|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
OQ, depends how you define altruism. In my experience, people who like Ayn Rand often resort to caricatures of altruism or straw men (e.g., altruism means destroying yourself). But it is a marvelously complex phenomenon that primatologists, evolutionary biologists, and psychologists have devoted many lifetimes to studying, fruitfully I think.
I wonder if this issue is partly baggage because ancient Greek had rough breathing and smooth breathing for words which began with vowels. History, for example, which comes nearly unchanged from Greek, and hippos (horse) start with rough breathing iota in Greek, which we write as initial h, while words like icthus (ichthys, fish) have smooth breathing.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
I think the government should do its best to balance competing rights, in this case your right to do what you want vs other people's rights to life and safety. I don't think anything you named is usefully analogous to guns.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Trust, respect, and personal responsibility aren't really the issue. The issue is that human beings have accidents, make poor decisions, have distorted thoughts, become overemotional, act hastily. And that weapons often act as an accelerant. They often potentiate violence (make bad situations worse). I'm not convinced by arguments which are essentially,"If humans would be perfectly rational everything would be OK. Therefore, guns are not the problem."
As far as I know "What a piece of work is a man..." is not ironic, but I have a hard time reconciling it with the intelligence of the writer and the character.
I value Lovecraft as a major non-anthropocentric writer. As much as I like the Western canon (and I really do like it), the Western tradition is almost fetishistically anthropocentric. So it's a big deal, and very refreshing, when this enormously influential writer comes along whose work says that humans are not the center of the universe. We're not the best, the most powerful, the most interesting. There might be godlike entities out there, but unlike the deities of most religions they aren't much interested in humans. In fact, they don't necessarily care about us at all.
Maybe Juggs can be on its own shelf.
Especially for men. Also, in the US treatment for mental illness is upside down: the people who need it most often don't get it, while many people who really don't need an antidepressant are taking one, and it's often prescribed by a doctor who doesn't have specialized training in diagnosing and treating mental and behavioral illness.
How evil stealing is really depends on how much you hurt a person. Stealing from corporations and rich folk doesn't really hurt them. It's more of an ethically quandary. It's when you steal from someone that is really going to suffer from it that it gets evil.
You also have to consider the emotional experience of the victims. Being threatened with grievous bodily harm or death is terrifying and traumatic. Inflicting that on someone is evil, even if you don't inflict physical injury on the person.
Maybe that just left the strongest impression on you. I don't think I was the only fan who, by the end of the run, was groaning over yet another Ferengi comic relief, conservative/capitalist send-up episode.
Well said. I see Rynjin's side, but some people are being aggressively opinionated. Maybe the stars are right and some country gentlemen and their servant save the world (where some Dunedain hardbutts might have failed).
Getting off-topic, but that's not a balance issue. The idea behind chess variants is to restore the primacy of analytical and creative problem-solving in a game which has become to a great extent a contest of preparation and memorization, even at the club level. Fortunately the draw death of chess doesn't appear imminent, even now. At the top level, one now sees more "suboptimal" openings, played to avoid heavily traveled theoretical lines.
Regarding combat formation: it could work if there are strongmen bullying the troops, or perhaps bullying and providing incentives. You may find organization and cooperation distasteful, but if you have a modicum of intelligence you might stomach it because you realize that you can get more out of your raping and pillaging that way.
Jessica Price wrote:
And you avoid misidentifying the person's sex. Also, for all you know the person you are talking to might be a transsexual. It's taking us a while as a race to catch up to the fact that human sex isn't binary.
Sorry if it came across disrespectfully, not at all my intention. Just meant to say matter-of-factly that the city is in dire straits. I was horrified to read about the DIA.
Andrew R wrote:
The media is/are profit-seeking corporate capitalists. They will say whatever they think will make money. The idea that they push a liberal agenda is bunk.
I thought he would be convicted of manslaughter but I am confident the jury made the right decision. I consider Zimmerman responsible but ultimately the prosecution simply didn't have enough evidence to fill in the blanks and create a narrative. There's a blank between the time Zimmerman got out of the car and time he killed Trayvon, and we have no way of knowing what happened during it. Did he shoot him in cold blood? Maybe. Did Trayvon attack him? Maybe. It's clear that there were inconsistencies in Zimmerman's story, even outright lies. But still there wasn't enough evidence to put him away.
I would say a clavier of some kind would be more appropriate in most fantasy settings, maybe virginals or something. Early keyboards were small, portable instruments that could be placed on a tabletop to be played. The colossal piece of furniture we call to mind, the iconic Steinway concert grand on the stage at Carnegie Hall, had to wait for technical innovations in the 19th century (and developments in musical thought and practice).
Josh M. wrote:
Of course there is competition but it's a misconception that Paizo wants D&D to fail. Has ever wanted D&D to fail. D&D failing is terrible for the hobby, which is bad for everyone, Paizo included.
If only we could decide what "unnecessary" means. You seem to take a utilitarian view of language and gaming. Pound gave an exercise to at least one of his students which involved removing "unnecessary" words from Shakespeare sonnets. Something remained, the propositional content I guess, but not much worth looking at. As far as gaming, if you have fun playing a class I don't see how it is "unnecessary." I agree that more is not always better. But neither is it necessarily worse.
Oliver McShade wrote:
I kinda like 3. Something like the gods in the Homeric epics, though perhaps not so commonly and directly involved in mortal affairs. They remind me of mob bosses in those: you say the right words, build the temples, do the hekatombs, pour out the libations, etc. If someone disses you you call in a favor like mass slaughter or plague on your enemies.
I think the problem is that you are thinking about speech in an atomistic or reductionistic way. "Volume of sound" strongly suggests to me that the spell is intended to create a gestalt sound effect, if you will. As others have said, similar to the sound you recognize as a bunch of people talking when you walk into a mall, bar, stadium, etc. Intelligible is not a useful word here. Theoretically, you could capture all those sounds and isolate the units of meaning. But the sound is not intelligible in any meaningful sense to the casual hearer.
Think you should rewrite this:
"Though not as strong with magic as a wizard or sorcerer...."
As soon as I see that I think,"Why would I want to play a third-rate arcane caster?" Actually, rewrite that whole second paragpraph. Something's wrong if a class writeup says that the class is wimpy or simply inferior.
The sad, or happy I guess depending on your table, thing is that this game can descend into entendre entirely too quickly. Something as simple as, "He unsheathes his longsword," can send the wrong group, or the right group depending on your table, down the unrecoverable road to perversion. Heaven forbid somebody brandishes a shortsword; their masculinity will be called into question for eternity.
It's hard to talk about rods, wands, and staves without eliciting some snickering.
Soldack Keldonson wrote:
Believing that social organization conduces to human thriving doesn't mean believing that every law is good. Take Princess Leia, for example. Her goal is to eliminate a system of political and social organization which is oppressive and destructive and replace it with one which is not. There's nothing inherently contradictory about being a lawful good rebel.
Lets stay on topic here the story isn't about semi-auto weapons. Its about a person defending themselves and then being made out to look like an insane blood thirsty murder.
The limits of your right to inflict harm on someone, even someone trying to hurt you, is a topic worthy of philosophical inquiry. I find that many gun rights advocates fall prey to false dilemma thinking here, i.e., have trouble understanding the idea that doing something "bad" doesn't wholly abrogate your morally considerability. Thinking in black and white is certainly easier on the poor, overwhelmed human brain than contemplating the complexities of this issue, but I don't accept that once you try to commit a trangression against me all moral bets are off and nearly anything I do to you is justifiable.