jocundthejolly's page

Haven't yet received it. After waiting for some weeks, I inquired about 138; received a replacement copy shortly thereafter. Several weeks later, I received another copy of 138, in a paper envelope, but I still don't have 139.

Regarding morality in general, there is another consideration here: although there are obvious differences, most campaigns take place in societies which are at medieval-early modern Europe levels of sophistication, technologically and (perhaps) philosophically. Is it reasonable to expect that a denizen of that kind of world would think the way we terrifically enlightened early 21st century Americans do? Modes of thinking and standards of behavior were completely different 500 or 600 years ago, totally alien to us. Would we condemn people from those times as evil if they didn't adhere to what we feel to be standards of ethical conduct?

I don't think there is any way to answer the question, since
I know of
nothing in the real world analogous to "a spirit from the Elemental Plane of Earth." Does it have a mind? Can it suffer? It feels wrong, particularly since the word "unwilling," which
strongly implies capacity for volition, is used, but
but I don't think the answers are ready.

Creating a flesh golem I would say is definitely evil
because it requires committing an act which is considered taboo by nearly all real and fantasy cultures with which I am familiar, namely harvesting body parts from corpses to serve selfish purposes (in this case, to create a monster).
I think every culture considers disrespect for the dead to be morally wrong.

B.S. in Evolutionary Anthropology and some credits toward an advanced degree in Physical (Biological) Anthropology.

I think there may be a small number of principled neutrals in the world, but I think most people tend to fall into N or CN by default. To me, those alignments are basically about not being particularly interested in involvement in other people's lives.
I think that there are some people, probably not too many, who dedicate themselves to doing good works, or to hurting people.
But most people don't dedicate themselves to good or evil. Most people are basically interested in living their own lives: going to work, watching TV, raising family, etc. I think most people are also opportunistic, meaning that, if they could provide assistance to someone (at little risk or cost to themselves), they would do it, and if they could profit from bank oversight (at little or no risk to themselves), they would do that. I think CNs are just a bit more free-spirited/anti-establishment than Ns.

Urban Decay in #138 was basically a Side Trek. You could easily fit that into an evening, probably that and one other mini, too.

Yeah, I see what you are saying. I never like to criticize anyone's work because obviously tastes vary, and
because
writing/making art is really tough; I definitely get a vicarious sense of satisfaction from reading other people's work. Anyone who gets into the magazine should be praised and congratulated, I think, cause it takes a ton of imagination, hard work, and persistence, and because getting published must be awesome. Of course, if it's a really cool mag you've been reading and dreaming of being in since you were a kid, that's even cooler. (Do you sense that I'm about to rip this poor scenario to shreds?) But, this scenario seemed like one of my ideas, i.e., a cool setting and story, cool characters, but somehow not quite satisfying as an RPG experience. Yeah, definitely good setting and characters, but I agree with you, SirMarcus, didn't quite hit the mark with this reader.

I thank you both.

Messieurs Bulmahn and McArtor,

I just received a response yesterday from Mr. McArtor regarding a proposal I sent a couple of months ago (particular class theme campaign ideas). I had submitted it for "Class Acts," but Mr. McArtor advised that I submit it to Mr. Bulmahn at dragon@paizo.com for consideration as a feature.
Does this mean I should simply relabel it as "feature" and resend it? I'm hoping it won't have to go back to the bottom of the stack.

Thanks for your help,

CWK III

I see your point. But, here are a few things to consider:

1)Elves as a race aren't particularly interested in enslaving anyone.

2)The fact that human life cycles are relatively short doesn't necessarily mean humans
would be outcompeted; in fact, it would likely mean exactly the opposite. While an elf might not begin reproducing until 60 or 70, by that age most humans already have multiple children and grandchildren. Humans would almost certainly have numerical superiority.

3)Only a tiny fraction of humanoids of any race ever achieve even a single class level in anything.

4)
The elven lifespan is dilated, meaning that the phases of their lives are longer, which means they take longer to develop.

5) Characters who reach level 20+ tend to have resources for
circumventing or overcoming the limits imposed by natural aging.

6)As your levels increase, your improvement curve flattens out.
When you're first level, it doesn't take much to move up. But think about how much effort Elminster would have to expend to make serious gains in ability.

7)When you reach a certain level (probably 20-30 in most cases), you're probably content with your level of power. For all practical purposes, going from 28th to 29th
or 31st or 33rd
isn't really making much of a difference in your life (at least not enough to merit the amount of effort you would have to invest).

Cheers!

It took me a long time to realize that the rule books are not sacred scripture; they're the professional opinions of game designers, formed by a lot of personal experience and feedback from other gamers. If you wanted dwarves wielding arcane magic in 2E, bang, it happened. For whatever reason, that just wasn't officially supported at that time. There are definitely a lot more options and complexities now, but the game has always been limited only by your imagination and what you feel comfortable with. That's what makes it special and better than any video game ever could be: it's completely malleable and extensible.
One thing I don't like about feats and skills is that it does start to feel like a video game. If you're not careful, your character just becomes a collection of modifiers, whatever gives you the best chance of "winning."
I also appreciate that the game designers wanted to make charisma, the forgotten ability, more important in actual game play, and that they streamlined play a lot by resolving everything with the d20. However, you can go overboard with rolling dice. For example, I don't like Bluff and Intimidate. You should have to role-play interpersonal interactions. If you do a bad job, you fail. I don't like that you just generate a random number and the NPC is freaked out. To me, that isn't RPGing. But, as I said, you can do what you want. In my campaign, you would have to talk your way through.

You the player know that your unarmed fighter could mash the peasant waving the rusty short sword with both hands tied behind his back, and that the peasant has zero chance of killing your character. But, if you are the fighter in that situation, would you really take the chance of being run through?

The more I think about it, the more I think he should have some serious epic level stuff goin on. I stopped reading the new books in '92 or '93, but I read that he and Catti-Brie finally ended up together. That is kind of gross, since they met when she was like 11 and he was 60 or something. I generally have no problem with interracial dating, but come on. Ew! That is like a Celine Dion-Renee thing. What a perv. RA Salvatore, I'm ashamed (the dreadful prose was bad enough).

He is listed as Ftr 10/Bbn1/Rgr 5. So, presumably he was Ftr 10 when he left Menzo and became a barbarian. According to the books, he survived alone in the Underdark for 10 years. It doesn't really make sense that he only has one Bbn level. There was a huge amount of XP in the books alone, never mind the stuff that wasn't treated. That bugs me.

I think you are ascribing success too much to skill. I used to feel the way you feel, but I've realized that no one out there is that spectacular. Of course it is possible you are not a really good writer (although you will only improve if you love it and keep doing it), but the more I read, the more I realize that I can do just as well if not better than many if not most of the people who manage to get published. I mean, I'm not trying to take any credit away from people who write books--it is not easy at all. But, if you read a lot of fantasy novels (which I assume you do), you'll see that most writing is decidedly "whatever," if not poor. Of course you have to try your best, but in the end it is really about doggedly casting lines until you get some bites. Eventually, if you keep trying something you write will end up on the right desk or in the right inbox at the right time. Once you have your foot in the door, it gets much easier. Breaking in is really the trick.
Keep at it, persistence is the key, especially nowadays with so much competition. If you really want it, you just have to keep at it. Don't let up until you get there. Refuse to be discouraged by rejections, and don't assume that a rejection means your work isn't good. YOu might just have to keep shopping it around until you hit the right editor at the right time.

Thinking of buying that bad boy, but the old one came out over 4 years ago. By today's WotC standards, that was eons and eons ago. I figure a new one will be coming out soon, if only so they can sell more books. Should I wait?

Anyone in Union/N Middlesex/Somerset/Morris looking for players?

I have a long-standing semantic gripe with D&D. "Dexterity" is not really the right word. COnsidering what it encompasses, it should probably be "agility."

Every time I try to download the submission style sheets, Windows tells me "Malicious Script Detected," and I have to shut IE down. Any ideas?