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

7,507 posts (8,199 including aliases). 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 10 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 7,507 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

KestrelZ wrote:
The best advancement Pathfinder made was a guide for a GM to create races. Yes, it is flawed. It is still a guide and far better than 3.5 asking people to look in he monster manuals and guesstimate if a home brew race was suitable.

Well that was the default way of doing it. The more advanced way was to buy the Savage Species rulebook. It had rules for determining LA. Again, just like with PF, the rules weren't perfect and D&D didn't follow all of themselves, but let's not suggest there wasn't any guidance given, you just had to pay for it.

Arturius Fischer wrote:
Instead of, say, having the Monster Hit Dice 'buy back' some of the Level Adjustment.

Actually I think that was the way it worked. It was basically a 2 racial HD = 1 LA trade. So a race that was suppose to be LA 4, might be 4 racial HD and LA 2. This was because too much LA (being just empty level slots in 3e) would make the creature way too weak. The compromise was to give it some HD in exchange for some of the LA.


ECL (HD + LA) was complicated, but I understand some hard a hard time with it. Also Savage Species had rules for playing many of the monsters races at 1st level. Basically it was just like multi-classing.

That isn't to say I think it was perfect. In my own version, each LA gives you 1d4 HD, 2+Int skills, poor saves. One reason is that the rules for ECL were written to make the monster choices weaker overall, this helps mitigate some of that. It also makes character level = hd, which effects some spells and other abilities.

I will note that PF doesn't do that for some monsters, focusing on CR instead of HD, this can lead to some confusion as to whether to apply the character level, the HD total, or party level.


thejeff wrote:

I don't think that was quite my question: I want to know when people think it actually stopped being a racial thing and because a justified criminal thing.

Not when the rhetoric changed.
I suspect you agree with me that it's been a racial thing all along. I'm asking those who think today's greater proportion of minorities in the justice system is not due to any racial bias, but just because they commit more crimes.

Poorer communities have always had bigger problems with crime than more wealthy ones. Minorities make up a disproportionate part of the poor, ergo it would not be surprising to find minorities make up a disproportionate part of the criminal justice system.

That isn't to say that racial prejudices don't have anything to do with minorities making up a large segment of the poor or incarcerated, certainly there is a racial component. There is statistical proof that white defenders get lighter sentences for the same offense.

Still I fail to see how this particular incident so far has any evidence of bias based on the system. One can say this particular situation didn't involve any (significant) racial component and still acknowledge that the system as a whole does.


Fergie wrote:
Sadly, it seems like none of the politicians from the president to their local council are are aligning themselves with the people of Ferguson, and many are aligning with the police. I think the police will back off until the spotlight fades, then it's payback time for making them look bad!

To be honest, I doubt the people of Ferguson are monolithic in their opinions. I would guess that there are many that are fine with the police activities. I wouldn't be surprised if those people also tended to vote more often, thus politicians might be "playing" to their bases.


I wouldn't want to make it too easy or common. I enjoyed having my "First Daughter", in the campaign when the party had to infiltrate drow, actually been a male child who was obligated to present as female for the good of the family. Most of the elites of society knew the truth, but it was looked down as "inappropriate" to draw attention to it (and with drow, you really want to tend to avoid anything that is inappropriate as the response tends to be ... uncomfortable).


The Highway PD and the National Guard weren't there that first weekend that the convenience store was looted and burnt down.


Ferguson P.D. doesn't have that many African-Americans.


Sounds like Ozma/Tip.


TheAntiElite wrote:
That said, such could impact attitudes as well, as having even a theoretical option of return and flipping the metaphorical bird at an unwelcoming society might serve to make a difference in the desire for integration versus a deterrent to stick around.

You might look at the history of Liberia.


TheAntiElite wrote:
This is a demonstrably false statement that is disproven by actions taken both in regards to DACA and the attempts to close Guantanamo. That's a blatant contradiction to your proposition! While the sizable WASP contingency comprising the TEA/-publican party may harbor overtly displayed animosity towards Middle Easteners and Hispanics as evinced by the recent responses to both the humanitarian crisis at the border as well as the overall reactions to the Arab Spring, the President and Attorney General have not been in agreement with them.

We were discussing hypotheticals, not that the President actually has these biases. Or at least I wasn't, I know the little comrade isn't a fan of the President, so I can't speak on his behalf.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Furthermore, the passage doesn't point out how Obama and Holder can't be racists. On the one hand if they were prejudiced against white people, I agree, those prejudices probably wouldn't be reinforced with "societal power". However, if Obama and Holder were prejudiced against, for example, Hispanics or Middle Eastern-y types, they could probably access quite a bit of societal power to reinforce those prejudices.

Nice attempt at picking, but really you should stick to your chief's nose little goblin. In this case, Holder and Obama would be reinforcing the prejudice of the white majority against hispanic or middle eastern types, not their own. While they may share the prejudice, it is because the white majority already holds this prejudice that it is reinforced.

EDIT: Mark of the beast post!

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
And I have no idea how Kryzbie would answer this one, but I just wanted to draw your attention, Comrade Jeff, if you hadn't already looked, to the NEA handbook which demarcates racial prejudice from racism by the formula: racism = racial prejudice + power. Hence, the argument ran back in 1973, maybe still today in some of the more crazed white middle class liberal guilt circles, that only whites can be racist.

White middle class liberal rant on how blacks can't be racists.


thejeff wrote:
pres man wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Or we can dismiss the definition as inadequate.
I say that by some definitions only whites can be racist. Someone else says something like only Glen Beck followers believe that stuff. I cite evidence this is not the case, and you get all nit-picky. Goblins, the only thing they should pick is their chief's nose.
It all depends on what you mean by racism.

LOL.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Or we can dismiss the definition as inadequate.

I say that by some definitions only whites can be racist. Someone else says something like only Glen Beck followers believe that stuff. I cite evidence this is not the case, and you get all nit-picky. Goblins, the only thing they should pick is their chief's nose.


I did read it. It says that non-whites can become racist, but not until they control the system. So are you claiming that non-whites now control the system?

I can't quote all the text, that is why I provide the source and then a link when asked so nicely.

Here is another interesting passage.

Quote:
In our society it would be very difficult for any individual to be a racist all by himself. If everyone just had his own individual racial prejudices, which were never reinforced by the society, racism would not exist. But when those individual racial prejudices are reinforced by the culture, we then have institutional racism. Thus, all white individuals in our society are racists. Even if a white American is totally free from all conscious racial prejudices, he remains a racist, for he receives benefits distributed by a white racist society through ts institutions. Our institutional and cultural processes are so arranged as to automatically benefit whites, just because they are white.

This passage points out why Obama and Holder can't be racist, society wouldn't reinforce prejudices they could have. So while they individually have power, they don't have societal power.


Here you go.

Or a little more directly. Feel free to download the full text.

As to the Comrade's point about the time period, either it is still relevant and whites are still in control of everything or we can answer thejeff's question about when things changed, somewhere between 1973 and now.

As to Glen Beck, unless he wrote that when he was 9 years old (and if he did, wow, that is pretty impressive), the idea is hardly new and unique to Beck (I am assuming that he has claimed that some people hold a similar idea).


“In the United States at present, only whites can be racists, since whites
dominate and control the institutions that create and enforce American cultural
norms and values . . . blacks and other Third World peoples do not have
access to the power to enforce any prejudices they may have, so they cannot,
by definition, be racists.”
--from EDUCATION & RACISM, National Education Association. 1973


Fake Healer wrote:
Being racist is a funny thing....even black people can be one.

Actually by some definitions they can't be. Not even say, President Obama or AG Holder. Because they don't really control the power, whites do.


thejeff wrote:
So I'll go back to my earlier question: If racism really isn't a factor in police treatment of black people anymore and it's really just all based on how black people behave, when did this switch happen?

I would say that racism isn't always a factor in police treatment of black people. Nor has it always been. Black folk have their bad seeds, just like whites do, asians do, native americans do, latinos do, pacific islanders do, etc. And those bad seeds tend to end up running afoul law enforcement. Does that mean that everyone that law enforcement comes in conflict with are bad seeds, no, not even for the white privileged is that true. Yet sometimes cops do have to deal with black folk who are problems not due to their race but due to their behavior.


1: Why do you think it was racial?
2: He stopped to confront 2 black men.
1: That were walking down the middle of the street.
2: Yeah, but black men.
1: Were there white guys walking down the middle of the street that he went right by without saying anything to?
2: No.
1: Were there other black men that weren't walking down the middle of the street, that he didn't stop to speak to?
2: Yes.
1: So it is racist because ...
2: He's white and he stopped 2 black men for no reason.
1: ... except for walking down the middle of the street.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
pres man wrote:


Dead cop doesn't protect anyone.

Protect people from WHAT? Stolen cigars? The man is dead. That is the exact opposite of protection.

Huh. You are probably right, cops should stop responding to high African-American population areas. Evidently they never offer anything of value, that keeping a cop alive would be worthwhile for.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
TheJeff wrote:
Even so, I'm not sure we should really expect police to take the risk of being beaten, incapacitated and possibly killed or crippled rather than shoot someone attacking them.

I've taken worse risks to save geese and small fuzzy woodland creatures. Not taking the same risks to save your fellow human beings says a lot about how people see each other.

If we're not hiring cops to take risks to save people from dying then what are we hiring them for? You get a bullet proof vest, a night stick, a tazer, a gun, a police car and a dog (with his own bullet proof vest). At what point does it kick in that this job MIGHT entail some risk to your personal well being?

Dead cop doesn't protect anyone. Trying to "keep it real" and be a "real man" is irresponsible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cop decides they want to be a "real man" and not resort to p***y moves like using a weapon, only be knocked unconscious, have their weapon taken, it used on them and/or future people the person comes into contact.

Sorry, if a cop is realistically worried that someone might be able to physically overpower them, they shouldn't try to "keep it real". That would be irresponsible to themselves and the public at large.

So yes, there can be very legitimate reasons to use a weapon on an unarmed individual. Unarmed does not mean not dangerous, ask Rihanna or Mrs. Rice if someone without a weapon can be dangerous if you don't want to take my word for it.


thejeff wrote:
pres man wrote:
One thing to remember is that it is impossible to prove a negative. If someone says, "The cop shot the kid because the cop was racist." It is literally impossible to prove that is not the case. You can present evidence that support non-racist reasons for the outcome, but for someone who has already decided that it is racist, there is no evidence you can show them it is not. That is why in most logical arguments, is the responsibility of the one making the affirmative argument to present proof.

Luckily, that's not the legal argument that has to be made. You need to prove that the shooting was unjustified. Which is difficult, given the low standards that apply and the deference juries tend to give to police statements.

Proving that the cop was racist might call his judgement into question and might be an aggravating factor if the shooting was unjustified, but it isn't likely to be the main question if there's a trial.

I wasn't speaking to legal cases. I was suggesting to folks that if you are trying to prove that the case isn't racist in nature, that it is impossible to do so. So don't try. Same thing if you are trying to prove you aren't racist, you can't do it. Don't even try. If you really care about trying to address specific racism claims, you should instead demand those claiming racism to show proof. If they can't show evidence specific to the situation, then just dismiss those claims as irrelevant until new evidence arises.

Racism is one of the more insidious charges against a person's character, because the person literally can't defend themselves and too often people don't hold those claiming it to task.

Now how racism can be related to actual charges is that you might see hate crime charges included.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing to remember is that it is impossible to prove a negative. If someone says, "The cop shot the kid because the cop was racist." It is literally impossible to prove that is not the case. You can present evidence that support non-racist reasons for the outcome, but for someone who has already decided that it is racist, there is no evidence you can show them it is not. That is why in most logical arguments, is the responsibility of the one making the affirmative argument to present proof.


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.

o_0


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 ...

Spoiler:
0.

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.*

Rrrriiiiggggghhhhhhtttt

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.

Spoiler:
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.*

Rrrriiiiggggghhhhhhtttt


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!"

*yawn*

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.

Spoiler:
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

1 to 50 of 7,507 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.