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

carn's page

935 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 935 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Dexion1619 wrote:


Even if you can't levitate stone/dirt, the ability to move that much material is impressive. You could hollow out a cliff side and build a base inside over a weekend.

There will be few high level earth kineticists, because the usual vita will read like:

Lev 1 kineticist
...
monster slaying, XP gathering

Hitting lev 6

Got hired by Dwarven Low King XY as chief engineer, payment 100 GP per day (*)

lived happily ever after and had absolutely no reason to go monster hunting again

(* Move earth kineticist probably as good at digging tunnels and mining as about 500 skilled miners; the latter would earn 500 gp per day, so 100 is a good deal for the Low King and for the level 6 kineticist)


Game Master wrote:

This is a playtest, not a "I don't like your class, change it" design session.

This subforum is for:

"Rules Discussion Occult Adventures Playtest
Post all of your thoughts about the playtest classes and the magic and spell rules here. Note that actual playtest feedback should go in the Playtest Feedback forum. Please make sure to peruse the existing threads to see if anyone is already discussing your topic before starting a new thread. Each class has its own primary discussion thread to get things started."

"Post all your thoughts about the paytest classes ..." = "Tell us: I like/dislike class X/class feature X, because ..."

Hence, this is also a "I don't like your class" forum. (Which btw, i did not even say, just that i dislike the consequences of burn mechanics.)


williamoak wrote:


1) Kineticist concerns:
-AC Too low

Why?

Shroud of water gives decent shield bonus all day and kineticist can wear light armor. Thats not great AC but not low either.


Main Problem i see with the kineticist is that his abilities do fall into two vastly differing categories and one of them is contrary to kineticists usefullness and coolness factors:

-"at-will" powers
That are his standard blasts, blast mods costing 1 burn or blast mods costing 2 with potential reduction by 1 due to some ability (kine can use move action to reduce 1 burn, so its at will with move+standard) and all other wild talents costing 0

-equal or less than "1/day" powers
Thats nearly all his other stuff; if after any reductions 1 burn remains, the kineticist is immidieately limited to con mod+3 per day useage; since some cool stuff costs more than 1 burn and since all abilities causing burn use the same pool, a high end kineticists might end up with 1 explosive blast, 2 entangling blasts and 1 torrent for entire day, which might be equivalent to having all burn costing wild talents to be actually 1 or 2/day

Coolness about kineticists is "at-will" and anything he can do per day will run contrary to that coolness factor.

Compared to anything even semicasters can do, "per day" kineticist talents suck, simply because semicasters have greater selection and have it up to 5/day for every spell level.

Mechanically i see no good reasons, why part of the kineticist stuff needs to be in "per day" category. Other classes - e.g. witch - work fine with useful at-will powers.

And the kineticists still has some rather usefull at-will powers, namely spark of life for trap and encounter detection (spend every turn a move action to have your elemental walk 50-100 ft in front of party, opening anything; any encounter enemies will attack elemental for 1 or more rounds, while party considers preping, engaging or retreating) and move earth,siege of fortified structues gets lot of new options with "move earth" tunnels for colapsing walls and it screws any natural dungeon plan.

But some of the kineticists talents would be too strong as full "at-will".

Furthermore the burn mechnic of dealing uncurable non-lethal damage and accumulating burn points is added bookkeeping.

Hence, my suggestion for burn:
"Burn (Ex): At 1st level, a kineticist can overexert herself
to channel more power than normal, pushing past the
boundaries that are safe for her body. Some of her wild
talents offer her the option to accept burn in exchange for a
greater effect. A kineticist can accumulate a number of burn points up to her Constitution modifier + 3 safely. For each point of burn she accepts beyond that limit, a kineticist suffers one point of lethal damage per character level, which cannot be reduced, avoided or negated via immunities, resistances or other means in any way and causes any kineticist's regeneration to stop functioning on the round following.
One minute of taking the concentration action removes all burn, but not any damage caused by burn.
A kineticist can’t choose to accept more than 1 point of burn
in a single round. This limit rises to 2 points of burn at
6th level, and it rises by 1 point of burn for every 3 levels
thereafter.
If she has both hands free, as a move action, a kineticist
can visibly gather energy or elemental matter around her,
allowing her to reduce the total burn cost of a blast wild talent
used in the same round by 1 point (to a minimum of 0
points). If she takes any damage while gathering power
and before the kinetic blast that releases it, she must make
a concentration check (DC = 10 + damage dealt + effective
spell level of her kinetic blast) or lose the energy in a wild
surge that deals her 1 point of burn."

That way the kineticists "per day" abilities turn into "per encounter" abilities. Their power can be adjusted sufficiently by adjusting the burn points the kineticist can suffer before taking damage. E.g. if only up to constitution modifier is safe, this change grants a high level kineticist just something like 2 explosive blasts per encounter, which is enough to keep him in check.

But both usefullness and coolness drastically increase, because now a lot of cool stuff can be used regularly instead of 1-2/day. Furthermore, the theme of kineticists burning his own essence or so is meintained, while at the same time bookkeping is simplified. (Yes, damage can be healed after combat, but accepting for example 4 burn for explosion is still accepting a lot of damage in the midth of combat and therefore probably not taken lightly).

And it doesnt require much other changes, e.g. all other talents are tied to "recover burn", so function accordingly without change of wording.

The only talent in need of adjustment (at least as far as i think):
"Kinetic Healer
Element aether or water; Type Sp; Level 1; Burn 1; see text
Prerequisites kineticist level 1st
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes
With a touch, you can heal a willing living creature for an amount
equal to 1d6+1 + your Constitution modifier. This
increases by 1d6+1 for every 2 kineticist levels you
possess beyond 1st. You can use this ability up to consitution modifier + 3 times per day."

Without this adjustment, a lev 1 kineticist could otherwise fully heal entire armies with 1 hour time or so. I also made the healed amount explicit, because currently its unclear what happens when composite blasts are available.

Is this a good way to bring the kineticists ability more in sync with the general "at will" theme?


Aratrok wrote:
Joey. Out of combat. You are not being punched and healed in the middle of a fight. You know this. I even mentioned a wand of cure light wounds, which is an out of combat healing tool.

Futhermore, the combination of lay on hand and painful resurgance means that even the healer is not required to some extent.

e.g. at 9th level one has about 7 3d6 lay on hands, so if one just happens to receive 7 times about 10 dam over course of adventuring, thats 7 phrenic pool points regained over the course of the day (at 9th level getting 7 times hit for 10+dam over the course of a day is probably not that unusual).

And a ring of regeneration is beyond fast healing equal to "Instead of fast healing 1, regain 1 phrenic pool point per 1 minute "resting"" (of course its expensive, but if one has good use for phrenic pool points its an high level option)


Sissyl wrote:
One overlooked part of summons is the sometimes rather extreme skill levels they have. Just saying.

Which gets even better with Evolved Summoned Monster because +8 one skill is a 1 point evolution.

Maybe even more overlooked are spell abilitis, e.g. with summon good monster feat:

summon monster 2 =3 pyrotechnic/entangle(grig) or 1 hideous laughter (faun)

summon monster 3 = aid for entire party (latern archon)

summon monster 4 = aid for entire party, circle vs evil (hound archon) or permanent image (pixie) ("cheating" 2 spell levels)

summon monster 5 = blur entire party, 2 cure serious (azata, bralani) or 1 wind walk, 1 create food/water/wine, 1 gaseous form, 1 major creation, 1 persistant image (djinni) or 3 cure light, 1 cure moderate, 1 neutralize poison (unicorn) or 3 dispel evil (mostly vs enchantments), 3 remove disease (Agathion, Vulpinal)

summon monster 6 = align weapon, versatile weapon (Archon, Legion), hallucinatory terrain (Azzata Lillend)

Higher summon monster give only heal and freedom of movement as far as i can see.

While these spells are sometimes not that great, you get them for free by having the respective summon monster prepared (actually all spells of lesser summon monster level are avaiable through one of higher lebel). And some of these spells are useful and not on every list.


Well, i meant all the other builds are not powerwise as good as bloodlines of bloodrager when including that the bloodrager can cast spells including a level 2 spell buff when entering any bloodrage.

Edit: And the mount is always a hassle due to usual DM mount aversion.


I would say yes, especially considering infused extracty. A wizard under transformation spell could not cast himself but would still be effected by imbibing an infused extract.

So alchi should be fine and transformation is not a bad option for him.


I suspect the arcane bloodline trumps any rage power except maybe pounce.

At lev 4 rage gets blur, protection vs arrows, energy protection or spider climb and at lev 8 haste or displacement selectable at start of any rage anew without any additional cost in any way.

Only at lev 16 its a bit stupid for both beastshape and form of the dragon do not go well with the + 5 falchion and transformation has disadvantage and might give little bonus.

For higher levels other bloodlines probably better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My two cents:

A lawful good character considers obeying, enforcing laws and having them a good in itself and he thinks they are a requirement for a good world.

A neutral good character does not consider obeying, enforcing laws and having them a good nor an evil in itself and he does not think they are a requirement for either a good or an evil world.

A chaotic good character considers obeying laws, enforcing laws and having them an evil in itself and he thinks they are detriment for a good world.

If obeying/enforcing a law has in sum good effects, LG will be in favor of with all zeal and will consider any opposition to be near equivalent of evil, NG will be in favor of and CG will be sceptical of, since causing the good without using the laws would be even better.

If obeying/enforcing a law has in sum neutral effects, LG will be in favor of and will consider any opposition to be suspectible, NG will not care and CG will be against and consider anybody in favor to be suspectible (Here LG and CG can easily clash).

If obeying/enforcing a law has in sum bad effects, LG will accept a limited enforcement and strife to replace the law with a better, NG will be against and CG will be against with a zeal indistinguishable from the zeal of LG in the opposite case, cause he is in face of what he considers the devil himself.

In the above "law" stands not only for law, but institutions, governments and their ilk. Yes, this interpretation indicates that after freeing a city from the reign of devils, the LG might not throw the entire lawbook the devils enforced into the dust bin, but check for laws that can remain in place with modifications; CG would throw it into the dustbin without looking (assuming devilish lawbooks can be safely disposed in dustbins).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

Hitting stuff is not the Fighter's problem... The problem is precisely his complete lack of viable alternatives when hitting stuff is not an option.

Options are the most valuable resource a character can have! Numbers are not nearly as important.

Giving Fighters bloated numbers does nothing to help them.

Nearly two years later and nothing has changed. No one's opinion has shifted. Some new faces came, some old faces left. The same discussions are being had.

Rather depressing link.

No, its 20 years. After reading AD&D base rule book conversation:

"Would be stupid to play anything but cleric."
"Yeah."
"With druid DM will constantly hassle you with that neutrality nonsense, as fighter you are nothing without your equipment and a wizard can do absolutely nothing without access to a book made of paper."
"But wizard can do cool stuff."
"But you need to trust your DM that you find the good spells and that your book dosent get destroyed when you get hit by fire or simply fall into water, even a heavy rainfall could be problematic. Would you trust me as a DM when your power is absolutely tied to a paper book?"
"No."
"And the cleric can hit things, has moderately acceptable weapon options, can carry a shield, can wear heavy armor, but most important just needs a single rather small holy item, which can made of steel or even more durable stuff and is for sale for little gold in practically every minor city, and it gives cleric access to dozens and later hundreds of spells. So cleric very seldom will be useless and therefore is best."
"I already said "yeah"."


wraithstrike wrote:
And to the OP: Part of the problem is that the community can not agree on how extraordinary a fighter can be without breaking immersion. If you allow him to do truely fantastic things it will be looked as anime, hidden magic, not realistic, and so on.

I think deeper part of the problem is the HP and damage mechanics in itself. It drastically limits what a martial can do.

Take for example what people call debuffing. In real life, if a competent fighter scores while swinging his two-handed sword with full strength on one leg of a large grizzly bear, the grizzly bear gets seriously "debuffed", meaning serious bleeding, cut muscles, broken bones or maybe even unusable or lost limb. Ok, in real life the large grizzly bear would still be a problem with his body mass, bite and the remaining limbs. But with that one hit the situation for the real life fighter is vastly improved; for example, running away might now be an option (outrunning uninjured bears is not possible, with leg injury on bear you stand a chance).

All this is completely removed by HP mechanics. Suddenly, its either a killing blow or it is in itself irrelevant for further combat except as HP reduction. And if HP reduction is in the current combat situation not useful, the martial suddenly needs some stupid special options always smelling like magic or requiring extraq feats or whatnot.

An example from a real life conversation with an experienced DM, who also liked realism:
"My players are often dumb, they only hit things instead of trying something creative."
"What else should they do?"
"For example, in a bar fight instead of attacking throw a chair between the opponents leg, so he falls down."
"Why throw a chair and not a throwing axe? That could also make him stumble and besides makes nasty leg wounds."
"Uhm, that only does damage and if enemy has enough HP will not hinder him."

A game mechanic example from PF, gunslinger and swashbuckler both have a complicated 7th level ability to cause with an attack on a body part a malfunction of that body part (arm->drop things; head->confused; wings->fall). Such a power is only necessary due to HP (though it might appear in other injury systems as well), because realistically to cause someone to drop an item, to be "confused" for at least 6 secs or to hamper his flying an ordinary, an unsophisticated and moderately trained hit with a greataxe on arm, head and/or wing is often sufficient. But thanks to HP meachanic it ends up as some special ability to which only few martials have access.

But to change this, the entire system would have to be changed. So in PF one is stuck with having to balance martials by making seemingly unrealistic options/rules to compensate for the unrealistic HP system.


I guess fencing grace requires a free hand?

I suspect, because the rapier archetype of swashbuckler is not proficient with bucklers.


http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/dimensional-assault
"Benefit: As a full-round action, you use abundant step or cast dimension door as a special charge. Doing so allows you to teleport up to double your current speed (up to the maximum distance allowed by the spell or ability) and to make the attack normally allowed on a charge."

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk
"Abundant Step (Su)

At 12th level or higher, a monk can slip magically between spaces, as if using the spell dimension door. Using this ability is a move action that consumes 2 points from his ki pool. His caster level for this effect is equal to his monk level. He cannot take other creatures with him when he uses this ability."

= lev 15 monk (beforehand dimensional assault not available feat wise) with activated pummeling style can make efficetively a full attack against 1 target for 2 ki points provided target is within 160 ft (140 ft small monk) and not protected by stupid barriers.

(Unfortunately not in suprise round due to full action.)

(I know, dimensional dervish, but its another feat gained at 17th level and it requires swift)

But the rules question already popping up:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/pummeling-style-combat-style
"As a full-round action, you can pool all your attack potential in one devastating punch. Make a number of rolls equal to the number of attacks you can make with a full attack or a flurry of blows (your choice) with the normal attack bonus for each attack."

Haste? I guess, yes.

Medusas wrath? I guess, no.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/medusa-s-wrath-combat---final
"Whenever you use the full-attack action and make at least one unarmed strike, you can make two additional unarmed strikes at your highest base attack bonus. These bonus attacks must be made against a dazed, flat-footed, paralyzed, staggered, stunned, or unconscious foe."
(pummeling strike != full-attack action)

Stunning Fist? Uh, oh ...
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/stunning-fist-combat---final
" You must declare that you are using this feat before you make your attack roll (thus, a failed attack roll ruins the attempt). Stunning Fist forces a foe damaged by your unarmed attack to make a Fortitude saving throw (DC 10 + 1/2 your character level + your Wis modifier), in addition to dealing damage normally."

One makes attack roles with pummeling, so stunning fist could be used. Is it declared for one specific attack role? Probably. If that hits, fine. If it misses? That attack role missed, but the single pummeling attack with which stunning fist is used might still deal damage even if the attack role with stunning fist missed. Then it missed, but the enemy was still damaged by the unarmed strike using stunning fist. Probably means stunning fist missed, but unclear from wording.

And could several stunning fist be used in a single pummel? (For example to have differing effects or ensure sucess).

I suspect stunning fist is resolved and used for each attack role with pummeling separatly. (Meaning by burning several stunnings fist one could make enemy stunned and fatigued.)


And do i get it correctly that pummeling charge:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/pummeling-charge-combat
"Benefit: When using Pummeling Style, you can charge and make a Pummeling Style attack at the end of your charge as part of the charge action."
at least per RAW allows a pummeling strike in surprise and staggered rounds?

Having 7 attack rolls + 1 trip or repositioning attempt in surprise round could give monk/brawler an edge.


claudekennilol wrote:
You can use Slashing Grace with a dwarven waraxe but you will not be able to finesse it (as in dex to hit) unless you also take a level in swashbuckler. Aldori Dueling Sword and Whip are the only two weapons that you can have both dex to hit and damage without also being a swashbuckler.

Damn, i missed that. So the weaklings have the choice of either hitting od doing damage unless they use an aldori dueling sword or a whip.

But scimitar and dervish dance combat feat also give dx to hit and dam, only it requires a hand free.


serve the purpose of Monk/Brawler Fist getting through DR better, getting trip maneuver as effectively free action and getting pounce against single target?

So this is again an attempt to improve the monk/brawler using unarmed strikes?

Does it suceed better than the other styles that attempted that so far?


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
carn wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
How many ways do we need to have Dex to damage?
I do not care, i was just irritated about that "Wait, you are a very dexterous dwarf, dont take that light and quick 1 lb dagger, thats only for strong people, instead use this 8 lb dwarven waraxe to train with." and thought i missed/misunderstood some rule/feat.
Yeah, it does seem odd that you could do more damage with an 8lb war axe than with a 1lb dagger...

Odd is, that for a high ST and low DX the choice of one handed weapon is not that critical (ST 18, DX 6, dagger 6 dam, waraxe 9.5, a relevant but not crippling difference, dagger can be hidden more easily and be used in close combat and be thrown, difference gets less relevant with further bonuses), while with low ST and high DX waraxe or other is must have over dagger (ST 6, DX 18, dagger 1 dam, waraxe 9.5 with correct feats, thats a large difference). So strong people might use daggers, weak and dexterous people must use scimitars, longswords, bastard swords, dwarven waraxe and all other qualifying for the respective feats.

But anyway, RPGs are not for musing about such things, i just suspected some missed rule, but there wasnt any.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
How many ways do we need to have Dex to damage?

I do not care, i was just irritated about that "Wait, you are a very dexterous dwarf, dont take that light and quick 1 lb dagger, thats only for strong people, instead use this 8 lb dwarven waraxe to train with." and thought i missed/misunderstood some rule/feat.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Light weapons can have the Agile enchantment, which allows dex to damage.

I know, but thats magic and expensive. If pure training is applied and a dexterous recruit shows up, training of daggers and other light stuff will mostly be secondary because it is known that dexterous people can make far more use of their dexterity with heavier weapons.

And even with magic, agile takes away - 1 to and -1 to dam and is not available before about lev 6, while the feat based dex damage is available lev 1 - 3.


Alexander Augunas wrote:
There's a feat that allows you to use Dex to damage with rapiers in Advanced Class Origins.

Ok, that explains the rapier archetype for swashbuckler.

But leaves all light weapons to be still bad choices for high dx.


There are 2 feats giving DX bonus for damage instead of ST.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/slashing-grace-combat

This only works with scimitar.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/dervish-dance-combat

This works with any "one-handed slashing weapon (such as the longsword)" or such as a dwarven waraxe if either dwarf or having exotic weapon proficiency.

Since my intution indicates that it should be less complicated to make use of DX with a rapier than with a dwarven waraxe, i suspect i might miss a feat or a rule. Is there any other way except agile to gain DX bonus on Rapier or any other one handed piercing or light weapon?

If not, was there any general "flavor" idea behind dexterous people preffering waraxes over rapiers?


Generic Villain wrote:

Well, as a historian I'm sure you know that the "Dark Ages" weren't actually all that dark. Proper historian don't even use that term. "Dark Ages" was a term coined by a 14th-century Italian author named Petrarch who really liked the Roman Empire, and thought everything after Rome's fall just sort of sucked. Source.

The so-called Dark Ages of Europe were not nearly as grim and brutal as some people think. Warfare was heavily limited due to the small size of armies necessitated by feudal government, women were treated better than previous times by a wide margin, and Dark Age serfs had shorter workweeks than Americans today. Oh, and life expectancy was about 50 years.

Nice post.

But i think its impossible to cure prejudice toward middle ages. Its always fun to ahve people talking about witch hunts, absolute rulers and horrible torture then say "Yes, the renaissance was realy a horrible age, good its gone."

(I know middle ages also weren't that nice, but in those three categories renaissance has far higher "score".)


Kittyburger wrote:
carn wrote:
Matt Thomason wrote:


- My objection to your views on marriage are primarily because the implementation of those views causes emotional harm to others that have done nothing to deserve that harm.

The state cannot and should not care about emotional harm. It has to respect individual rights and otherwise pursue what is deemed to be of general interest for the nation.
And the ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger demonstrated that the state has no interest whatsoever in restricting marriage to a single religion's definition of "one man and one woman."

It demonstrated that no convincing evidence for a current interest was presented in the eyes of the judge. Guess what, 4 of 9 supreme court judges had adifferent opinion. That means that an interest can be formulated, but the evidence was too thin.

As i described on page 1 or so, have a hereditary kingdom and suddenly there is a strong interest for the nation whether the king/queen can marry same sex or only opposite. And nobody would argue about whether there is enough interest to justify the king ordering his eldest son to keep his eyes on girls, preferably princesses of neighboring kingdoms.


thejeff wrote:
carn wrote:
Hitdice wrote:


Well, here in the US there is a (Constitutional) promise of equal protection, which means that heterosexual couples and homosexual couples have the same right to marry.
Rights are not directed at couples but at individual. And one man one woman obviously does limit everybodies right to marry in the same way.
Just like miscegenation laws limited everybody's rights in the same way. Everyone could only marry within the same race.

As far as i know, nobody ever claimed that black + white was not a marriage. It was a marriage, just an illegal one. Even if preformed in secret it was punishable.

If two men exchange vows that is not of anybodys and especially the states concern. Instead of what is asked for, is a change of definition. And the reason given is that not changing the definition causes emotional harm.


ShadowcatX wrote:
carn wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:


Does it take guts to have that stance? Sure.
It doesn't take guts to stand for something in the US which is favored by current US president and current supreme court majority.

If it was the U.S. President and the supreme court majority who paid Paizo's bills I'd agree with you.

I suppose you think it does take guts to stand up for a religion where the majority of the people in your country are members of that religion?

Majority is not an issue regarding guts, its what the other side is capable of and willing to do. Which is seriously limited if the supreme court also says the other side is bigot and the one in charge of various agencies is also on your side. And paizos customer base will include fewer conservatives than general population, due to age and education of customers (average education level of paizo customers can be expected to be higher than average, because buying rule books several hundred pages long is correlated with a willingness to read)


Matt Thomason wrote:


- My objection to your views on marriage are primarily because the implementation of those views causes emotional harm to others that have done nothing to deserve that harm.

The state cannot and should not care about emotional harm. It has to respect individual rights and otherwise pursue what is deemed to be of general interest for the nation.


Hitdice wrote:


Well, here in the US there is a (Constitutional) promise of equal protection, which means that heterosexual couples and homosexual couples have the same right to marry.

Rights are not directed at couples but at individual. And one man one woman obviously does limit everybodies right to marry in the same way.

Hitdice wrote:


But really Carn, given your "I don't have a problem with the products, I just don't want to pay for them," statements, it sounds like you're complaining that you didn't educate yourself on Paizo's stance before purchasing a subscription.

Yes, that was an error.


Kittyburger wrote:
carn wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:

And we have yet another thread created because someone's concerned about which fictional character is fictionally sleeping with another fictional character.

No, its about "If you're against homosexual marriage, you're probably not good aligned and if you actively oppose it you're evil (deity or not)".
Considering that those who actively oppose same-sex marriage are actively spreading lies about the LGBT community and agitating in foreign countries for laws calling for the extermination of queer people, I think "evil" is a pretty fair word to describe it.

So opposing homosexual marriage = mass murderer?


ShadowcatX wrote:

And we have yet another thread created because someone's concerned about which fictional character is fictionally sleeping with another fictional character.

No, its about "If you're against homosexual marriage, you're probably not good aligned and if you actively oppose it you're evil (deity or not)".

ShadowcatX wrote:


Does it take guts to have that stance? Sure.

It doesn't take guts to stand for something in the US which is favored by current US president and current supreme court majority.


Matt Thomason wrote:
carn wrote:
Matt Thomason wrote:


So would you say your objections are based on the product "promoting inclusiveness until such a time as that issue in our society today is successfully dealt with"?
Yes, IF inclusiveness is not only promoted by NPCs being that way, but by promoting the idea that paizos version of what the result in society of inclusiveness should be, is painted as the only moral choice.

Okay. So...

1) Do you object to what is being said, or just the way it is being said, or both?

2) From what I've read, I have the impression you would describe yourself as "Tolerant of differences in others, but not a proponent of equal rights due to my moral code defining the prerequisites for those rights" Would that be accurate?

1) both

2) There are no prerequisites for rights. Is just that there is no right to marry people of the same sex.


Matt Thomason wrote:


So would you say your objections are based on the product "promoting inclusiveness until such a time as that issue in our society today is successfully dealt with"?

Yes, IF inclusiveness is not only promoted by NPCs being that way, but by promoting the idea that paizos version of what the result in society of inclusiveness should be, is painted as the only moral choice.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Again, any stance they take is "whacking" someone with "a moral club". I don't think you need to use aggressive language to learn whether the product is something you want to support. I dare say many who think it is right to be inclusive feel as strongly about the morality as you do.

Deliberately including something until a certain goal is achieved is whacking with a moral club.

And its not about feeling strongly about it. From my feelings i am rather indifferent, slightly liking gays more over lesbians as they increase my market value. I just feel strongly about the utter arrogance and bluntness of "until..." as that is not what i would like to pay for.


The black raven wrote:
To the OP. I think you can expect inclusion of politics in most all Paizo products in the form of gender equality, race equality and other similar topics.

Examples for similar topics?


TerraNova wrote:


Now, if that passage causes you to drop from the product line, I am sorry for you.

No, its worded with the intent to avoid any political difficulties.

TerraNova wrote:


Simply because you seem to universalize your viewpoint, and reject material that does not reflect it outright. That makes for a nice echo chamber where your views never are challenged and thus cannot evolve past their current state.

You are assuming a lot about me. I do not reject material, that whacks me with a moral club, i enjoy to some extent reading it and taking it apart. Its just i do not like to pay for it, especially when the purpose is something different.


Steve Geddes wrote:


I think the bolded is relevant to your points earlier that there are a large number of people who voted against marriage equality in some jurisdictions in the US. That fact does not imply that it is right to oppose marriage equality. Paizo are no doubt of the view that those people were wrong to do so - even if they were a majority.

More people to insult, means more care before judgement necessary.And i see little care about the possibility of error from those saying "bigot".

Steve Geddes wrote:


Quote:
KSF wrote:
And I'm still not seeing where Paizo is specifically calling you evil.
By saying that a good god cannot be against marriage equality.
For the record, whilst I share the view that a good god wouldnt be against marriage equality, I dont think that people who disagree with me are evil. I just think they're mistaken about what consitutes "good". From what I know of them, I'd suspect Paizo employees to have a similar view, by and large.

Thats something i have no reason to suspect.


Steve Geddes wrote:
carn wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
a NG herbalist who (amongst other things) helps people end pregnancies. By your definitions, those are as much "political messages" as the current issue under discussion, arent they?
Yes, that is also one.

Not the CG brothel owner?

Any argument trying to show that operating a brothel is not good, is rather complicated and has many twist where one could go wrong and arrive at the wrong result. So i am doubtful about my conclusion in this regard.

Steve Geddes wrote:


To be clear, I'm not really interested in arguing morality with you - I'm just trying to point out that by your definitions of political statements it is necessarily true that any producer of an RPG (which includes concepts like alignment) will have to make political statements. I think you're noticing some specific ones (like homosexual marriage and abortion being consistent with LG and G alignments respectively) because they bother you, but glossing over others which dont.

Of course, but if they elevate some issues to "until...", this influences the product i am buying, hence, i care what exactly they consider relevant enough to whack me with their moral club.


Steve Geddes wrote:


a NG herbalist who (amongst other things) helps people end pregnancies. By your definitions, those are as much "political messages" as the current issue under discussion, arent they?

Yes, that is also one. Can someone confirm that?

That would make my decision whether to unsubscribe rather simple.


Steve Geddes wrote:
carn wrote:
KSF wrote:
carn wrote:
Gnoll Bard wrote:


The truth of the matter is that there's really no fundamental difference between a married homosexual couple and a married heterosexual couple. Both couples live together, love each other, share their lives and their possessions, and may choose to raise children if they so desire.

Probability of a child living with married heterosexual couple to be biological child of the two is (as far as i guess from what little i know about statistics) about 50-90%.

Probability of a child living with a married homosexual couple to be biological child of the two is about 0%.

Thats a difference.

Why does the child necessarily need to be the biological child of both parents? And you realize that kids with gay parents grow up just fine, right?
I just noted a difference. Whether that difference is relevant enough to justify differing legal/custom treatment would be a matter of political debate.

Would you accept that whatever relevance that statistical fact has also applies to a heterosexual couple, one or both of whome are unable to have kids?

If the difference you point out is an argument against recognising gay marriage, it's also an argument against the marriages of sterile, heterosexual couples.

If sterile couples could be with absolute certainty be reliable identified without any incursion into their privacy, then yes, it would be an argument.

But when two men show up before a marriage official, the official gains the information "they will never have biological kids together" without doing anything.

If a man and a woman show up before a marriage official, the official at most gains very imprecise information about the probability that the two will have biological kids together (derived from their age and outwwrad visible health and maybe indirect information about their intent in regard to having kids). And he could only by forcing them to take tests and inform him about the results gain somewhat more precise information, with only in a very few cases getting 100% that they will never have kids (Infertility test have a failure chance). And he would never know, whether they want to have kids. So he lacks information compared to the two men.

Hence, if one thinks that the first difference is sufficient to justify differing treatment, a difference remains even in light of infertile couples.


Drock11 wrote:

As long as they don't start putting social issues in their material just for the sake of doing it I don't have a problem with it.

Which is mostly the thought behind the second question i wrote in the OP. is more to come?

After this thread i expect no.


Lightminder wrote:
The discomfort over loving consensual commitment rituals scoring higher than a graphic description of killing a sentient being for flattened circles of metal is all based on the value system of the individuals in the game, which makes the water of culture more observable and testable than everyday life.

In Skulls and Shakles there was no claim that raiding a peaceful coastal village and slaughtering the few tactically ill advised level 1 warriors and then collect loot, which might mean starvation for the surviving villagers, is good. Opening issue even metnioned the problem, that the AP is no place for LG or maybe even G chars.

(I would be even sceptical about the AP being suitable for neutral chars.)

Otherwise, in most fantasy games much slaughtering of sentient beings would qualify as self defense, with nearly all the rest being in light of the circumstances as good or evil as killing of a taliban today.


KSF wrote:
carn wrote:
KSF wrote:

Personally, I don't think are two sides in this matter. It's no different than the other two. Sorry that you're not able to see that.

Two sides in the sense that major opposing political factions exist.

In that sense, there were two major opposing sides in the American Civil War. And there have been often been two major opposing sides with regards to other civil rights issues. Doesn't mean that the perspective of both sides have equal merit.

Of course. In mid 19th century slavery was a political issue in the US (and also elsewhere) and one of several or maybe the most important or even the only issue (i read varying claims about that) that caused a civil war to erupt. And majority does not equal right.

KSF wrote:


And I'm still not seeing where Paizo is specifically calling you evil.

By saying that a good god cannot be against marriage equality.


KSF wrote:
carn wrote:
Gnoll Bard wrote:


The truth of the matter is that there's really no fundamental difference between a married homosexual couple and a married heterosexual couple. Both couples live together, love each other, share their lives and their possessions, and may choose to raise children if they so desire.

Probability of a child living with married heterosexual couple to be biological child of the two is (as far as i guess from what little i know about statistics) about 50-90%.

Probability of a child living with a married homosexual couple to be biological child of the two is about 0%.

Thats a difference.

Why does the child necessarily need to be the biological child of both parents? And you realize that kids with gay parents grow up just fine, right?

I just noted a difference. Whether that difference is relevant enough to justify differing legal/custom treatment would be a matter of political debate.


Gnoll Bard wrote:


The truth of the matter is that there's really no fundamental difference between a married homosexual couple and a married heterosexual couple. Both couples live together, love each other, share their lives and their possessions, and may choose to raise children if they so desire.

Probability of a child living with married heterosexual couple to be biological child of the two is (as far as i guess from what little i know about statistics) about 50-90%.

Probability of a child living with a married homosexual couple to be biological child of the two is about 0%.

Thats a difference.


Kevin Mack wrote:


Actualy in the very first sandpoint article in Ap Issue 1 there is a midwife that offers herbal contrseptives

Nice, that they thought about it.


Matt Thomason wrote:


Okay, question time:

1) Did you vote for that party *because* of their anti-LGBT stance? (if so, then yeah, you're not going to find any friends here, Paizo staff included)

2) Assuming it was just one of their many policies, if you simply voted for them because the alternative was a party that had more bad policies, then that's nowhere near the same thing.

Not the way to save me, if the only difference had been marriage, i would have still voted that way. So while the other issues were more important, it doesnt help me being "evil".


Matt Thomason wrote:

Being pro-natural marriage isn't the same as discriminating against LGBT marriage (unless I'm misreading the idea of the stance).

It is the same, because the pro-natural marriage stance is pro-natural marriage because of certain biological qualities which are guranteed to be absent in L and G marriage. Hence, L and G marriage are treated differently.


LazarX wrote:
DJEternalDarkness wrote:


Um what the heck are you talking about here? People have always had casual sex well before the invention of the pill. There's a reason that the world has midwives who practiced certain herbalism skills.
Not only that, contraceptiive practises aren't a modern invention either.

Reliability and side effects are known words?


KSF wrote:


Personally, I don't think are two sides in this matter. It's no different than the other two. Sorry that you're not able to see that.

Two sides in the sense that major opposing political factions exist. Some 50%+ voted 2008 or so in california against gay marriage. Decision in favor of segregation would probably generate below 10% support.

KSF wrote:


carn wrote:
On the other hand, paizo clearly suggest that natural marriage proponents are evil.

Where did they do that?

What's the insulting part again? I'm not seeing one.

Thats at least what me and another user concluded:

Matt Thomason wrote:


carn wrote:


If being anti-LGBT is clearly bigoted and has no moral argument on its side, shouldn't lawful evil places tend to have anti-LGBT laws/customs?

No, because they could just have other evil laws in place, such as "one percent of the population will be chosen at random to be executed each year". However - a nation with anti-LGBT law/customs could certainly be labelled as lawful evil. From memory (you'd have to search recent threads to find the references), Paizo have clarified that a god that didn't support equality would be hard to justify as "Good", and one with a decidedly anti-equality stance would be hitting the "Evil" end of the scale.

In last election i voted for a party in favor of anti-LGBT laws in so far, as L and G cannot marry as marriage is man and woman. Hence, i am supporting a party that would suggest - or more precisely keep the current - laws that are according to paizo evil, which is as calling me evil. And that is somewhat insulting.


James Jacobs wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
Thirded. It's not politics, it's treating people like people.

This.

It's not politics.

And it's not anything new either. We've had LGBT characters in the world since Pathfinder #1. And LGBT characters at Paizo much longer than that.

Is there any other issue thats not politics and treated similar?

1 to 50 of 935 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.