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

pres man's page

7,483 posts (8,175 including aliases). 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 10 aliases.


1 to 50 of 7,483 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

The DA has said that a grand jury hearing as to see if there is enough evidence to go to trial might start as soon as tomorrow.

ShadowcatX wrote:
What are the outcomes everyone hopes comes out of this?

Don't have much hope, sadly.

What I expect to happen, is insurance rates (home, auto, business, life) are going to shoot up in the area. This is going to cause prices of consumer goods to also go up as businesses compensate. Consumers are going to have less money to spend locally, reducing businesses. Property values are going to drop, this will lead to higher property tax rates to compensate in order to continue paying for local services. Those that can afford to move, especially non-African Americans, will do so further reducing the wealth of the area.

Humans that are anatomically male didn't start off as female and become male. Instead they, like people that are anatomically female or indeterminate or what have you, start off as asexual. There comes a critical point when those hormones are introduced or not. If that doesn't happen, then the default is to develop into an anatomical female.

But just because that is the default development doesn't mean a male was female and became male. You could say all people started with the potential to become female, but it is incorrect to say all people start off as female.

Abraham spalding wrote:

Question: Why does the Pulse Rifle that Aeryn Sun is using have a pistol grip, a trigger for hip fire, and scope?

It may be that the weapon has different weapon settings, perhaps it can be used as she is using it in the pic and also on another setting used as a sniper rifle.

thejeff wrote:

Now I'm curious if there are trans* people who are more comfortable with their assigned gender roles than those of their actual gender identity.

This is complicated. We really are a messed up species.

Are you talking about a trans-person who practices transvestism? e.g. A trans-woman, who feels more comfortable living publicly as a man.

So has anyone looked at the iconic [feral] Hunter [archtype].

My Thoughts:
I really dislike this type of armor.

Slimmer build (though still not slim enough I would argue) and hip outline, I think some folks are going to like that.

Why the hell is he so fugly? Of course, I don't know what people find attractive in men, since obviously Mick Jagger and Steven Tyler and others are found attractive by some people.

So I'll call it a good first attempt at a sexualized male, but still needs work (slimmer build and better face).

Well then I am sorry if I took you out of context. I assumed you knew something about Conan since you were talking about it. It is now obvious that you were speaking from ignorance and didn't have any idea how women were treated in the Conan materials.

Several women that could fight were not initially interested in Conan. But it should be noted that as soon as the two met other people, Conan often told them the woman was his and the women often had to go along with it.

Now sure there a couple of women this didn't happen to Sonja (I don't think she ever hooked up with Conan) and Belit (who died shortly after hooking up with him), but most other women that were capable of fighting often had their agency still taken over by Conan at the first opportunity.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I know when I game, the character I love to play is the useless tag-a-long.

GM: What does Halgar the Violent do this round.
Halgar's Player: Halgar charges the nearest foe.
*rolls dice*
GM: Okay, now what does Wilma the Worthless do?
Wilma's Player: I fall to my knees helplessly and whimper, "Halgar, protect me."

Fun times, fun times.

Rysky wrote:
pres man wrote:
Of course Shane is played by a heterosexual woman, so it is not surprising that a heterosexual man would find her attractive.
Um, I don't really see how her being Heterosexual would make her "more" attractive to a heterosexual man.

"Vibes". Really, a lot of the information we pass on is non-verbal in nature. While we don't always pick up vibes correctly, that doesn't mean that we don't ever pick them up accurately. I'm not trying to pick on Phithis, it just seemed as if he was saying that admitting to finding Katherine Moennig attractive was due to him being "comfortable in [his] own skin". I'm suggesting that there is nothing actually surprising about a straight guy finding her attractive.

Of course Shane is played by a heterosexual woman, so it is not surprising that a heterosexual man would find her attractive.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Necromancer wrote:
Let's see given protection when incapable of self-defense, treated as a prize, carried around...doesn't sound that bad to me.


Necromancer wrote:
The funny thing is that I always perceived the Conan cliché as more of a woman's fantasy preference: big dumb barbarian does all the work (moving boulders, defends against hostile wildlife, etc.) and the wise/literate princess/priestess/whateveress gets to go into vacation mode. Power? Looks more like slavery from where I'm standing.

Sure, if you know, the slave gets to make all the calls and the master is treated as a witless child that must be protected and kept from getting itself killed. The master has absolutely no agency of their own, but instead is treated as a prize and/or luggage by the slave. Then, yeah I could see how it seems like slavery. I mean, young children enslave their parents all the time.

TL;DR: I do not think it means what you think it means.

EntrerisShadow wrote:
Necromancer wrote:
Lamontius wrote:
(Almost certainly NSFW) - while I guess words are cool for debating boobs vs junk, Gabe from Penny Arcade provides his take via drawing
A tanuki barbarian...huh.
I don't know what the fuss is about. I always wanted a game that let me play as Brock Samson.

That was more Jock(Strap) Samson.

I'm going to just leave this here. Not really related to PF iconics (thankfully), but it is humorous none the less.

Now if you want to see an example of male armor in classic D&D that is silly, consider this is supposedly half-plate.

P.S. I actually love the character, but calling his "armor" half-plate is ridiculous.

Coridan wrote:
pres man wrote:

What kind of armor, by the way, only has arms and limbs covered and not the torso? I'm just wondering so that I can perhaps combine it with a breastplate armor for my character and get twice the armor bonus.

Well, this kind.

And the armor bonus you'd probably get from that is ...


Though, maybe you can convince your GM to give you a +1 shield bonus, if you are lucky.

pH unbalanced wrote:
pres man wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:
Make of that what you will.

*Looks at almost all armored males.*


Well, the best analog to Amiri the Barbarian is Crowe the Bloodrager.

Judge for yourself.

Again, I'm not saying anything about whether or not any piece of art is sexualized. I'm only combatting the argument that the *only possible reason* for lacking a particular piece of armor is to present sexuality.

I thought that the artist's stated reason for why he drew Amiri the way he did would be helpful information.

Now, I'm not an expert, but I do have done enough medieval combat to know that a helmet, gloves, and boots are the only non-negotiables when it comes to armor. Everything else is a trade off between weight, flexibility, and protection. Personally, I like very little armor -- but a really big shield.

Well if Crowe had been drawn first, then I might give his art work some weight. Since it was drawn long afterwards, with people talking about how silly the original female artwork looks, Crowe's artwork might be a real effort to have meaningful armor or it might just be an attempt to justify the previous choice. "See guys can dress like that too. See, not silly at all."

What kind of armor, by the way, only has arms and limbs covered and not the torso? I'm just wondering so that I can perhaps combine it with a breastplate armor for my character and get twice the armor bonus.

Yes, I know armor bonuses don't stack. Good missing the point.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Oriental Trading Company has cheap Skeleton Warrior Figures (4 dozen for $6.99+shipping). Appear to be Large sized. They would need to be based.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

So since someone started talking about game mechanics, let me ask this. Since armor isn't gender specific (even full plate is individual specific, not gender specific), if a female foe is killed and male character takes her armor and dons it, does it still have the boob window and/or missing midriff or does the fantasy powers make those cover up?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
pH unbalanced wrote:
Make of that what you will.

*Looks at almost all armored males.*


Andrew R wrote:
like classic conan, he might wear next to nothing running around but plated up if he knew he was going into battle

Most of the time, Conan being in only a loinclothe was due to losing the rest of his armor or clothing (saying having to cut himself out of his metal armor stuck to a rock that some creature was coming down to consume him). The other times tended to be him being caught in a compromising position (how you doing sexy lady, oh crap ninjas!).

MannyGoblin wrote:
I just want to know why the Iconic Shaman is wearing a WWF wrestling belt on her head?

"OH YEAH!" -Macho Man voice

4 people marked this as a favorite.

"Nuh-uh! Fantasy! Magic!"


Yes, female characters should be dressed in stupid outfits that don't make sense because of magic and fantasy. Evidently magic and fantasy stuff doesn't work on males unless they want to run around and look like someone off of the Jersey Shore. Whatever.

thejeff wrote:

I don't know. There's some use to looking tough.

Sajan can't wear armor anyway, so there's no harm in showing off his abs.

Kess can, but she's apparently as focused on prizefighting as actual adventuring. In the ring, gut wounds aren't as big a deal and looking tough can help intimidate your opponent.

What you are calling "looking tough", I might call looking like a douche.

LOL, Sandpoint Shore.

Alex Smith 908 wrote:
pres man wrote:

I think it depends on the particular image to determine if the clothes or the pose are the most important. I will agree that the character doesn't look like a candidate for the Hawkeye Initiative. Still the mid-drift being unarmored serves exactly no purpose but to be appealing to the male (or other individual who finds the female form attractive) eye.

Don't even get me started on the silliness of Sajan.

Showing a rocking sixpack while having a defiant (Kess) or stoic (Sajan) pose is specifically about empowerment. Now the bare crotch is stupid and sexist but the swole muscles are exploitative in a different direction.

Right, because adventurers are worried about appearing "empowered" rather than just you know protecting their lives.

*Dying of a gut wound* "I might not live, but I definitely looked tough not doing it."

How about the crazy idea that characters dress appropriate for their life style and current situation and not worry about appearing "sexualized" or "empowered"?

Albatoonoe wrote:

Man, I think a lot of people approach "sexualization" from the wrong angle. The clothes are less important than the stance. Kess and Amiri are clearly aggressive and ready to fight. They are not sexualized, no matter if their stomach is showing. They look ready to fight, and they still wear more than, say, Sajan.

I don't have a problem with a conversation about pathfinder and sexualization, but when you start dragging characters into it that are clearly not sexualized, that's where I have a problem.

Also, There's more to this problem then clothes, and it doesn't exist in a vacuum. Sexualization is a problem when it is a trend, which I certainly don't think Pathfinder has been doing that. A character can be sexy. The answer isn't to ban sexiness, but to have it in moderation, where it is appropriate.

So, in summation, showing skin isn't all there is to sexualization and sexualization is really only a problem with it if it is a trend (which it is not).

I think it depends on the particular image to determine if the clothes or the pose are the most important. I will agree that the character doesn't look like a candidate for the Hawkeye Initiative. Still the mid-drift being unarmored serves exactly no purpose but to be appealing to the male (or other individual who finds the female form attractive) eye.

Don't even get me started on the silliness of Sajan.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So I heard that Disney forced Marvel to include both Donald Duck and Pluto in an extra scene for the movie. Watch for Mickey in Avengers 2.

LOL JK! I know who Cosmo and Howard are.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

What is funny to me is I showed my wife the picture of Kess and didn't say anything. She looked at, looked at me, looked at it, and then rolled her eyes. "Yeah, leaving your stomach open to have your guts cut out makes a lot of sense."

I responded, "Are you suggesting you think she is sexualized?"

"Of course she is. Not as bad as some I've seen, but yeah."

"What if I told you that some people thinks she is 'desexed'."

It took her a bit to catch her voice from laughing so hard.

As we looked at some of the other new iconic females, we noticed that Jirelle is either double-jointed or has broken her leg. LOL

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Apparently almost every woman I come into contact with during a typical day is "desexed". Interesting.

The whales are calm in the deep.

Go the f**k to sleep.

Just FYI, Rob Ford is Canadian not of the US.

Rebels are very good at shooting down aircraft, this proves they didn't shoot down this aircraft.


Mental gymnastics, got to love them.

That exactly what the Fascists want you to think!

You can always think about using something like this.

Evidently the rebel leader has seen the movie Millennium, and assumes the rest of us have not.

It is looking like Russian Separatists have murdered an entire plane full of innocent civilians.

Weirdo wrote:
But what would such a character actually care about?

Feel your pain.

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
pres man wrote:
I don't quite get the Viagra and birth control connection. One is trying to help your system function, the other is trying to circumvent your system functioning. Viagra is more akin to infertility treatment than birth control.
So you're okay with paying for men to have sex but not women?

First off, I didn't say that birth control shouldn't be covered. I said that I don't see the connection between Viagra and birth control. Birth control tries to prevent pregnancy, Viagra creates opportunities to get pregnant. They seem to be counter examples. As I said, Viagra is more akin to fertility treatments, though I would also concede it is also akin to medication like ospemifene (and these should also be covered by the health plan), used to help older individuals stay sexual active, while not relating to pregnancy at all.

I don't quite get the Viagra and birth control connection. One is trying to help your system function, the other is trying to circumvent your system functioning. Viagra is more akin to infertility treatment than birth control.

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
No, they said their religion trumps law, facts, and women's health. They said we will invest and make profits off of products that offend our religion but won't pay for a prescription given to a woman by her doctor because of our ignorance. The Supreme Court upheld their assertion that you can ignore parts of laws that you believe are doing something against your religion even if it is provably false. Now comes the fun part where that ruling is tested and we see if other religious beliefs are allowed to trump laws or if only legitimate beliefs (read: Christian) can.

Well that and if the government has already conceded that part of the law and is covering other people in similar situations, then there isn't any reason the government can't cover these people.

Government decided to try to be reasonable and let some groups slide by, this opened up the precedent that others could also claim the government should cover them as well.

GentleGiant wrote:

Quark, you haven't been outside the US much, have you?

Doesn't seem so if you think everyone else has "systems" so much inferior to what the exists in the US.
I guess you think massive homelessness, highly expensive medical care, weekly shootings, rapidly rising inequality and, as this thread is about, religious interference in medical care is better than... well, pretty much none of those.



1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think you missed the fact that it was my wife's character. Yeah, it was a bad call. ;D

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well to be fair, there are still trans individuals that are using the phrase.

Bob_Loblaw wrote:

One of the worst rulings a GM did to me was in a 2nd edition game. I was playing a gnome illusionist/thief. We were sneaking past a bunch of sleeping goblins. The GM ruled that I made so much noise that I woke the goblins. It wasn't the paladin in full plate (his best friend) or anyone else. It wasn't the prisoners we had just freed. It was the completely silent, unarmored, no metal carrying or wearing character trained to be silent. He used it to cut me off from the rest of the party.

Had that been the only bad ruling I would have been upset but I would have given him another chance. Unfortunately it was a series of rulings like that that made my character swallow a chromatic orb and end my time gaming with him.

Earlier in the same session we had found a minotaur who was looking for a fight. It was just myself and another thief so we ran. The minotaur yelled, "I smell dwarf!" and started chasing us. We hid in a small whole and I cast an illusion of a dwarf down the corridor so he would run past us. Instead he turned to us and attacked. No rolls to see if we were hiding in shadows. No rolls to see if he disblieved the illusion. Not even initiative. He simply attacked me. He didn't even randomly decide if he was going to attack myself or the other thief.

One of the worst GMs I've ever had.

I don't know how scent worked in 2nd edition, but in 3e it would have been pretty legitimate, especially if the minotaur was adjacent to the dwarf's hiding hole.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:
Story immersion is a beautiful thing but all it takes is one videogamey player that calls your story and development attempts meaningless fluff and too combat inefficient to bring the whole thing crashing down and make the game just a boring chore for everyone else. Negative and pessimistic mindsets are strongly contagious and pushing people to the video game aspect is somewhat toxic to real character driven stories.

Deep in mind that one drama-queen can also ruin the game experience for the group as well.

Also while justifying character design choices is great, it is a pretty douchey thing to do to try to force someone else to meet our own perception of legitimate justification. The general rule is worry about playing your character well, let others play their character as they see fit. Not everyone is a simulationist, some folks are more of gamists. Neither is better than the other despite some views of "If you don't play my way you are doing it badong."

I would add that enforcing a rule that you have to rolelplay all design choices actually leads to people doing a lot of character building out to level 20 versus making more "natural" choices as they progress. Seems to be a counter-intuitive approach to those that value roleplaying versus gaming mindsets.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also keep in mind that Paizo is both a roleplaying company and an online store. Any 5e materials will be sold here as well, so Paizo wins either way.

Once you leave a game, you really don't get any say on how characters (un)develop in the game setting at that point. Your former character becomes a mindless drone, oh well, if you didn't want that to happen you should have stayed in the group (or had the character commit seppuku before quitting).

Now if the group claims you have to hand over your character sheet (assuming you made it up yourself in the first place and weren't given it), then I'd say bull. They can ask politely and I might, or I might scan it or take a picture and sent it to them. But my property is mine and I can do with it as I wish.

Honestly as a GM though, it is easier to just remove the character from the group and move on.

"I have known gods. He who denies them is as blind as he who trusts them too deeply. I seek not beyond death. It may be the blackness averred by Nemedian skeptics, or Crom’s realm of ice and cloud, or the snowy plains of and vaulted halls of the Nordheimer’s Valhalla. I know not, nor do I care. Let me live deep while I live; let me know the rich juices of red meat and stinging wine on my palate, the hot embrace of white arms, the mad exultation of battle when the blue blades flame and crimson, and I am content. Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content." – Conan of Cimmeria

Options, don't use them? Yes and no. If you play in society play or run officially published adventures/modules, then your choice might be more limited to not include them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Imho even the concept of a stat block for Cthulhu means you've already missed the point. Does not compute.

If you have a visual and/or physical representation of Cthulhu that doesn't immediately drive you insane, the point has been missed.

I wouldn't say that sorcerers are more brilliant, they might be more intuitive, but they are limited to only using magic they are intimately tied to. Wizards on the other hand have no limit on learning and using arcane magic.

Now for an exotic spell, a sorcerer might just "stumble" on the ability to do it. A wizard ally could then study them, how they cast it, perhaps have the sorcerer embed it into a scroll and whamo! Suddenly the wizard understands how it works.

I would suggest most arcane spells were actually originally "discovered" by sorcerers (or other spontaneous arcane casters, e.g. dragons) and classified, defined, and quantified by brilliant wizards.

EDIT: I guess what I'm saying is, I wouldn't call someone more brilliant that thought up something new that nobody else did, but was incapable of learning other things. As compared to someone that can not only learn from the first person and recreate their discover, but also learn an unlimited amount of other things.

Jaçinto wrote:
Is it just my group, or is it common for pathfinder groups to not actually use a spell's full description and effect? By which I mean, fireball not catching you and your gear on fire or doing anything else other than just damage?

As TOZ points out, it doesn't really damage your gear (except in the case of a natural 1). It damages creatures and unattended objects. The last paragraph is in reference to those unattended objects (and items due to a natural 1). Otherwise it should just harm the creature.

Jaçinto wrote:
Heck, I have even argued that you have to repair your gear and clothes cause after a while they will be falling apart, due to being full of holes from the amount of hits they took.

Again, this is something people can get into or they just hand wave, it really depends on the individuals. Keep in mind that some people have very limited schedules and spending too much time on mundane matters for the characters can seem as wasting that limited time. Dungeons and Dragons vs. Stitching and Shining you might say.

Jaçinto wrote:
After all, why should the sorc spontaneously know a spell developed by a caster across the globe to deal with a situation they had to deal with? If your character has no logical reason to know of the spell, then you should have to research.

Probably not the best example since sorcerers are suppose to be magical naturally. They don't really "learn" spells so much as "awaken" them. The magic is in their blood not something they tap into.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
I know I try to use every bit of the rule when I play, but for things like that, some people don't realize everything that the spell does, especially if it has been changed from 3.5. Coincidentally, I don't think fireball catches your gear on fire, just unattended items.

Also if you roll a 1 on your save, some of your gear can get destroyed/damaged.

1 to 50 of 7,483 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.