|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
The OP is absolutely, unequivocally correct; Pathfinder 2.0 is NOT inevitable. Humanity could be wiped out by an asteroid tomorrow.
But barring any society-shaking event -- or the complete demise of Paizo -- there will eventually be a revision of Pathfinder. Not only does it make business sense, but with 6+ additional years of experience, I'm confident Paizo could make a better game. I do expect, however, that the eventual revision will be along the lines of tightening and clean-up, and to bring some of the better ideas (traits, archetypes, etc.) into the core, rather than a radical departure.
Why wouldn't we be able to agree on that? It's self-evident. The existence of God is not contingent on anyone's belief or disbelief.
1. I've had people argue this with me before; and2. I've found it's safest not to assume anything when it comes to politics or religion. I simply often have to be reminded. :)
Wow, I really can't wrap my head around that.
When evaluating a claim, I weigh the evidence. If insufficient evidence exists, I reject the claim (barring negation games). I don't see how I could choose to believe in God any more than I could not to believe in molecular theory.
Edit: Changed so as not to seem flippant.
And that remains your opinion, not an indisputable fact.
You're right...such evidence could exist. I'm not entirely sure why no one has shared it if it does, but if and when they do, I'm quite ready to change my position. After all, the prospect of a benevolent, omnipotent deity is really quite appealing.
But I'm curious...can we agree that the existence (or non-existence) of God is a matter of fact, not opinion? That is, God as you envision him either exists, or he doesn't...he can't be real for you, and at the same time not real for me?
Pretty much. I choose to believe in a god. I don't believe there is any evidence of such a thing in our world, however. (Which is incidentally why I ignore organized religions and holy books.)
And I respect your right to believe as you do. Nor do I claim I can disprove the existence of an omnipotent god -- such a thing is manifestly impossible.
But unless/until I share whatever experience lead to this belief, I do not -- can not -- share it. Which is why I find attempts to proselytize (which, to be clear is NOT happening in this thread) to be so frustrating.
"Belief based on revelations to which I have not been privy" is not verifiable by observation, and therefore by definition not empirical. I cannot -- and do not -- deny the possibility of such.
As to the evidence...with apologies, I will not budge. There is no strong empirical case for the existence of God (which frankly, most of the theists whom I respect freely acknowledge).
Steven T. Helt wrote:
I'm bugged when people think that roleplaying is somehow a meaningful commentary on daily life. It's a hobby.
This. As an atheist, I enjoy playing characters of faith. The clarity afforded by an objectively verifiable personification of good is particularly appealing to me, probably because I do not believe such a thing can exist in the real world.
To be fair, Jaelithe did allude to atheists being annoyed by bible quotations. Part of our earlier exchange was me attempting to explain why I often find them annoying (they're often implicitly treated as evidence), rather than expressing annoyance or accusing Jaelithe of using them as such in this thread. Forgive me if the distinction seems overly fine, but I do feel my earlier comments are being somewhat mis-characterized.
To be blunt, I do not believe faith is a virtue. Rather, faith -- belief without empirical evidence -- is self-evidently antithetical to our progress as a species, especially given what the statistics reveal about its origin. However, if this thread truly isn't the place for such discussion, can we maybe tone down the rhetoric about the "other side" all around?
Yup, I got there; I was just riding the slow bus. ;-)
Edit: And I just got your last reply. I really need to start reading threads backwards before replying. :P
I'm not actually irritated in this case, because I know you were not explicitly arguing for the existence of God.
I guess I thought was implied in my reply was this: I appreciate that the bible has literary and archaeological value; however, unless we first prove god exists, I see no reason to consider the bible authoritative on matters such as what god does/doesn't expect of us (which I believe you were discussing). In short: You effectively take on the burden of proving god's existence when you start quoting him and expect an atheist to care. :P
But again, we should probably take this to a separate thread (or better yet, PMs) if you want to continue.
I can't speak for any other non-believers, but I find it irritating because in order for the bible to be divinely inspired (as it claims), we must pre-suppose the existence of god. Using the bible to prove god exists is therefore a necessarily circular argument.
So yeah...I don't think you'll get much traction citing the bible to an atheist. :P
But we've veered way off track for this thread, so I'll excuse myself.
Ceres Cato wrote:
How does one "avoid the awareness" of an omniscient being? :P
I guess I'm presupposing a certain level of rationality (which, in fairness, most of us -- certainly myself included -- didn't possess in our youth).
Despising the way He runs things means you don't accept His omniscience. Since omniscience is a defining characteristic of what most people in western society mean when they say God, I'd argue that *not* accepting His omniscience fundamentally means that don't believe in God.
But this sounds like a topic for another thread.
Mystically Inclined wrote:
I don't allow the IRS to exist in any of my games. Therefore I don't have to pay taxes in real life.
Begging the question; requires accepting the conclusion (The IRS exists) as a premise. But "The IRS exists because the IRS exists" is not useful, especially for proving your implied analogy.
It's possible to believe in God, but not worship Him. A concept somewhat obscured by the constant use of faith and belief as near synonyms.
Is it really? At least in God in a modern, western sense? Doesn't believing mean accepting the claims of infallibility and omniscience, in which case how could one not worship?
Probably getting off topic, but I'm not sure I can picture how that might work.
Short answer: Because fiction.
Longer answer: Gods in Pathfinder aren't omnipotent or omniscient, side-stepping many of the obvious logical conundrums around free will, etc. inherent in what most modern-day westerners think of as religion (monotheistic; God is infallible and all-powerful). I don't know any atheists who would argue against at least the possibility of advanced, non-terrestrial life existing (or having existed at some point); life which might qualify as divine in a Pathfinder sense.
Liane Merciel wrote:
Please don't take my criticism of Nightglass personally. You have shown not only the tenacity and talent to get your work published -- something I haven't yet managed -- but also the humility and grace to consider the opinions of strangers. My hat is off to you, ma'am. :)
A few amateur GMs just didn't know how to handle it and decided to raise hell about it long enough for the developers to take note.
Ah the old "only an (amateur|moron|whiner) -- very clearly in minority -- could possibly not agree with my opinion" gambit. And about such an important topic too.
John Kretzer wrote:
Everyone is invited...:)
In that case, I'll copy my review of Nightglass:
I don't have much to add, as I haven't re-read the book since wrote the review (I just found this thread). However, I do plan to read Nightblade shortly, so naturally my preference would be that the discussion goes there next. It's all about me, after all. ;)
I only ask to see a character sheet or chronicles if something seems off: A very expensive item on a low level character, suspiciously high bonuses, etc. Most of the time if I question someone's character it is so I understand the mechanics, not because I think they're trying to pull a fast one. Almost every time I do find something amiss, it's an honest mistake.
I did refuse to seat someone for a table once because he had no chronicles and his "character sheet" was a few scrawled lines on a sheet of notepaper. We never saw the player again, which only convinces me more that shenanigans were involved.
How dare they create optional rules that we're paradoxically forced to buy and use to increase some undefinable and subjective bloat! Time to pull out something MORE restrictive than core! Everyone's a human commoner without feats! :P
The author builds a nice, classic straw man. Unfortunately, he then veers into pandering, leaving the work ultimately unsatisfying. Shows promise, but needs to learn to appreciate subtlety. I would be willing to review this author's future trolling.
** (out of *****)
Alternatively we could acknowledge that bloat and character class power levels are matters of opinion. The world has plenty of real conflict without us inventing more.
Personally I find the idea that Pathfinder doesn't have a bloat problem patently ridiculous. And judging from so-called "conga line of bloat threads" it would appear I'm not the only one.
And yet somehow I'll refrain from passive-aggressively insulting anyone's parentage. Carry on.
I've never been able to get past about episode 5 of Agents of Shield. Daredevil, on the other hand grabbed me from the first episode. Different scope/goals aside, there is much to be said for good storytelling.
BTW, what's wrong with "The Wire with masks?" The Wire is on may critics top ten lists for the best T.V. show of all time. If Daredevil even gets close it will be a first for a comic-book show.
I'm curious to know more about your parting ways with 5th edition.
Read my profile. As others have pointed out, this isn't the place to discuss it.
Back to the topic at hand: For most RPGs which do not rely explicitly and heavily on a grid, I think playability is rooted in expectations and GM skill. If you attempt to duplicate the tactical map experience without a map, you're bound to be frustrated (which is where I believe I went wrong). On the other hand, if you learn to paint a vivid picture in the minds of the players while subtly guiding people away from expecting to grok the exact positioning of every combatant, then I think it can work wonderfully. That is easier said than done, though, especially if everyone at the table -- GM included -- is accustomed to playing with a grid. It's really a whole different mindset.
One of these days I hope to be skilled enough as a GM to provide a compelling experience with something like Dungeon World. But talk about your different mindsets... :)
I tried running one combat in 5E with no maps and it didn't go over very well. In hindsight, it was for a group of Pathfinder players, and I don't think any of us were really in the right mindset. In short, I think we were all trying to play using maps without using maps. If that makes any sense. :P
I'd give it another go, but I've parted ways with 5E for unrelated reasons.
It is basically 5E content packaged for Fantasy Grounds, which is a VTT. My understanding is that there is character generation functionality, as well as in-play support, but it all runs in the context of the VTT.
While it should come in very handy for people running a 5E game in FG, it is neither a stand-alone character generator nor an e-book "solution" (sadly).
The OGL genie can never be put back in the bottle. At this point all they're doing is making it harder for others to support their game.
But hey, it's Hasbro, so what else would you expect?