jocundthejolly's page

my offering is "weirbrand", but mageblade is good, simple, and to the point.

I dislike 'gish' because it sounds silly. I dislike 'mageblade' also. When you run words together like that, the first noun is close to an adjective--it modifies the second. For example, in 'duskblade,' 'dusk' modifies 'blade.' The idea is blade, and the 'dusk' modifies or restricts its meaning. You're not a 'dusk.' In this case, you want to say that you are both a fighter and a mage, and that they are of roughly equal importance. You're not trying to establish primacy for one or the other. 'Mage-blade' would be more logical, although I don't love it (at least because it is unbalanced: half of it is metonymic, the other direct and literal).

I would probably pick the prosaic 'mage-fighter' or 'fighter-mage.'

Some interesting suggestions given here, but remember that your daughter is the one who has to live with the name. You might think an certain name is cool, but having it might not be so cool.

What does not seem to have been mentioned here:

The fighter is much, much better at their schtick than anybody else is at theirs.

A two-weapon fighting shield-user has an AC that borders on ridiculous while getting the highest DPR of any class.

If you want a class that does -damage-, to -everything-, -all the time-, and is as unkillable via physical attacks as is humanly possible in this game, you want to take a fighter.

Fighters are a class created for players who want to brawl, swing swords, hit things, and end up climbing over the mounting corpses of their enemies. Pathfinder does a good job of making sure that they do this way better than anybody else (something not true in 3.5).

If you want to solve problems/do combats in strange and different ways, you should be playing a caster. That's what they do in 3.x. Asking for fighters to have a caster's versatility instead of just being combat monsters was more of a change than PF was willing to take on.

It bothers me that fighters were dethroned as the toughest blokes around-and haven't regained their stature in Pathfinder. Barbarian gets d12 hp per level, fighter only d10? Reverse those, or leave the barbarian and give the fighter even more hp. It is even more egregious because other classes have been juiced-even bards and rogues get d8, and arcanes d6, while fighters are the same as they were 20 years ago. In a sense, fighters are wimpier compared to those classes now.

In a world of magic, the idea of physical torture seems a bit, I can't think of a good word, like performing delicate surgery with blunt instruments. I guess some torturers might not have access to magic, and there are those who are dedicated sadists, but imagines that anyone in a fantasy campaign world who devotes a lot of time and effort to getting information out of people would have some neater and more reliable ways of doing it than pincers and pliers.

Sir_Wulf wrote:

Apparently, university professors give better grades to essays written using less familiar terms and phrases, even when more pedestrian vocabulary explains the subject more clearly.

Even as an enthusiastic proponent of obscure vocabulary, I consider that finding a bit disturbing.

That's just plain silly. I am entusiastic proponent of obscure vocabulary as well, but I have also worked as a newspaper journalist. The standard you are to write to when communicating to others is an eighth-grade comprehension level. Short, effective verbage is better all around. Ask any editor if they'd prefer purple prose or short effective words in a submission.

A teacher of mine gave me this example:

"I have beheld the infernal conflagration in all its red-tinged glory and gazed upon the driving aquaeous percipitation that descended from the glowering heavens."

** spoiler omitted **

It is always amazing to go back and read old newspapers, like William Lloyd Garrison era. Education was incredibly rigorous in those days, and my goodness, those guys could write the heck out of a newspaper.

I've noticed a big one, from geek/gamer perspective, and that is the use of "focus" in relation to spells in D&D.

Now, the term focus is not the problem - it is an apt description of an object used to focus your energy for the casting of a spell.

The problem comes up when discussing, of course, plurals.

I have seen, in more than a few RPG books, the term "focuses".

I believe the more correct plural would be "foci".

Yes, the old question of just how Latin you want to be. I can see both sides here: on one hand, I am a classicist snob ('snob' doesn't really need to be said by people who identify themselves as classicists). I want to say, "Yes, the nominative plural of that masculine noun of the 2nd declension should of course be used." On the other hand, I am a realist. We are speaking English, not Latin, and a classical education, for better or worse, is exceedingly rare nowadays. So, I think 'focuses' is fine. We can all understand it. There is no need to torture ourselves with the particulars of Latin grammar.

1) I'll agree with the Underwear model vampires and Dragons.

2) Tieflings too
3) Drizzt or Legolas PCs
4) Orphan boys with the mysterious heritage who find a magical MacGuffin to defeat the BBG.
5) Lovecraft

Tentacles. Oh, please no more tentacles. I am willing to accept a grandfather clause-if you're already tentacular when my ban takes effect, you can live on-but NO NEW TENTACLES, for ANY reason, at all, EVER.

James Jacobs wrote:

MisterSlanky wrote:

Drow...and Duregar...and Derro...and pretty much anything from the "evil" alternative version of reality we call the Underdark, or Darklands, or somesuch.

I can see where you're coming from with drow and duergar... but I should point out that in Golarion/Pathfinder, derro aren't an "evil" version of something, really. They're really their own thing.

Is there an "evil" version of humans? Dark Stalkers, perhaps?

I wrote up something like that for the LPJ contest

over here .

Aaron Bitman wrote:

I see it differently. I think that finding things - even in plain sight - is a skill, and some people are better at it than others. I often fail to see what is plain in front of me. Others have a knack for checking the right place right away. Of course, luck is a factor - and in the d20 system, luck is VERY important. So I'd say that a Perception roll WOULD be appropriate for such a situation.

I'm going to agree with this. There IS a mechanic for the methodical body cavity search. Take 20. I would readily agree that it would take more than two minutes to search THAT thoroughly. I don't think most people want to get into that much detail (at least my players don't).

Personally I like and use the passive auto-take 10 approach to perception. This allows the players to stop rolling dice for every 10 ft. asking if they see anything (yes, my players are a bit nervous). If there is really something interesting they then ask for a "real" perception check. If they don't roll better than a 10 they still get their passive.

My two bits,

Kizan

This is one reason time pressure of one kind or another is often a good idea. The dungeon should be a dangerous place. The PCs should be afraid to hang out there. The players/PCs should be forced to weigh the consequences of something coming up that tunnel mouth, or of an old ceiling collapsing, or of the place being inundated, or of who knows what happening if they don't get through with the dungeon and get somewhere in time, against the possibility of finding something.

Vincent Schiavelli.

I thought it would be fun to compile a list of your favorite actors who are, well, creepy. The fun thing about this is that many of them are highly recognizable actors, but their names are often unfamiliar.

Just list a couple per post.

I'll start

Bill Duke

Ronald Lacey

It's really a pickle we're in isn't it? I agree that Intelligence doesn't fit the oracle at all, but we get either three divine casters with the same stat, or we get three spontaneous casters with the same stat. I know we're supposed to look at the merits of each class on its own, but if too many classes run off the same stat, each of them risks becoming less distinct. I speculate that the Alchemist will be an Intelligence class, but if the Summoner also runs off Charisma (which would make sense, being in command of creatures), The the Oracle also being off Charisma might make one class too many.

There isn't always one score that fits better than all the others. I would consider according 2 relevant scores equal weight and averaging them. Round down for odd totals, I suppose. Including combinations creates novelty, which means more distinctive options for various classes, and acknowledges the complexity inherent in situations like this. With INT WIS CHA, you've got the three of them individually plus 3 possible combinations. Since all ability scores use the same modifier schedule, there is no problem with a modifier for a synthetic score.

Dragonborn3 wrote:

Dragonborn3 wrote:

Granted. You are now the proud(?) room-mate of Sebastion.

I wish for a pumpkin pie.

Granted.

You spontaneously develop a lethal allergic reaction to pumpkin spice and die.

I wish that, while maintaining my present physical form and features, that I were immortal.

You're looking young for someone 8 million years old, and your body is just as it was in 2009. However, the last 8 million years of agony seem like a pleasant dream compared to the eternity you will spend wracked by constant, excruciating, total-body pain.

I wish that no more animals would suffer for human pleasure.

Louis Porter publishes lots of cheap PDFs (you can find them here or on rpgnow), including Pathfinder prestige classes like this one. I won't say how great this is or how great its author is. ;)

http://paizo.com/store/downloads/louisPorterJrDesign/pathfinderRPG/v5748btp y8bc8

Unfortunately, you should probably consider how the local constabulatory might react to your activity. I know around here, in suburban NJ, you have to be careful-YOU know you're not doing anything bad, but if the cops were to see a group of guys hanging out in the woods doing something 'weird,' they would probably start harassing them and tell them to get lost. Since 911, too, they are much more sensitive to anything they deem out of the ordinary. If it happens to be a place where kids hang out, drink, maybe smoke dope, whatever, you would be more likely to run into the cops, too. Hopefully it's not a problem where you live, but something to think about. It does look awesome, though. Good luck with it.

OK, I will set the bar with my first effort. I challenge anyone who wants to win this contest to best me.

Northling

The creature appears human-or nearly so.

Were they merely vile and distant, Northlings would hardly concern the civilized races; but they were endowed by their maker with middling intelligence, an insatiable lust to expand their territory, and an undying hatred for their fair humanoid brethren-indeed, for all that is fair, organized, and decent.

It is said that the original stock from which the gods forged man-man, with his curiosity, ambition, indomitable spirit, and capacity for good-despite its impurities, was the rarest precious metal. The dross from the making was discarded but not destroyed, as the gods believed. The Trickster stole it and plunged it deep into the bowels of the earth, below a mountain fastness in the wild northern wastes. There, when his brothers’ eyes were turned away, he used it to fashion a race of unalloyed evil, unrivaled in wickedness, abounding in all that is base and abominable in man, a cruel mockery of its fair cousins.
Northlings bear the stamp of their hateful origin, and of The Trickster’s essay at an art beyond his ken and ambit: they may pass for human, if observed from a distance or heavily clothed, but they are always in some way misshapen or cheated of fair proportion. A nose might be set too high; a face might be horribly tiny and pinched; limbs might be just long enough to horrify.

Society

Northlings build sprawling warren cities in the mountainous, boreal north, distant from the lands of the civilized races. In these thick-aired, filth-ridden cave and tunnel complexes, which communicate in places with the upper levels of the Underdark, Northlings live in loose, extended family groups, in which incest is common. Social organization is fluid, and it contours derive largely from the presence of powerful headmen who can muster enough allies to delineate them by imposing their will upon others. Within their foul homes, Northlings practice what the civilized races would recognize as the common activities of sentient races everywhere: the arts of making, the trading of goods and services, the exploration of their world, the propagation of their kind and the rearing of young. They spend a great deal of time burrowing, either with their clawlike hands or with rude implements, to expand their domains. Northlings commonly enslave one another and any other sentients they can dominate to aid in their efforts, and they may in time push southward into human lands or delve deep enough to release Underdark horrors upon an unsuspecting surface populace.

The rudiments of religious worship exist among Northlings in the form of vile rituals honoring their earth, The Trickster, who fashioned them from refuse, and a host of lesser, wretched deities. Those among the Northlings who derive unholy power from their realm, or from the gods, are both feared and venerated above others.

Northlings venture above ground only occasionally, to run and fight or bring down large game with their crude implements of war. From time to time, when their burrowing brings them into contact with foreign groups of their own kind, or with denizens from the realms below, they make war. Northlings typically subsist on roots and root vegetables, fungi, and rodents, as well as snakes, snails, worms, and insects. It is said also that Northlings are masters of underground waterways, constructing watercraft which are well-suited to navigating subterranean rivers and capable of bearing them far in their quest for sightless fish and albino frogs, which they prize as delicacies. Northlings are not loathe to resort to cannibalism, even if they have other, less hideous options.

Combat

Northlings vary in their martial sophistication: there are those who wield javelins with a modicum of skill (about 10%), those who use tools of brute force (about 30-40% of encountered), and those who attack with their clawlike hands and filthy, jagged teeth. Their assaults are typically unsubtle, but not inconsiderable. Although they attain acertain acumen in moving about their rocky homes quickly and quietly, Northlings don’t typically exercise the discipline or restraint needed to put their skills to good use against their enemies. They rarely employ any sort of strategy more complex than waiting for their javelin-wielders to attack from a distance before they setting upon their mark, relying on their ferocity, their olfactory assaults, their bloodcurdling screams, and their sheer numbers to overwhelm their victims. Larger groups encountered may be led into battle by a charismatic religious leader, either a cleric or a druid.

Although their own crafters are primitive by human standards, encountered Northlings occasionally wield masterwork weapons, or even items of great power; these are perhaps recovered by chance, stolen, or seized by force from unfortunate Underdark denizens or explorers from human lands. A Northling who gains possession of such power can unite factions and rally a large number of followers to his cause, enforcing his will through intimidation and violence. Should such an assemblage near the southern limits of the boreal wastes prepare an organized assault on human lands, the consequences could be dire.

Northlings’ hide, another gift from their progenitor, is remarkably tough and horny, providing them with impressive natural defenses and serving as insulation against the cold of their northern realms. Some Northlings wear filthy furs or skins out of habit, or as ostentation, but they rarely need them to withstand the cold and do not object to going about unclothed. They rarely wear armor, even in combat.

Stench (ex): Northlings never wash, and always reek of foul meat; thrice a day, however, they can emit a particularly horrid stench as a free action. The Stench is said to resemble that of rancid butter, but most creatures with a sense of smell find it much more difficult to stomach: living creatures within 30 feet of a Northling emitting the stench must succeed on a DC 13 Fortitude save or be sickened for 10 rounds. The save DC is constitution-based. Creatures that successfully save cannot be affected by the same Northling’s stench for 24 hours. A delay poison or neutralize poison spell removes the effect from the sickened creature. Creatures with immunity to poison are unaffected, and creatures resistant to poison receive their normal bonus on saving throws. Inured as they are to living in stink and squalor, and endowed by their maker with great constitutional resistance to disease and poison, Northlings themselves are never affected by Northling Stench.

jocundthejolly wrote:

Can you play an NPC class in 4E? I haven't seen it. Maybe I just missed it or it's in another book. 4E overall seems higher-level than 3.x. Not higher-level meaning superior, higher-level as in Windows or another GUI vs., for exmaple, command-line Unix or machine language. In 3.5 I once played an Expert who was an artist. She was a sculptor who happened to do a bit of exploring and adventuring. Can I extend 4E in that direction, or is it pretty much limited to fighter, wizard, etc.?

A character that's just a painter? No, there aren't any classes that do that for the same reason people didn't really play the NPC classes that much in 3.5: they just can't do much outside what they spend their skills on, and for the most part base classes could do that stuff better.

Anyway, painting's with the rest of the Craft/Profession skills in that, if your character should have them they have them, but it's probably not going to come up in play in a way that you should have to roll for. Now, any class could be a painter as background detail, but can a character only be a painter without refluffing something? No, not really.

Still, it shouldn't be that hard to refluff a bard into a painter if you don't mind a few unrealistic bits. (Like ignoring the fact you couldn't draw anything in six seconds, let alone a drawing so moving it causes psychological damage.)

Let me respond, politely, to your points:

1)Your answer is that I can't do that in 4E. That is all I was wondering. No need to be defensive about it.

2)Why would I play a bard if I want to play a sculptor? I don't want to play a bard (although I think it is interesting that you light on bard as another basically inferior class, presumably, as your comment about drawing suggests, because bards aren't killing machines).
Playing an Expert allowed/allows for customization. I could pick my class skills, rather than being railroaded into the standard package. Hence, my point about extensibility. The 3.5 Expert also had average Base Attack Progression, good skill points, d6 hit dice, and saves as good as some core classes. So no, an Expert wasn't/isn't limited to painting or sculpting or what have you. Let me add also that a good DM finds creative ways to incorporate his players' character backgrounds into the game, to engage each player by tailoring the story so that it contains action relevant for his/her PC. It isn't difficult to think of ways your campaign storylines could, at least tangentially, involve art, artifacts, archaeology.

3)You imply that the goal of RPGing is to make a character that can do things really well, particularly kill, perhaps in the interest of doing what you perceive as 'winning' the game. You are, of course, welcome to hold that view, but I think it is a rather narrow view, and I would much rather devote creativity to constructing and developing an interesting character.

Good gaming to you.

In another thread (that shall not be mentioned), there has been a lively discussion of whether one can have a bow-wielding fighter in 4e. That got me to thinking about creative ways one can manipulate the existing classes to create a variety of character concepts. I thought I'd start this thread asking people how they may have tweaked a class or flavor of a class to create something truly unique as far as a character concept.

To start it off, I'll share how I created a bard before the PHBII came out. In 3e, one of my players had a bard that was quite handy with the bow. In 4e, we used the Ranger class, but tweaked it. Instead of using the martial power source, she used the arcane power source, and we changed all the powers to be Charisma based instead of Dexterity. We then said she sang certain notes to direct her arrows. Add a feat of Ritual Casting with a spice of knowledge-based skills, and we had something like a bard.

Of course, now there is a bow-wielding bard in Arcane Power so the creative build is unnecessary, but the exercise was still interesting.

Other examples?

Obligatory post in which 3.-E and 4E are both mentioned disclaimer: NOT DISSING 4E, NOT TRYING TO START A FLAME WAR, NOT TRYING TO OFFEND ANYONE, NOT SAYING ONE GAME IS BETTER THAN ANOTHER.

Can you play an NPC class in 4E? I haven't seen it. Maybe I just missed it or it's in another book. 4E overall seems higher-level than 3.x. Not higher-level meaning superior, higher-level as in Windows or another GUI vs., for exmaple, command-line Unix or machine language. In 3.5 I once played an Expert who was an artist. She was a sculptor who happened to do a bit of exploring and adventuring. Can I extend 4E in that direction, or is it pretty much limited to fighter, wizard, etc.?

I'm so looking forward to this. I have to say, I'm hoping its not going to start with wondrous items this time, not the least reason of which is I have nothing in mind for such an entry this year. I'm currently on a monster kick; tons of new critters have been buzzing around in my head this fall.

Wondrous items have worked well as a preliminary challenge the last couple of years. Also, though the new game is a wildcard this year, there will definitely be a lot of entries; which means it has to be something quite short for the first round. There's no way the judges will pore over something as big as monsters in the first round. Considering the number of entries they will receive, even 400-500 words per entry would be an enormous undertaking.

I guess it depends what 'shirt' means, but remember that just because something is mithral doesn't mean it isn't bulky. It is a piece of armor just like any other. A mithral shirt is only lighter than a steel shirt, but it's about the same size (density = mass/volume. The volume of a mithral shirt is the same as the volume of a steel shirt, but the mithral shirt is apparently less dense, since it weighs less, so its mass must be less.). If you wouldn't allow the character to put on two chain shirts, you shouldn't allow a mithral shirt and something else.

bugleyman wrote:

Dogbert wrote:

...we -need- meat if on the mere grounds that proteins of vegetable origin are comparatively poor in quality so yes, if you try to raise your children on a strictly vegetarian diet you -will- have a case of malnutrition, and criminal charges of child neglect...our organisms -need- animal protein to properly develop...

Not according to the USDA.

But I'm sure the "dietists" in your family know best. :rolleyes:

As I said, it can work, it is just harder to keep track of, something that is a bad idea for lazy, dumb, or busy people raising children (which is something like 99.9999% of the people raising kids).

As an aside, I was told in a class I took in college (ok it was weight lifting) that beans and rice both have incomplete proteins and that you need the other to complement it to get a complete protein. That is why you see so many ethnic dishes with both beans and rice. I don't know if this is true, don't actually care enough to verify it since I get plenty of protein myself (picks bit of dead carcass from between teeth).

The protein is really not a big deal. I've never bothered to do the research, since I'm never having kids, but the biggest challenges for a complete vegan diet are the B vitamins, I think B12 particularly, and omega 3 fatty acids. I would research the omega 3s very carefully if I were going to have kids because they are vital to nervous system health and development. I wouldn't put my kids on a vegan diet unless I were confident of being able to meet those needs.

Heh. Chimps are mean. Those Wikipedia links seem to back up what I heard somewhere: their preferred source of meat is from lower primates.

Somehow that's just wrong.

Did a lot of coursework in primatology. If you are interested you should check out Jane Goodall's writing about the Gombe chimps. Because of lack of evidence, scientists studying chimps in the 60s believed that they had discovered a sort of Garden of Eden, perhaps a model for what humans had been like before the rise of civilizations and their attendant ills. In retrospect, it is fair to say that they were willing to draw a conclusion that was consonant with the 60s zeitgeist-good example of science reflecting prevailing cultural ideas. Later it was discovered that common chimps can really be quite violent. Warfare has been observed, and there are some 'psycho' chimps as well. Among Goodall's chimps there was a mother-daughter team, Pom and Passion, who committed infanticide and ate their victims.

jocundthejolly wrote:

I realize that veganism isn't for everyone (sigh!), but if everyone would commit to just one or two vegetarian meals a week (no animal products) it would make a huge difference. We only have one planet to live on-please be gentle with it, even if you don't care about animals.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1917458,00.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html

The two links showed me a 'page not found' message. I've heard this before, but I don't understand--how does vegetarianism help the environment?

I tried copying and pasting the links, and they worked OK. Maybe give it another shot. Other posters have given good answers. I want to add that the amount of excrement produced by food animals is staggering. This is addressed in the articles. Think about how many big animals we have and how much they eat. Where does it all go? It's not a trivial question. When you consider the scale of factory farming, it's quite horrifying, actually. Really disgusting, terrible for the environment, terrible for people.

I want to add also that I wouldn't feel right about eating meat unless I could look the animal in the eye and draw a knife across its throat, and deal with the mess and the emotional and moral aftermath. I don't feel that I have the right to go into a supermarket, swipe a card, and walk out with meat in a package. I can't let myself off that easily, by distancing myself from the source. That isn't right to me. I have to have the courage to face all the consequences of what I am doing.

I realize that veganism isn't for everyone (sigh!), but if everyone would commit to just one or two vegetarian meals a week (no animal products) it would make a huge difference. We only have one planet to live on-please be gentle with it, even if you don't care about animals.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1917458,00.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html

I think it's about time we started leveraging our human capital to become an industry leader.

I suggest a Diversity Initiative.

Do not forget to sprinkle your memo's with these key phrases. (Perhaps NSFW due to language)

Please develop and implement an action plan for maximizing memo key phrase sprinklage efficiency. And by the way, it's almost hump day.

Preferably Red Meat!

It's your planet. If you want to trash it, what can I say-except that it's also mine, and I really hope you don't.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1917458,00.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html

at 6:30.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OfY-SYK9qo&feature=fvw

So, my son's homework assignment was to ask me about a courageous person that he could introduce to his class. I thought about talking about Rosa Parks or Canadian Terry Fox or Ghandhi. I decided on Mother Jones because my son is quite anti-socialist and I wanted to challenge him a bit.

Who would you have picked? Who do you think of as particularly courageous?

Miep Gies, Bep Voskuijl, and the others. I like to think I would have done the same, but I have to admit I'm not sure.

jocundthejolly wrote:

Prince That Howls wrote:

CourtFool wrote:

Moff Rimmer wrote:

Which one is better story...

Which parts of the bible are just stories and which parts are meant to be taken literally?

The parts you agree with literally are to be taken literally, and the rest is to be seen as ‘just stories’. And if there isn’t a denomination of your faith that agrees with you then just create your own. Seems to be the way things work.

Then there are the stories that are like the relative in prison....we just don't talk about that. I don't recall hearing much in Sunday school about God ordering kids and babies to be mass-murdered. Imagine how surprised I was when I started reading the KJV years later and saw what was really in there.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6274502/God-is-not-the- Creator-claims-academic.html

Translations such tricksy little devils...

Yes God certainly orders or commits quite a few murders in the old testament. Of course someone could argue that since they were committed in his name they don't count.

It still boils down to Genesis and Evolution are not mutually exclusive.
Not including how things work does not discount from reality. Keep in mind the Bible includes zero information about the Earth being round, Orbiting a Sun, other planets, other galaxies?

How ever if we were to claim that evolution is junk based on the fact that God created man with no real explanation? Wouldn't we also have to discount the facts we know that also aren't in the bible?

"Of course someone could argue that since they were committed in his name they don't count."

Interesting comment. Aside from hinting at the old debate over whether something is right because God does it or done by God because it is right, it suggests to me the question of whether or not it is possible to decouple belief in the Hebrew Bible God from worship of the Hebrew Bible God. Of course, you could argue that people like me work backwards to reach a comfortable conclusion, but if I came to believe that the god of the Hebrew Bible existed I would be in a difficult position. The idea that the king of the universe is an omnipotent Pol Pot/Hitler/Stalin/& so on is hard to stomach and presents me with an enormous dilemma: do I bow down to him or not? Should I appease him as I would an evil fantasy RPG god, grit my teeth and honor him just to propitiate him (knowing that he knows that I find his actions reprehensible)? What are my options? Rely on his whimsical nature, hope that he isn’t in the mood to smite me? Worship one of the other gods of the Hebrew Bible? [Tangential observation: the Abrahamic religions are always referred to as monotheistic because their adherents only worship one deity. However, you could argue that they are polytheistic because the Hebrew Bible mentions a number of other deities (and I don’t believe-have to go back and check-that they are treated as make-believe gods worshiped by the deluded).]

jocundthejolly wrote:

Prince That Howls wrote:

CourtFool wrote:

Moff Rimmer wrote:

Which one is better story...

Which parts of the bible are just stories and which parts are meant to be taken literally?

The parts you agree with literally are to be taken literally, and the rest is to be seen as ‘just stories’. And if there isn’t a denomination of your faith that agrees with you then just create your own. Seems to be the way things work.

Then there are the stories that are like the relative in prison....we just don't talk about that. I don't recall hearing much in Sunday school about God ordering kids and babies to be mass-murdered. Imagine how surprised I was when I started reading the KJV years later and saw what was really in there.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6274502/God-is-not-the- Creator-claims-academic.html

Translations such tricksy little devils...

Yes God certainly orders or commits quite a few murders in the old testament. Of course someone could argue that since they were committed in his name they don't count.

It still boils down to Genesis and Evolution are not mutually exclusive.
Not including how things work does not discount from reality. Keep in mind the Bible includes zero information about the Earth being round, Orbiting a Sun, other planets, other galaxies?

How ever if we were to claim that evolution is junk based on the fact that God created man with no real explanation? Wouldn't we also have to discount the facts we know that also aren't in the bible?

Interesting comment. Aside from hinting at the old debate over whether something is right because God does it, or done by God because it is right, it suggests to me the question of whether or not it is possible to decouple belief in the Hebrew Bible God and worship of the Hebrew Bible God. Of course, you could argue that people like me work backwards to reach a comfortable conclusion, but if I came to believe that the god of the Hebrew Bible existed I would be in a difficult position. The idea that the king of the universe is an omnipotent Pol Pot/Hitler/Stalin/& so on is hard to stomach and presents me with an enormous dilemma: do I bow down to him or not? Should I appease him as I would an evil fantasy RPG god, grit my teeth and honor him just to propitiate him (knowing that he knows that I find his actions reprehensible)? What are my options? Rely on his whimsical nature, hope that he isn’t in the mood to smite me? Worship one of the other gods of the Hebrew Bible? [Tangential observation: the Abrahamic religions are always referred to as monotheistic because their adherents only worship one deity. However, you could argue that they are polytheistic because the Hebrew Bible mentions a number of other deities (and I don’t believe-have to go back and check-that they are treated as make-believe gods worshiped by the deluded).]

Yes God certainly orders or commits quite a few murders in the old testament. Of course someone could argue that since they were committed in his name they don't count.

Interesting comment. Aside from hinting at the old philosophical/theological debate over whether something is right because God does it or done by God because it is right, it suggests to me the question of whether or not it is possible to decouple belief in the Hebrew Bible God and worship of the Hebrew Bible God. Of course, you could argue that people like me work backwards to reach a comfortable conclusion, but if I came to believe that the god of the Hebrew Bible existed I would be in a difficult position. The idea that the king of the universe is an omnipotent Pol Pot/Hitler/Stalin/& so on is hard to stomach and presents me with an enormous dilemma: do I bow down to him or not? Should I appease him as I would an evil fantasy RPG god, grit my teeth and honor him just to propitiate him (knowing that he knows that I find his actions reprehensible)? What are my options? Rely on his whimsical nature, ignore him and hope that he isn’t in the mood to smite me? Worship one of the other gods of the Hebrew Bible? [Tangential observation: the Abrahamic religions are always referred to as monotheistic because their adherents only worship one deity. However, you could argue that they are polytheistic because the Hebrew Bible mentions a number of other deities (and I don’t believe-have to go back and check-that they are treated as make-believe gods worshiped by the deluded).]

lastknightleft wrote:

and for the record I do believe the phrase racist is bandied about way too liberally nowadays to the point that those of us who have encountered REAL racism in our lives have to roll our eyes. Micheal Savage is racist (actually I'm not sure what the term is for his brand of hate against muslims), Rush Limbaugh, is just a douche. Neither should be unable to purchase a football team as long as their opinions don't cause them to actually perform racist actions in regard to the team.

I can't stand Micheal Savage. My brother gave me one of his books for Chistmas and i made it through a page and a half befopre I got so disgusted that I chucked it in the fireplace. As far as Rush being a racist, he made a very good point on his program Friday. He said "Look, if I was really a racist would I even want to buy a team in a league where 49% of the players are African-American? Does that really make sense if you take the time to stop and think about it?"

Really bad argument. How does having minority peons (let's face it, even with huge salaries for professional athletes, when you consider payroll as a fraction of the amount of money NFL teams make it is obvious that the players are simply pawns the owners are using to make zillions of dollars) demonstrate that you are not a racist? It demonstrates only that the rich nowadays are cannier and more pragmatic than the rich of yesteryear because they realize that it's in their own self-interest to hire minorities.

CourtFool wrote:

Moff Rimmer wrote:

Which one is better story...

Which parts of the bible are just stories and which parts are meant to be taken literally?

The parts you agree with literally are to be taken literally, and the rest is to be seen as ‘just stories’. And if there isn’t a denomination of your faith that agrees with you then just create your own. Seems to be the way things work.

Then there are the stories that are like the relative in prison....we just don't talk about that. I don't recall hearing much in Sunday school about God ordering kids and babies to be mass-murdered. Imagine how surprised I was when I started reading the KJV years later and saw what was really in there.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Making bold claims about scientific hypotheses that one not only doesn't understand, but also has no frame of reference to understand -- and then going so far as to make claims about scientific thinking, while simultaneously and paradoxically claiming that the scientific method is irrelevant -- is a good way to make better-informed laypersons (e.g., Sebastian) quickly annoyed. Professionals (e.g., Paul, myself) might have a bit more patience, but it, too, eventually runs out... especially when a large number of the talking points are apparently quoted verbatim from the (thoroughly debunked) "Answers in Genesis" Creationism site.

Eh? You believe that the scientific method applies to something for which there is no evidence with which to use the scientific method upon?

Maybe I am misunderstanding what Sebastian and you are trying to say. If a thing doesn't exist, or rather doesn't exist in any verifiable way...how does one scientifically test that? My comment was not disputing the need for scientific testing of evidence that exists, but I was supposing it was clear we were discussing the nature of things for which is evidence does not exist.

Your mistake lies in thinking that all kinds of assumptions are equally valid. In truth, some assumptions can follow logically from analytical thinking, while others are based completely upon speculation. What you are missing is that the naturalistic explanation/assumption for a phenomenon is the rational default explanation/assumption. 'There can't possibly be a naturalistic explanation for phenomenon x' only establishes your inability to conceive of what can occur naturalistically, and the limit of our current understanding. It doesn't positively establish the existence of a creator. Since we have no reason to jump outside the box by assuming agency (the existence and intervention of a creator), the most reasonable working assumption about the ultimate origin of life is that it was naturalistic. That is the starting point, the default, and unless you can produce something to show that we should believe in agency, we have no reason to abandon it.

Truely spoken like someone who has never listened to Rush Limbagh. He has denied that he ever said the slavery comment and many of the media outlets that reported that he did have offered retractions based on their inability to source the so called quotes.

Everyone needs to realize that the Rush Limbaugh you know or think you know is a character. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. He plays a character named Rush Limbaugh. The character Rush Limbaugh is a tool Rush Limbaugh uses to motivate people to pay attention to him, because when people pay attention to him advertisers are willing to pay a lot of money to advertise on the show, and Rush Limbaugh makes zillions of dollars. People seem to have a hard time understanding this because the Rush Limbaugh character talks about current events, rather than warp drives or something else obviously fictional (although, as the title of Leonard Nimoy's 'I Am Not Spock' shows, even actors who play characters like that encounter this confusion). Would I be surprised to learn that Rush Limbaugh is a liberal Democrat? Yes. I am confident that there are elements of Rush Limbaugh in the Rush Limbaugh character. Do I think that the real Rush Limbaugh is just like the character you hear on the radio?

Of course not. It's naive to think that way, and I think that many people who do are simply looking for reasons to feel angry and offended.

Mairkurion {tm} wrote:

Was the original Wicker Man too sexy for kids? That was a freaky show.

I honestly don't know if kids would even get Wicker Man. It's pretty plot heavy and dialogue dependent. The twist at the end might go completely over their heads. It's not a very violent film, and doesn't have many (if any) startling moments like a lot of adrenaline horror films. But there is some nudity. I don't think that would keep me from showing it to my kids, but each parent makes their own choices. I would save this one until the kid was old enough that the real thrust of it could sink in. It'd be a shame to watch it too soon and not understand the horror present. My brother watched Exorcist when he was like 8 or 9 and just laughed the whole way through because he wasn't mature enough to get the really frightening themes behind foul-mouthed Linda Blair's actions.

This still freaks me out. I guess this wasn't in the original theatrical release.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-4f_NMUxcY

Ok, you guys, I don't even know what to do. I held off watching the very last episode of BSG for months, but now my boyfriend is almost through the 4th season, so the ending is nigh. We're trying to think of what to watch next and are drawing a blank. He'd like something more science fictiony, but I don't really know what to picks. Firefly is out, seen it bunches. Um. And that's all I've got.

Any help would be very appreciated.

Right now I'm working my way through 'Farscape.' Different kind of show from BSG in some ways (some similarities to 'Trek' and 'Wars,' but very different in others), but there is probably a significant overlap in interest. I have never checked out 'Andromeda' or 'Babylon 5,' but they might be worth a shot.

The difference, of course, being that it is only an image of the cover. It can't actually be opened to show the nude women on the inside.

Unfortunately we don't live in a reasonable world. We live in a climate of hysterical reactionary puritanism, and you have to be careful and think like your oppressors if you want to survive.

My sister is 11 so I can't really watch a truly terrifying horror movie with her on Halloween. Anyone have a good suggestion for a PG-13 horror/thriller movie? Thanks :-)

Different direction, but the old 'Lord of the Flies' (Peter Brook, 1963) definitely stays with you.

...of a Playboy!

Edit: don't worry. Its work friendly!

Disagree. If you wouldn't want your boss to see the magazine lying on your desk, you definitely shouldn't open the link.

I need demigods. Gods with too narrow domains. Gods with silly domains all to themselves. Gods that most PCs wouldn't worship and that most villains would be ashamed to.

The reason I need them is that my campaign's going through a winnowing process as the world simplifies its cosmology. Minor gods either have to get more believers or fade away. So, they've each got an avatar wandering around, trying to recruit believers. So, if you have ideas for what the chief earthly representative of this god would be like, I'd love that too!

Examples thus far include: demigod of cannibals, goddess of good luck (not luck in general and certainly not bad luck or superstition), Lamashtu the demigoddess of monstrous births (not monstrous humanoid mothers; monstrous births), a god of small insects, a sphere of annihilation (god of vacuum, emptiness, lack and not), and Aroden (god of a nation, which set off a rebellion).

Any ideas? Silly or serious, I'm brainstorming.

You might want to go back to Greyhawk. The Gazeteer that Mona and others wrote a while back could be a good start, and there was a huge pantheon. One thing that really turned off many of us long-timer gamers to 4E was the designers' attitude toward Greyhawk and its gods. They felt that many weren't good. There was a deity called Dalt, god of portals, doors, enclosures, locks and keys who the 4E designers decided wasn't cool.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Greyhawk_deities#D

So it's very rare for me to find gay characters in the books I read. They are generally male authors, but I've been led to believe a number of female authors feature gay men. Can anyone give me Authors or Book titles, this is for a paper in my Sexual Identity and Diversity class.

(and no Poppy Z Brite, she's a special case)

Well, it has been kicked around forever, and I am surprised I'm the first to mention it: the tender Frodo-Sam relationship in 'Lord of the Rings.'

I don't think Prof T intended to create homoeroticism, but some have disagreed. Much has been written about sexuality in 'Lord of the Rings'-particularly about the apparent absence of sex, the paucity of female characters and the significance of two of them being an angel and a monstrous spider (think neurotic virgin/whore constellation here).

I will be purchasing a new computer (laptop, to be precise) in the next year or so. Should I get one sooner with Vista or wait until Windows 7 is released? I don't mind waiting until about 6 months after the launch of Windows 7 so Microsoft can iron out the major bugs.

I guess my question should really be something like: What will Windows 7 do that Vista can't? I currently use XP so I don't know much about Vista other than what I've learned from the "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" commercials.

Thanks for your input.

Well, if updates actually work with Windows 7 it will be a huge improvement. I should keep track of percentages- (and I assume many others have the same problem) when I do a Windows Update I am confident it will crash my machine. I can't tell you how often I have to pull the plug, go into safe mode, and restore to before the update. It's nonsensical.

I was re-readind the novel "Spellfire" by Ed Greenwood. Terrible book really but I was travelling and bored. It struck me that Wizards/Magic-users were seen as the most powerful things on the planet (bar a few critters). This under 1e was very true at high levels (and some would say 3e also). Anyway has making say a fighter of high level equal to a Mage at high level a good thing? The novel Spellfire really falls apart if we take the balancing of classes view. I will make a statement I may get flak for but... In a roleplaying game is it required that all PC's are "equal"? Perhaps when I was younger I adhered to "the world must be fair" view, but back then I was stuck with 1e so even in my gaming world it wasn't. Just wondering if we have lost something, fear of evil wizards?

Thoughts?

S.

I dislike the idea that balance must mean sameness.

I like the idea of balancing swords and sorcery by making magic dangerous. It makes game world sense and doesn't subtract from the wizard's power.
In a sense 2E wild magic, which I really liked, was a step in that direction. You want to play with magical power, be prepared for an anvil to materialize and fall on your head once in a while.
And what about the idea that magic takes a physical toll on its user, like breaking his body down and/or aging him prematurely? I seem to recall reading variations on this theme in a bunch of fantasy novels.

This seems like the right thread for psycho murderer on the loose in Washington state.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/19/washington.escaped.killer/index.html

Hey everyone, don't mind me, I just need a place to vent to the anonymous crowd...

In April this year, I lost my job when my workplace went out of business. Since then, I've been on unemployment, and I've been able to get some work once or twice a month at a local graduate school. However, this doesn't compare at all to my previous income.

My sister-in-law has been living with us while she's finishing her last years of high school. Her parents (who are divorced) had been paying her portion of the rent while she was here, and that helped to offset my lost income a little bit. Then, just a month or two after I lost my job, her parents just stopped paying for her (partly due to some sort of dispute over childcare payments).

So, my income had been pretty much decimated, and we were no longer receiving rent for the sister-in-law, plus we ended up subsidizing the cost of her food and other necessities. That's just the monetary part; I won't go to the extent of complaining about the injustice of basically being forced to adopt a teenager...

Taking all this into consideration, we decided we needed to downsize. We found a new cheaper apartment downtown, told the sister-in-law that she would have to move back in with one of her parents, and decided to trade/sell both our cars and consolidate to a single, more fuel-efficient car. Our move in date for the new apartment is October 1st.

We had everything all sorted out - it was going to be a big zero-sum equation. Trading in my wife's Jeep would pay for all the upfront costs of getting the new (well, new to us) car. Since we paid last month's rent upfront on the current apartment, we could take the money that we would've spent on rent, combine it with our security deposit, and use that to pay first/last/security on the new apartment. The sale of my Honda would just be icing on the cake.

However, things took a bad turn. Something went wrong with the financing for the new car (I suspect that it had something to do with the fact that my wife has some...

Wow, I've been unemployed myself for a while, but haven't had to deal with a situation as tough as yours. It sounds as if your sister-in-law's parents accrued a sizable debt to you-not only were you giving their daughter room and board plus, but you also took responsibility for her. I would try to call in a favor with them.

I would approach them, explain how dire your need is, and ask them earnestly if they can help you in any way.
It sounds only fair that they would reciprocate, considering how much you contributed toward supporting their daughter.

I hope you can work everything out. Please let us know on this thread how things are going for you.

If we evolved then why did we evolve into such weak creatures ill suited for survival? Our vital organs are exposed to attack from predators, we have no natural weapons, our young are helpless for years, and we cannot deal with temprature extremes. I know the most common answer to this is our minds/technology make up for this, and yes they do... now. But how about thousands of years ago? I would call our current forms a de-evolution from basic primates, at least physicly. I would be interested to hear from anyone with an education in this area so I could better understand the evolution theory.

Our presence as the dominant species on the planet rather defeats your argument. We emerged triumphant because we descended from the trees, stopped using just pure physical strength and started to use tools. We may have become weaker then your average primate, but we became more adapted to our surroundings. We walked upright, for instance.

Have done some graduate work in evolutionary (biological/physical anthropology), and hope you are still around months later to read my lengthy reply to your good question(s) and comments.

The persistence of our lineage must have been in doubt for quite some time-until quite recently, actually (good reading here for points I am making: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/human/human_evolution/new_batch1.s html). We often assume that persistence and success of a taxon or taxonomic group records a good suite of adaptations, while extinction records an inferior suite of adaptations. As you suggest, we look at our success and our huge brains and think that they must have guaranteed our survival, and perhaps that our success was almost inevitable.

However, considering that within the last 100000 years we were reduced to a population of perhaps as few as 10000 individuals, it is clear that our big brains did not guarantee our survival. Chance plays a major role in the history of life on this planet. A slightly more virulent pathogen, slightly different climatic conditions, a potentially devastating bolide narrowly missing our planet-any of these could easily have wiped out our genus. Also, the big brain experiment (which, by the way is still running-some have said that, if we annihilate ourselves or render our planet uninhabitable, then it didn't work out too well after all. Perhaps you can be too smart for your own good, especially when you consider the full diversity of life on this planet, and the rarity of neural complexity. Bacteria alone, which we consider the simplest organisms, are BY FAR the most successful living things on our planet, by any standard-always have been and always will be, and they don't even have rudimentary nervous systems, let alone gigantic brains) wasn't at all fated to succeed, considering how metabolically expensive big brains are.

You can find more evidence for the importance of chance by looking at successful species which are no longer around. For example, everyone's favorite dinosaurs. No one would argue that the dinosaurs were poorly adapted or unsuccessful. This is a group of animals which flourished and diversified for over 150 million years, and except for one small crew of funny reptiles with feathers, they're gone, and it was simply bad luck.

Regarding the second post: you can probably tell from the above that I'm less than enthusiastic about phrases like 'we emerged triumphant.' As Stephen Jay Gould pointed out over and over again, (paraphrasing closely here), humans are only one tiny, anomalous twig on this huge bush of life. Neural complexity is extremely rare, and the overwhelming dominance of life forms without complex nervous systems-in numbers, in lifespan of lineage(s), in diversity, in short, in any way you can think of to measure dominance-bears testament to the fact that we are by no means the preeminent life form on this planet.

Furthermore, the earliest decent bipeds in our lineage appear in the fossil record between 6-7 million years ago, after the chimpanzee-human lineage split. For many millions of years, bipedalism was not nearly as specialized or efficient as it is among modern humans. These creatures, the australopithecines were not great walkers and runners-in a sense they were intermediate forms, better at walking and running than the apelike ancestor but also still capable at climbing trees. Not trying to belittle you, but they didn't simply hop down from trees, start walking and running and making great tools, and take over the planet.

The earliest stone tools, Oldowan pebble tools, date from perhaps 2.5 million years ago, which was 4 million years after the first bipeds (and there was little or no technological progress for nearly a million years after that), and big-brained Homo didn't evolve until perhaps 1.5 million years ago. My point is that there was quite a long period of time between the evolution of the earliest decent bipeds and major population growth of our species, which was facilitated by tool-use and tool-making, which were only possible after big brains evolved. The truth is that the human lineage was carried forward for many millions of years by wimpy and small-brained primates who somehow managed to survive. How that happened, I can tell you is still the subject of debate and speculation among paleoanthropologists.

How would you adjudicate the damage dealt by that flying body?

Now, in the end it is indeed up the the DM how he portrays these fantasy societies, but real-world behaviour is of course easily transported into fiction, and in most societies today, we still see a male dominance - or how many women do we see each day in politics, financial markets or at the helm of big companies or corporations?

Its true its still largely male dominated, but thats becoming less true as time goes by, especially in more technologically advanced societies. We still have a LONG way to go to being truly equal and it may never truly happen.

Men in the United States are in many respects falling behind, and have been for some time. It's well-known that education is very strongly correlated with wealth. Overall, educated people make more money than people with a high school education or less. Over a lifetime, significantly more. And there has been for some time now a big sex skew in our colleges and universities. I think American undergraduate populations are something like 55-45, which is a huge disparity, and I believe that the numbers in many graduate and professional schools are similar or even amplified (not surprising, considering that you have to finish college in order to go on, and excepting certain fields which are still extremely male, such as mechanical engineering).

Old article, but worth reading

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2005-10-19-male-college-cover_x.htm