since the 1950s.

(Did you know that "computer" used to be a job? A "computer" was a person that you would hand complicated math problems to, like adding up a column of numbers. They didn't have to understand the actual problem they were doing, or why they were extracting square roots of strange numbers. So they were essentially human adding machines and/or calculators. Now, of course, I have a calculator for those tasks and it cost me less to buy the calculator than it would take to pay an hour's salary to a human.)

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


ShinHakkaider wrote:

This is my Marvel movie Order of Awesome.

Captain America 2: the Winter Soldier
Avengers
Iron Man
Captain America: the First Avenger
Avengers 2: Age of Ultron
Iron Man 3
Thor 2: the Dark World
The Incredible Hulk
Thor
Iron Man 2

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samy wrote:

Commoner 1

STR 4
DEX 6
CON 8
INT 8
WIS 6
CHA 4

Profession (linguist) +2

I'm not sure I'm buying it. No one with a Wis of 6 would have such a firm grasp of their own limitations. ;-)


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


Diffan wrote:
Cha 14 - I've been known to change some people's minds, even convinced a few people to enjoy 4th Edition!

CHA 20!

(I kid; I like 4th edition).


captain yesterday wrote:
My favorite Marvel movie to date is Ant-Man.

I liked Ant-Man, but apparently a little less than you do. No biggie.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Castilonium wrote:
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. ;-)


Deadmanwalking wrote:
That rather depends on who else is in the room... ;-)

Ok, fine. So it was a broom closet, and the janitor wasn't present. :)


Deadmanwalking wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
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.

Well, I'm well below genius level, which makes for issues with giving me a maxed score. Heck, I've met several people smarter than me personally, and I'm not exactly inclined to met huge numbers of people (the people I get to know do tend towards the smarter end of things, though).

So...such people definitely exist, and that's not even counting the people way smarter than me like Stephen Hawking.

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. ;-)


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Well, speaking personally, I've never gamed long-term with anyone who wasn't at least fairly bright.

I think there's probably a correlation between those who like games involving math and creative thought and above average intellectual abilities.

My own IQ (which isn't a direct equivalent for intellect, mind you), is around 140 or so. So...I dunno if that's actually Int 16, it depends on what scale you use, but it is definitively 14+.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Yes - because everyone here has an Int of 14+. >.<

It's like how 90% of everyone thinks that they're an above average driver.

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?

Strength 10
Dexterity 11
Constitution 8
Intelligence 16
Wisdom 12
Charisma 7

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.

*flexes*

Clearly it's wizard or bust for me!

***

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Gotta agree with BNW on this one. Feats should make you better at something or allow you to break the rules in some way, not serve to restrict everyone else.

Sometimes more rules = fewer options.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
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...

***

Concur. If you're doing a single read-through the day of, you're simply not going to be able to deliver an optimal experience, no matter how good you are.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:
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).


4 people marked this as a favorite.

PDFs, as we all know, are the work of the devil.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Suggestion: Never use five exclamation points in a row!


No. Personally, I believe NPC classes are contrary to the spirit of 5E. The game seems to take a conscious step back from that level of simulation (and imo is better for it).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The loss of the pronunciation guide in the upgrade of the campaign setting was unfortunate. It's one of the few ways that the new version is inferior to the old. Not something it made sense to cut, imo.


TOZ wrote:
Ima need some, yes.

Done. I've bought every box so far, so I have more bases than I'll ever need. I'll throw you one bag of each size next time I see you, or you're free to swing by and grab 'em sooner if you like.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Anyway, this is going to be the first pawns collection I have ever bought.

Need some bases? I can hook a brother up. I have SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many...


NenkotaMoon wrote:
I was once unbalanced when I was trying to walk a tight rope.

No you weren't! The problem was clearly the rope! ;-)


Manly-man teapot wrote:
The rules text of Color Spray is dissociative with the fiction, and by the rules the spell clearly affects targets inside Obscuring Mist, in Deeper Darkness, or behind a curtain.

Well put.


I have a question for the people arguing that the corner of origination and the direction of the cone are unrelated: Why do the diagrams in the CRB feature the red dot, and a single one at that?

1 to 50 of 7,676 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.