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

thejeff's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 22,073 posts (22,994 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 8 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 22,073 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Sissyl wrote:

Without much of a struggle? That's refreshing. How do you figure? Earlier polls said "Trump is unelectable". From there, it has gone to "a few percent in favour of Clinton".

Sure, I hope Clinton will bag the election easily. But what has changed since?

Trump couldn't muster a majority of Republicans in the primary... and they're only ~23% of the total electorate. His nomination is an accident of history... the result of too many Republican candidates thinking they could be 'the one' and thus splitting the remotely sane vote half a dozen different ways while the b+##@@& crazy wing just kept consolidating around the clear standout for their ideals.

The demographics of the general election are vastly different and stacked against ANY Republican candidate at this point... but Trump is especially screwed because women overall despise him. His only hope is that vast numbers of poorly educated older white males have been hiding out in the boondocks waiting for THIS election to finally go to the polls... while the vast number of eligible minority voters that we know haven't been voting continue to stay away. If that happens then he's got a shot. Otherwise, it ain't gonna happen short of an 'October surprise' catastrophe for the Clinton campaign.

Trump also won the Republican primary because the Republican base has been more and more dominated by that b+##@@& crazy wing. Why vote for the candidate dog whistling his support for your crazy when you've got someone willing to come right out and say it? It's not really clear how much things would have changed with less candidates. Trump was still winning primaries when it was down to 3.

Trouble is, that kind of crazy doesn't help in the general. Anything's possible in politics, but the odds are very long. Any Democratic candidate has serious structural advantages. None of it's helped by Trump not being serious about campaigning. He's not fundraising effectively. He's not building a ground campaign. He's not interested in the kind of voter data that's been winning elections. He took off on a foreign trip to plug his Scottish gold course. He's been holding events in states he shouldn't lose and in states he can't win.
It's possible we're in some kind of paradigm shift and twitter and randomly places huge rallies are now the effective way to campaign, but I don't see any evidence for it.


Ragoz wrote:

"I want to use darkness sometime this scenario. My character is specialized in using it."

Follow this up with, "Hey I haven't gotten to do my thing yet. Is it ok if I do it next combat?"

I would expect the answer to be yes at this point. If it isn't I wouldn't be thinking the darkness user is the jerk here.

"Alright. Can you handle the next combat by yourself? Cause I'm not going to be able to do much."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mulgar wrote:


You want to use the pathfinder rule in your group, fine do that. Hope you have a wonderful gaming experience.

I like the 3.5 system way better than the pathfinder system. My group uses the 3.5 skill rules.

Doesn't make me wrong, or you wrong. No need to get upset.

You enjoy your game, I enjoy mine, we are both happy.

Problem solved

I point out again, just for the amusement value that at least as far as Open Locks go, those weren't the 3.5 rules either. Open Locks wasn't an exclusive skill. Barbarians could quite happily take it as cross-class.


CannibalKitten wrote:
Well I guess we might as well just play Skyrim and be every class at once then!? I concede. I play DnD/PF as a game where we are a team and each of us has an important role that the rest of the group can't fill and i will continue to do so as everyone I've ever played with has.

Again, you're arguing for a rule that's never existed.

Well, except for AD&D/Basic where the skill system was entirely different and only thieves got points to put into things like open locks.


CannibalKitten wrote:
Then PF made a dumb descision. A barbarian shouldn't be able to pick a lock because he decided to put a skill rank In last level. I've always used common sense when playing instead of blindly following rules, or lack of rules, I guess so I never paid attention to them leaving it out. But that seems to take largely away from the point of class based skills as it was.

Even in 3.0 a barbarian could pick a lock if he put a skill rank into open locks. It was cross-class, so he'd need two points to do so, but he could do it.

The only exclusive skills were Animal Empathy, Decipher Script, Read Lips Scry, and Use Magic Device.

The only one of those that's left as a skill of its own is UMD.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:
Yes, the Tolkien items are actually Artifacts or the like. But when you boil it down to the bare essentials? You have a Cursed Ring of Invisibility if you go by the simplest depiction of the rules, and two magic swords.

Right, if you go by the simplest depiction, you get simple items. Actually, the invisibility was only a side effect. Don't forget the unaging part of its power, that Frodo and Bilbo both "benefited" from. Which was also a side effect. Beyond that they lacked both the experience and the will to fully use the Ring - which was good, because attempting to do so would have led it to corrupt them faster. Even so, Frodo used it to see into the Wraith world, to get a glimpse into Galadriel's intent and to bind Smeagol. Probably some other things I'm not remembering.

But yes, if you strip away all the interesting things it does, it's just an invisibility ring.

Tangent101 wrote:

What makes a magic item special is story. But D&D and Pathfinder ignored that story. Magic is "cheap" even when it's expensive. People sell off old magical equipment and buy new stuff like they're trading in their car.

Yes, I know there are systems out there that can do this. Yes, I know Pathfinder is different. And yes, I cope. But that does not negate the fact I, as a GM, want magic items to be something SPECIAL. And these days? They're not.

Take Hell's Rebels. Near the start, the campaign offers six magic items. It warns that GMs might decide to reduce the number in case the players just sell them off. But the items? There is nothing special about them in the game. They are flavour only.

There should have been aspects in Hell's Rebels where those magic items are specific for fulfilling a quest. I know that when I do run Hell's Rebels eventually, I'll have the players find one of them... and the other five will be hidden around the city and the players will have to follow clues and quest to get them all. And I might even alter these items so that with each additional one found, it unlocks abilities in them all so that these items become something... special. Magical, even.

No one should trade in a +1 sword because it's vendor trash, or have a dozen magical weapons they collected over time and then sell them all to get a somewhat more powerful item. That diminishes them all.

Which is getting outside the point. The current crafting just cheapens magic items. You spend time in order to reduce costs. And most APs include times where players can do just that.

If I were to create an Adventure Path? I'd have the players each find one item, one thing special to them. And I'd let them find ways of unlocking extra powers in those items. So that the players continue through the...

For the rest of it, I agree, sort of. Much of that's hard to set up in a game though. This basic problem goes all the back to AD&D (probably to OD&D). You didn't have crafting or magic shops or WBL, but you certainly found better and better gear as you went along and often wound up with bags full of weaker items by high levels. Handmedowns for your henchmen & followers maybe.

Upgradeable items can work, though I've never seen an implementation in D&D/PF that I really liked. And you're still going to find gear on beaten enemies that'll turn into loot. Unless PCs wind up being the only ones with magic items.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Nutcase Entertainment wrote:


The USA can be a big power because they don't have to worry about their trillions dollards of debts, well, to a degree...
Neither does the EU, or for that matter, did Britain as part of the EU. When you borrow in your own currency, you can pick whatever rate you like to pay it back (it's called "devaluation"). This particular dog won't hunt.

Still having their own currency definitely makes it easier for Britain to leave than for anyone else.


Kitty Catoblepas wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:
I think the multitude of women gamers tired of being hit on during the game under the auspices of role-play may find your character concept disruptive and quite offensive.

As well as the multitude of male gamers uncomfortable with that kind of thing. That's honestly why the concept is just a concept and not a character.

The actual plan was to bring it up casually out of no where, having conversations something along the line of:

"Good to meet you. Your name is Am'Aranth? That's a pretty name. Do you want to get married? No? That's cool if it's not your thing. I won't press it. Love should be freely given."

Honestly it would mostly bother me because you're treating it so casually. Most of the poly folk I know take it pretty seriously - at least when it comes to something like marriage. Some more casual with sex, but most would take marrying near strangers on the spur of the moment and without consent of the existing spouses pretty badly.


Lab_Rat wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I guess the question is "completely broken and not functional" the right criteria for a full rebuild?

Anything that someone put half their rage powers into is probably a fairly important part of the concept. Had that not been available from the start, who knows what else they might have done.

That said, I suspect it's a pretty small number of characters. I know they hate giving full rebuilds, but it's just not that big a deal overall.

Like I said, I would love to hear someone describe a build in which the loss of 3 points of DR breaks their build.

You're not loosing some kind of ability you don't already have. The barbarian still has DR, just slightly less. No other rage powers are reliant upon taking Increased Damage Reduction. No feats or magic items I know of require a specific amount of DR.

Well, that's the question. What does "Breaks their build" mean?

Yes, you will still have a legal character if you change 3 rage powers out. Therefore, it's not broken. That's the simplest definition, right?


Kryzbyn wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Well, the DNC will, probably. I know a lot of Dems who would not see a Hillary victory as a victory for Dems.

I'm sure you do. I know a few, though I suspect that'll change as the primary fades into the distance. I knew some PUMAs back in 2008 as well.

Polling still suggests that solid majority are behind her and not just as "lesser of evils/beat Trump" option. Far more so than on the Republican side.

I wouldn't qualify Bernie Sanders supporters as pumas by any stretch of the imagination.

I dunno, Party Unity My Ass People United Means Action seems like something you could hear from an ardent Sanders supporter. The basic complaint that the nomination was stolen by the party leadership, not decided by the voters certainly echoes.

Of course, there are certainly differences in why they supported their candidate to start with, but there's a lot of similarity in the outrage and in refusing to accept the outcome. Mind you, PUMA was never as big a deal as it was painted to be. Most of the outraged supporter came around long before November. I suspect the same will be true of Bernie Bros. Most of his supporters already have.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Yes, but my point was that the whole idea of it being okay to beat up guys is a problem in itself. That the gender divide there is a bad thing because hitting people is a problem whatever gender they are. Normalizing that should lead to less hitting men, not more hitting women.
But how much less? I don't think it's reasonable to expect it to ever reach seeing it the exact same way. A large chunk of why that prohibition exists is because of very real physical differences that aren't going anywhere.

Those real physical differences don't make it okay to hit other men. The assumption that violence between guys is socially acceptable is the problem here.

I may harp on this partly because, for whatever reason, I never bought into it, even as a kid.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
Well, the DNC will, probably. I know a lot of Dems who would not see a Hillary victory as a victory for Dems.

I'm sure you do. I know a few, though I suspect that'll change as the primary fades into the distance. I knew some PUMAs back in 2008 as well.

Polling still suggests that solid majority are behind her and not just as "lesser of evils/beat Trump" option. Far more so than on the Republican side.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
Trump is what you see is what you get.

And this is the part I don't get.

What you see is a lying opportunistic authoritarian with no real consistent policy, just a few things that sound good on his stump speeches. I guess that's what you get.

The idea that just because he says offensive, "politically incorrect", bigoted gibberish that he's somehow genuine is nonsense.

Look at his business career. He's a con-man and a cheat. His business model is mostly borrow a bunch of money through a business, pay himself a bundle, declare bankruptcy and walk away leaving everyone else holding the bag. Hell, for all his talk of self-funding, it was all a loan. He's paying himself a salary from campaign funds and channelling expenditures to his properties. If he manages to fundraise enough to pay back his primary loan, he'll likely make a nice profit off the campaign.


KingOfAnything wrote:
The fact that it was a "small traffic warrant" is part of the reality that gives me pause. The demographics of outstanding warrants makes this ruling ripe for abuse. It is my opinion that the principle of the ruling is sound, but the practical application of it will result in injustice.

What do you see as the difference between this and an illegal search?

It's still an officer taking illegal actions that lead to finding the evidence, just one step removed.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

There's a long time still before the election. Maybe your opinion will change. Less likely for Clinton, since opinions about her have long been set. More likely for Trump, since he's new to politics and, IMO, he's just going to look worse and worse as we see more of him.

But still. Go vote. Vote for one of those two, if you can stomach it. Make a protest vote for a third party if you must. But vote down ticket. There are Senators and Representatives and State and local officials who will matter, whoever's at the top of the ticket.

And vote in the for those if you can. Many of those are yet to be held and that's where you can help shape the party rather than just complain about it.

Barring something weird happening in the next months, I'll be voting for Clinton. Not my first choice, but one I'm okay with. I have realistic expectations for Presidential candidates.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Caineach wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
It's also possible that MitD isn't so much deliberately trying to derail Team Evil so much as he's stupid, childish, and impulsive. He could have just decided that painting 'X's on doors was fun, so he did it a couple more times when Xykon et al were not looking.
I disagree. A lot of his actions are way too deliberate for that.

And there's been a lot of character development for him, showing his moral development and increasing questioning of Xykon's actions. Most recently in the "Nod. Get Treats" strip.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
thejeff wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:

In a vacuum, I would agree with the Supreme Court decision in this case. If you have a warrant out for your arrest and you are searched as part of that arrest, evidence found in that search is admissible.

But reality gives me pause.

But if they only find out there's a warrant because they stopped you illegally ...
Tainted evidence (or fruit of the poisonous tree) stems from an illegal search or seizure. I don't think there is a legal construct for an illegal stop. In fact, Terry v Ohio (followed by Hiibel) ruled that it is legal for police to stop citizens and briefly question them.

If they have "reasonable suspicion" that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.

And they may only frisk if there's a reasonable suspicion that they're armed presently dangerous. Though that doesn't apply in this case, since IIRC the search came after the arrest.

The trick here is that even if the Terry Stop isn't justified, during the Terry Stop they can arrest you if you refuse to give your name. Once they arrest you they can search you. Or if you give the name and they find the warrant at that point, they can arrest you. All even if the original Terry stop doesn't hold up. That's why the evidence should be tainted. Because the initial contact that started the process wasn't legal. The officer had no right to detain the suspect and demand a name.

Sotomayor wrote:
: This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants—even if you are doing nothing wrong. If the officer discovers a warrant for a fine you forgot to pay, courts will now excuse his illegal stop and will admit into evidence anything he happens to find by searching you after arresting you on the warrant. Because the Fourth Amendment should prohibit, not permit, such misconduct, I dissent.

Note that the warrant was in fact a "small traffic warrant". Not that it matters legally, but it may emotionally make a difference whether it's an unpaid traffic ticket or a murder charge.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Even beyond "then I can beat up women who don't respect me", the basic idea that it's not okay to hit women, but hitting men is fine is itself an example of toxic masculinity - pushing men into the "you're valued on how good you are at violence" trap.
It's just the most extreme example of the differences between how you're expected to act as an/or towards the genders, and people have a tendency to take any point to an extreme to try to make a point. There are much more subtle/better/on topic/ less button pushy examples. Everything from body language to eye contact to subject matter is different, and every way of dealing with it is wrong at least two ways.

Yes, but my point was that the whole idea of it being okay to beat up guys is a problem in itself. That the gender divide there is a bad thing because hitting people is a problem whatever gender they are. Normalizing that should lead to less hitting men, not more hitting women.

You're right there are a lot of subtler differences as well. Differences in talking over men vs women, differences in how we perceive the same behavior from men vs women, etc. And much of this on a level much lower than conscious intention - which makes it really hard to deal with.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Chess Pwn is correct that the ACG second printing says "Though similar to an archetype in many ways" not "While still technically an archetype".

unfortunately there are a lot of things that interact with a class and now we have no idea which parts work the same and which ones don't This When it was an archetype we knew exactly what the rules were. Now we don't know...

Can they take rogue favored class bonuses?

Can they take alternate racial bonuses?

Can they use magic items for that class/get the full effect of that magic items for the base class

Can they take feats that have a prerequisite of class level x

Yeah, it's treated like an entirely different class, now Ninja is woefully unsupported.


Lab_Rat wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:
I'm not going to make a value judgement, but I personally don't think there is an OP problem with the extra DR power stacking with invulnerable like it does for the DR class ability. Like anything else, it's subject to misuse by an over-eager player. There are many other class features much more "broken" than this one so not sure why a stand needed to be taken in this particular case. It is what it is. I'm just wondering what I need to do with my now illegal PC. The simplest thing to do is a free retrain on the rage power, but I'm sure some will argue that their entire character concept is based on stacking DR and want a full rebuild.

I agree with you on the obvious fix.

While someone may claim they need a full rebuild, I would love to hear how their build is somehow completely broken and not functional by not gaining an extra 3 DR (if maxed out).

I guess the question is "completely broken and not functional" the right criteria for a full rebuild?

Anything that someone put half their rage powers into is probably a fairly important part of the concept. Had that not been available from the start, who knows what else they might have done.

That said, I suspect it's a pretty small number of characters. I know they hate giving full rebuilds, but it's just not that big a deal overall.


Jiggy wrote:
Kazuka wrote:
Some people prioritize their perceptions of reality over reality itself.

No. People can't tell the difference between their perceptions of reality and reality itself. They think their perceptions of reality ARE reality itself. That's what "perception" means. As far as any given person is aware, their perceptions of reality and reality itself are one and the same.

Prioritizing X over Y requires knowledge that X and Y are two different things. But if someone knew that their perceptions of reality didn't match actual reality, then the former would no longer be their perceptions of reality.

I know my perception of reality isn't reality.

That doesn't mean I know reality actually is or in what ways or cases my perception doesn't match. I'm still pretty stuck with my perception, but acknowledging that lets me leave myself open to new data.

How well I succeed at this is in question of course.


Kazuka wrote:
thejeff wrote:

So perhaps you could actually explain what you mean, rather than hint at it.

I've got some ideas for what equality and civility mean in this context, but I don't see why one needs to be prioritized over the other.
Women long had a veneer of civility instead of equality. As I suggested that's led to some very toxic forms of machismo. Toxic for both men and women.

Or for that matter what are you hinting at with "sacrifice to gain that equality" or "learn which one they should have asked for the hard way"? That last at least sounds like you could give specific examples, which might make this all much clearer.

Some people prioritize their perceptions of reality over reality itself. It does not matter to them that they are being treated horribly as long as they don't see it. And when someone points out the truth, they adamantly focus on ignoring that truth in favor of the illusion they have come to live.

For those people, civility is more important because it provides them with an illusion they are comfortable with. The only reason it is prioritized higher in those instances is because it is what is actually important to them. Just as there are those who prioritize equality over civility, because only equality is important to them.

The question I asked was as clear as intended. It is intentionally left so open-ended as to not constrain the possible answers. Perhaps it would illuminate more if I provided my own answer?

When I was asked the question the first time, my answer after some thought was the concept of inequality. The very idea itself. If doing way with that and dooming my choice and the existence of an entire movement to be forgotten could achieve equality, I would find it an acceptable trade. Knowing my children would grow up never facing discrimination is worth it to me.

The examples are hard to narrow down exactly.

We are quite rough on each other. Playful insults, heavy-handed teasing, injokes that go back years and are quite embarrassing. Some...

Interesting. Thank you.

I would say that the personal close friends example doesn't really map well onto "equality/civility" for classes of people. You can't actually treat strangers the same way you treat close friends. You can mimic it, by using the same kinds of insults & teasing, but without the actual deep relationships, you don't have either the same levels of trust or the same knowledge that lets you avoid the insults and teasing that would actually hurt.
If a group immediately assumed a man would fit right in and handle the rough jokes, but everything needed to be toned down for a woman, that would be more relevant. That some of the newcomers think that's the reason doesn't change the reality.

The example you used earlier in the thread might be a better example, for the other point of view - In that case either equality or civility would have led to the same result - stopping the problem player. Your GM's over avoidance of "sexism" wasn't equality, as you pointed out.


Kazuka wrote:
Jessica Price wrote:
Kazuka wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

It's called a feminist movement, because whether we want to admit it or not, on the bulk of this planet women are still in a secondary status to men. In the US it comes in the form of things such as glass ceilings or criminialisng aspects of life which are uniquely female.. such as a woman whom today was sentenced to concurrent terms of 30 years (10 suspended) for endangering a dependent) and 10 years for feticide because of a miscarriage. In other countries, women are killed by their families for staining their honor by being raped.

Yes, patriarchy does do damage to men, but on the whole, it's women who are being kept on the wrong side of the boot,so that's why it's a feminist movement. And yes, men can be feminists too... all of the best ones are.

And what are you willing to sacrifice to gain that equality?

It's always interesting to see people get lessons on the difference between equality and civility, and why the two are very much not the same thing. Many people ask for equality when they mean civility. And I've seen many gamers learn which one they should have asked for the hard way.

Both. The idea that equal treatment means it's suddenly okay to hit women, etc. is a pretty transparent antifeminist attempt to punish women for seeking equality.

It's not okay to hit anyone, except in self-defense or, perhaps, in defense of someone who can't defend themselves. The whole, "well, if women are equal than I can beat up women who don't respect (read: obey) me" is sociopathic.

We're not in need of your "lessons." You have nothing legitimate to teach us.

I didn't ask my question to provide a lesson. I asked it to see what answer would be given.

My comment on civility versus equality was not for lesson purposes. There are people who say they seek equality, but really do not. It was to help illustrate part of the problem and help provoke further thought for the answer.

So perhaps you could actually explain what you mean, rather than hint at it.

I've got some ideas for what equality and civility mean in this context, but I don't see why one needs to be prioritized over the other.
Women long had a veneer of civility instead of equality. As I suggested that's led to some very toxic forms of machismo. Toxic for both men and women.

Or for that matter what are you hinting at with "sacrifice to gain that equality" or "learn which one they should have asked for the hard way"? That last at least sounds like you could give specific examples, which might make this all much clearer.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jessica Price wrote:
Kazuka wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

It's called a feminist movement, because whether we want to admit it or not, on the bulk of this planet women are still in a secondary status to men. In the US it comes in the form of things such as glass ceilings or criminialisng aspects of life which are uniquely female.. such as a woman whom today was sentenced to concurrent terms of 30 years (10 suspended) for endangering a dependent) and 10 years for feticide because of a miscarriage. In other countries, women are killed by their families for staining their honor by being raped.

Yes, patriarchy does do damage to men, but on the whole, it's women who are being kept on the wrong side of the boot,so that's why it's a feminist movement. And yes, men can be feminists too... all of the best ones are.

And what are you willing to sacrifice to gain that equality?

It's always interesting to see people get lessons on the difference between equality and civility, and why the two are very much not the same thing. Many people ask for equality when they mean civility. And I've seen many gamers learn which one they should have asked for the hard way.

Both. The idea that equal treatment means it's suddenly okay to hit women, etc. is a pretty transparent antifeminist attempt to punish women for seeking equality.

It's not okay to hit anyone, except in self-defense or, perhaps, in defense of someone who can't defend themselves. The whole, "well, if women are equal than I can beat up women who don't respect (read: obey) me" is sociopathic.

We're not in need of your "lessons." You have nothing legitimate to teach us.

Even beyond "then I can beat up women who don't respect me", the basic idea that it's not okay to hit women, but hitting men is fine is itself an example of toxic masculinity - pushing men into the "you're valued on how good you are at violence" trap.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thornborn wrote:

So there was an existing warrant? So they could have gone to the guy's home, and got him. Instead, during their stopping of people for no good reason, they happened upon him. And, being used to stopping people for no good reason, and thinking they had no exposure to cover, they arrested the guy because that's what you do when there is a warrant. And during that arrest, found evidence of further crime.

If all that's true, I'd have to say, this guy does not get to skate on the technicality.

I would ALSO have to say, were I in the chair that says such things, that stopping random people needs to stop.

That's the point though: By allowing stopping random people to work, you incentivize stopping random people.

Practically speaking it's the same argument as the argument against any evidence obtained through an illegal search: On the one hand, the evidence exists and is real and now that it's been found there's no reason to not use it to convict the criminal.
OTOH, that means that there's no reason not to make the illegal searches and a good deal of incentive to do so. It would be possible to set up a system where the punishment of the officer(s) for committing an illegal search would be sufficient to remove the incentive - No point in getting your arrest/conviction numbers up if you're fired/jailed for it.
OTGH. Thomas's theory that the threat of civil suits would be sufficient is blatant nonsense - applied to this new ruling or applied to any illegal search - the logic is the same. Keeps you from doing it to people who can afford expensive lawyers, possibly.

I'm very disappointed in Breyer for this. The others I'm not surprised by.


Bob Jonquet wrote:
There's also something to be said for letting people have fun the way they want to. Just because YOU don't role-play doesn't mean you can/should impose your style of play on them. If the barbarian wants to yell "Leeeroy Jenkins" every time he charges is not hurting you in the least. Let them have their fun. If their role-playing is getting too lengthy or inappropriate the GM should take action, but I don't see either of the two examples being that level of distraction.

Personally, I wouldn't call either "Leeeroy Jenkins" or the singing example "roleplay". They're meta references to real world jokes, not something the character would actually be doing. (Or only by some horribly contrived setup)

Whether I'd care or not would depend on the frequency and how much it clashed with the mood of the table and scenario. Much like any out-of-character table chatter.

The cigar on the other hand is just a cigar. It's a prop. Wouldn't bother me.


Jiggy wrote:
Ssyvan wrote:
I'm only just now surprised that there is no method for rolling stats that produced random stat arrays at a given point buy.

Actually, I've seen one, though there can be a bit of up-front legwork. I saw this in a PbP recruitment thread for a 5E game: someone made a list of every possible array you could buy with that game's point buy system. That's (apparently) 55 possible arrays. So you roll 1d55 (weird, but doable electronically) to see which array you get. Then, you number the stats in the array and roll 1d6 to pick a stat. That score goes into STR. Adjust the labels, roll 1d5, put that score in DEX. Rinse and repeat.

Boom. Randomized stats on a point-buy. You just have to have a table of all possible arrays first. Or you could just make a handful of arrays instead of ALL of them, if you prefer.

At some point I'd hacked together a quick Perl script that did it. Took the approach of just randomly generating arrays and checking to see if they matched the desired point buy.

Worth noting that a random array at a given point buy value likely isn't as good as actually using point buy. The numbers won't be laid out as you want them.


GM 1990 wrote:
I personally enjoy rolling, even if I get worse stats that I would using point buy. Rolling dice is part of the allure of this hobby at some subconscious level. So if you're going to roll, no matter what version you use, the group as a whole just has to be prepared for the random outcomes of a small sample size. If you created several sets of stats and took the best, you'd see less variation, but its possible with 4 players rolling 4d6 to see a pretty big swing in the 6 scores produced. A few hot rolls and one player can have multiple 15+, while another has 1 x 15 and the rest 13 and below.

All of which is why I push the "Everyone rolls a set of stats then picks one of those sets to use."

You get a nice bunch of different stats to pick from. No one gets screwed by the dice gods.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:

In a vacuum, I would agree with the Supreme Court decision in this case. If you have a warrant out for your arrest and you are searched as part of that arrest, evidence found in that search is admissible.

But reality gives me pause.

But if they only find out there's a warrant because they stopped you illegally ...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

From another point of view, I don't work like that at all. Characters start as pretty rough sketches - minimal background, maybe an image or bit of attitude, then develop into fuller personalities as I play them. How they act, particularly in the first few sessions determines who they are and what they'll be like. Sometimes more background details get filled in later on, as they become relevant or as the existing tidbits grow some connecting tissue once I've got a better handle on personality.

Trying to nail down too much ahead of time can cripple that process. Building things into the background that clash with how the character wants to develop can stop the development cold.

My character's personality doesn't come out of background, so the whole exercise is backwards for me.

Character questionnaires can be a bane.

I get that it does for a lot of people and that these kinds of things can be a great help. Especially for new players. I just wanted to point out that the approach doesn't work for everyone.


archmagi1 wrote:

AAAAAAND...

Its a rando from a latter season of Clone Wars.

/me cries over his CD of Dark Forces...

EW Story

Hey. I actually just watched that a couple weeks ago. Not a bad little storyline.

Probably better to pull someone from the past with no established role in the post-Republic story than to use a character who everyone's going to be expecting him to follow the path in the previous canon.


Chris Mortika wrote:

I don't have much of a horse in this race, but I wanted to weigh in one one element of this discussion:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Stealth is a Rogue/Thief thing; no other class has the necessity for Stealth, because there is hardly any reason to hide from things in the Pathfinder universe. In fact, the only reason the Rogue/Thief uses Stealth is for when he's scouting ahead so he doesn't get munched on when he's by himself poking around the dungeons. If you're a big bad Martial, you don't need to hide from or sneak around anything, because if it messes with you, it's dead. IF the GM is a big enough jerk to throw something well beyond your pay grade, then the problem isn't with the Stealth skill, but with the GM having an unusual level of desire in killing your PC, and doesn't want to implement a "Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies" scenario. ...

I don't think this is a defensible attitude. "Do martial characters need Stealth?" "No, they can just beat up any encounter." "What about the encounters they can't beat up?" "Then the GM is a jerk who wants to kill the party."

Or maybe the encounter is designed for the party to avoid, perhaps with Stealth.

The problem with stealth in avoiding encounters is that everyone needs to have it. The scout needs it so they can go scout without getting in a fight. But then the whole party comes up and you're not all going to sneak by it. Unless you use magic or you have an entire stealth specialized party.

So it's not so much the barbarian doesn't need stealth cause she'll just kill it, it's the barbarian doesn't need stealth unless she's going to be playing the scout role.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

To those giving Bernie crap for not completely giving in to the now-familiar manipulative bullying....

In 2000, I was sent one of those online form letters from the Democratic Party to send to Ralph Nader to persuade him to drop out of the race. One of its memorable talking points was that Nader's attempts to save America were reminiscent of Medieval doctors trying to cure their patients by bleeding them to death. I sent it, and meant it, and customized the message by saying I did like him and suggesting he try running as a Democrat.

16 years later, Bernie's done exactly what I thought Ralph Nader should have done...but now I realize that Nader wasn't the one trying to save America by bleeding it to death. The corporatist Democrats are.

What I want to know is: Just as Fergie said, polls have consistently shown Clinton barely managing to beat Trump in the general election, while Sanders trounces him - so why, at no point, did ANYONE demand Hillary concede? It's for the good of the party and the country, right? It's all about who can stop Trump, right? So...why has nobody even suggested that Hillary do what her camp has been demanding Sanders do?

Because she's won the primary and he's lost?

Yes, I know, technically, she hasn't won until the formal vote is taken at the convention, but she's won a majority of the pledged delegates and it's been clear for quite some time she had an insurmountable lead - even while it was still mathematically possible for him to catch up.

If the positions were reversed, I'd want Clinton to concede - as she did to Obama in a closer race in 2008.

Edit: said too much and wandered off point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
...As this is a totally fantastical thing that will never actually happen, it makes agreeing to do so at any cost much more justifiable. It's distinctly possible that i'd feel very very different if I were in the moment.
Yeah, I said I'd take the Dorian Grey immortality at the cost of another's life, and I don't think I change my answer. Even if the sacrifice was an irredeemably evil person, I know it's still a totally, selfishly evil act. It'd probably start me down the path to accepting and rationalizing more evil acts, and damnation in whatever afterlife exists. I'd like to believe I'd have the ethics and willpower to say No to the initial deal... I'd like to, but I fear I wouldn't, not really. I know what that implies both about hypothetical me and real-world-right-now me, I'm not happy with it, but there it is anyway.

As I think I hinted earlier - right now I think I could reject it. Leave me with the device and don't let me get rid of it and I'm sure I'd have a moment of weakness. Or catch me and offer it to me when I'm dying of some horrible disease.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm also amused that he addressed several of the questions people raised in the last strip - "Inflict Critical" and the boots at least.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
As a complete aside, I'd have to carefully weigh the "one person dies" thing. Probably could still morally justify it, but it'd be harder. I also don't think I could do it if I had to kill the person: not only because of the fat guy/train scenario (though there's that), but also because of the fact that I'm not super healthy...

As I hinted above, it's both much easier to justify morally and practically if I can just designate someone: say a clear mass murderer on Death Row or some known terrorist higher up.

I'd be much less happy with either "Some random person will die." or "You have to kill them yourself", since my access to and ability to kill people I'd be fine with seeing die is very limited.

I'm a pragmatist. If I'm being truly honest with myself I could do it if:

A) totally and legitimately random and I have no idea who/where it is. Random unknown persons die in the world every day and we feel nothing about that. Could it be someone I know, possibly. However, statistically the chances are astronomically low. I would feel bad for a bit as I'd technically be responsible, but in the long run it would have no real effect on the course of human events. In the grand scheme the good I could do would outweigh the bad. Is it a bit morbid. yea. However, it's not a scenario that will ever actually happen, so perhaps that's part of my acceptance of it.

B) Any variation on "It'll be a bad person." If I choose them myself it'll be a bad person or if I'm assured it's a bad person. The bad person scenario still holds true if I have to kill them myself assuming it's in some way feasible. "You have one hour to go to the middle east (from GA where I live) and kill well guarded terrorist kingpin or the deal is off," not so much. In a room with aforementioned terrorist kingpin wherein he's restrained and I've got a gun. This would in no way be fun for me, but sure.

Now before I get called a sociopath you have to understand something. I've never...

So as I'm reading it here, you're taking "I get immortality" as "forced to for some very very good reason, such as in defense of myself or others". Particularly in the "random person I'll probably never know" case.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Which wraps us around to Larry Niven and organlegging.
I've played and GMed Shadowrun. I'm not endorsing the evilness of organlegging, but there are much worse things.

Still not a road I want to go down.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Sundakan wrote:

Depends on the person as far as the second deal. I get to pick, right?

Edit: Actually, going by exact wording, I don't even need to kill somebody. Somebody just has to die.

Can I just find someone dying of a terminal illness or injury and use the moment when they naturally expire?

Since the process requires the donation of an organ, presumably the donor has to be fairly healthy to count. So we'll put in the caveat that the donor has a fairly decent chunk of a normal lifespan ahead of him otherwise.

So, we're back to the mass-murderers on death row and the like.

Which wraps us around to Larry Niven and organlegging.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Life extension and immortality are not the same ;-)

Not technically, but they're definitely related.

Barring magic (or basically magic, like the Deathwalker thing), any research towards immortality is research on life extension.

And if you only get a couple hundred years of life extension rather than actual immortality, you get essentially the same social and politic effects.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Meanwhile, in France...

"Withdraw the labor law or we'll spoiler Game of Thrones

Quelle Horreur!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Goddity wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Goddity wrote:

I would only take the deal if I could get a whole bunch of questions answered first.

Thinking about the scenario, two major questions are the availability of metamagic feats and material components.

What's there to ask? It's simple. You become immortal, someone else dies. How you provide that someone is up to you.
I was talking about the original. I wouldn't take yours under any circumstances.

For those who are still wondering.. The scenario is taken from the Babylon 5 episode "Deathwalker". The eponymous villain of the week was going to take the process and openly sell it to the government and population of the alliance as an act of revenge for the destruction of her homeworld with the heroes realising that they had no legal recourse to stop her.

In the end, as she was departing, her ship was destroyed by Kosh's ship with the latter intoning. "You are not ready for immortality."

I certainly wouldn't want such a secret openly available. Deathwalker was likely correct about the effects of such a process.
I'd equally work against a secret process.. Right now as it is, the only thing that makes the owning class tolerable is that death is the equaliser they have with us. Give them immortality and we'd never be rid of them and their power would continue to grow asymptotically. Immortality Research is one area of research that I would oppose uncategorically.... even if it's to preserve an Einstein or Hawking.... come to think of it..ESPECIALLY if it's to preserve an Einstein or Hawking.

Agreed. I was originally thinking of it more in terms of the original "offer made by mysterious being" context rather than secret known to the elite few.

OTOH, all research aimed at curing disease, replacing or repairing damaged organs, etc is essentially life extension and immortality research - just one small step at a time. I can't really be opposed to it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Sanders wasn't running as an Independent, he was running as a Democrat, which is essentially a private club choosing who to place on it's ballot. If you're not willing to join the club and abide by it's rules, you don't have an implied right to vote in the primary.

That is basically my point, BOTH parties are private clubs operated in the interests of their wealthy backers. If the private clubs set the system up so that your two choices are Mr. Monopoly and Richie Rich, then you get to vote, that isn't democracy, because neither represents the will of the people. I don't want to join their corrupt club, nor do I accept their right to "represent" me in a democracy.

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
And given how Nader has consistently badmouthed the Democratic Party which is the closest of the two to being his ally, as well as happily taking money from their Republican enemies, it's really no surprise that they'd be happy to return the favor.

I think the main point is that The Two Parties have no credibility representing anyone but the .1%. The Two Parties just use different dog whistles to appeal to different segments of voters, but serving the moneyed interests is their real purpose. Nader and to a lesser extent Sanders actually represent voters, not donors, and that is a serious threat to both parties. The entire political system of this country is based around serving the interests of the donor class, while wrapping yourself in the flag of democracy in order to get votes. None of the politicians really give a f@$! about most of these social issues, as long as the wealth gets transferred to the top. The system they set up is working perfectly for them, and has been my whole life. I don't see anything that offers even a slight hope of improvement.

Nader is MORE of a threat to the democrats, because he represents many of the people they claim to represent, and that shows how phoney they are.

Except Nader isn't a threat at all because he's ineffectual, regardless of what he represents.

As for private clubs, the wealthy backers certainly have more influence than I'd like, but it's not clear to me how that has anything to do with the primary system or what you think could be done about it. Letting independents vote in primaries doesn't change that. Wealthy backers certainly influence the campaigns, but even in New York you and all the other independents could join the party of your choice a month ahead of time and have your voice heard (admittedly drowned out in the millions of others, but there's no way around that). If you're too principled to do that, even to vote for a candidate you do like, there's really nothing I can say.

The private clubs don't "set the system up so that your two choices are Mr. Monopoly and Richie Rich, then you get to vote". They set the system up so that you can vote to choose the club's candidate - if you're willing to join the club. For free. Temporarily, if you like. Except for those states where you don't even have to join the club. Or those with Caucuses, which are weirder.

You want to influence a party, join it. Don't just pay attention to the big ticket presidential race. Get involved in primaries and campaigns for state and local politicians. That's where things can change. That's where the big national candidates come from.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:

In just about every poll I saw before the AP/NYTimes called the democratic race for Hillary, Bernie was trouncing Trump in a general election, while Hillary was squeaking out a win. If you looked at the three candidates approval and disapproval ratings, Bernie DESTROYED both Trump and Clinton. Looking at the numbers, it was baffling to understand what kind of "democracy" would end up with Sanders not even in the race, even though he was far more popular then the other two options.

The problem is that our voting system is a sham democracy. As an independent voter from NY (I should note that independents are a far larger group nationally, then democrats or republicans) I never had the chance to vote in the primary. My states votes go to the democrat in the general election unless it is a total shut-out (e.g. Reagan 1980), so my vote truly does not matter. I don't mean that it is a drop in the bucket, or needle in the haystack, I mean it is totally pointless. All my vote can hope to accomplish is to to add legitimacy to the sham system.

In the past I voted for third party candidates, but thanks to many aspects of the system being made up by Dems/Repubs, that is a total dead end. Just look at how the Democrats treated Ralph Nader with all the ballot lawsuits and stuff. That is a large reason I would never register as a Democrat. That feeling was confirmed by this primary season. Bernie's money came from small contributions, while Hillary and the Party served their large donors. They represented totally different interests. It was very clear from the very beginning that The Party backed Hillary, and that Sanders had a huge handicap to overcome before the race even started. Bernie was undercut by his own team, before the race even started. Before anyone brings up Obama's "insurgent" 2008 campaign, that was totally different because Obama was, and remains a total shill to the interests of the .1%. He and The Party were always on the same page.

There is a reason that in every election the choice is b$*~$%$~- Who in Skull & Bones would you like to be president? Who at Trumps wedding would you like to be president? What kind of democracy puts up the most hated candidates in history as the only two choices? What kind of democracy has approval ratings in the teens for it's congress?

There comes a point when you have to look at a system that puts unpopular people in charge and question where the mandate for governing comes from. Does anyone still think we are governed by the people, for the people? If not, where does their power come from? What kind of government do we have?

If you want to determine what candidate a party runs, join the party. New York is pretty restrictive - you have to join a month before the primary. Of course, it's not a permanent commitment. You can change back to independent 5 minutes after voting, if you like.

I'm not convinced that completely open primaries are a good idea. They really open the parties up to ratf$@+ing, especially in years when one party has already established a candidate - an incumbent, for example.
Currently that's established on a state level though. We've got open primaries, closed primaries, caucuses, semi-open primaries (where registered independents can vote, but not members of other parties) and probably other variations.

Third party candidates are, as many have said before, not a dead end because of the system being made up by Dems/Repubs, but because way back when the Founding Fathers set up a winner take all, first past the post system instead of something like a parliamentary one. That's a basic structural element that really can't be tweaked around.

I'd also hesitate to take the Sanders/Trump general election polls too seriously. Head to head match ups 6 months out are pretty meaningless. How Sanders would fare in the face of a determined Republican attack campaign isn't clear.

But yeah, if you're convinced that the whole electoral system is rigged, then there's not much I can say. There's also little we can do about, short of rebellion or huge mass action, which I see very little signs of.

Was Trump also rigged by the elites? Just out of curiosity. Since the whole thing's a sham, he'd kind of have to be right?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Goddity wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Goddity wrote:

I would only take the deal if I could get a whole bunch of questions answered first.

Thinking about the scenario, two major questions are the availability of metamagic feats and material components.

What's there to ask? It's simple. You become immortal, someone else dies. How you provide that someone is up to you.
I was talking about the original. I wouldn't take yours under any circumstances.

For those who are still wondering.. The scenario is taken from the Babylon 5 episode "Deathwalker". The eponymous villain of the week was going to take the process and openly sell it to the government and population of the alliance as an act of revenge for the destruction of her homeworld with the heroes realising that they had no legal recourse to stop her.

In the end, as she was departing, her ship was destroyed by Kosh's ship with the latter intoning. "You are not ready for immortality."

I certainly wouldn't want such a secret openly available. Deathwalker was likely correct about the effects of such a process.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
But my mind boggles trying to imagine a calculus that disqualifies Bernie from the presidency because of his personal foibles and how he ran his campaign vs. Hillary's long and well-documented history of service to American capital and empire. Well, actually, that's not true, I can imagine such a calculus (see post above Cruz and Bush donors switching to Hillary), I am just surprised at seeing it used here.

I wouldn't say it disqualifies him. His losing the primary disqualifies him.

It does temper my earlier enthusiasm for him, and to touch your later point, it's largely because it's shifting him from working within the Democratic Party to attacking it. That's the part that I think is dickish. I suspect he'll circle back around (and to some extent I think that's started), but I do think he lost sight of his original intent and focus on making policy change and got caught up in winning.

And honestly, I'm not that afraid of Trump. I think he'd be a complete disaster as a President, but I think that of Cruz and basically the rest of the Republican candidates. Different ways and different degrees perhaps.
Trump, I think, is likely to be the easiest to beat. But even a small chance is a problem. But it would be for the others too.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
As a complete aside, I'd have to carefully weigh the "one person dies" thing. Probably could still morally justify it, but it'd be harder. I also don't think I could do it if I had to kill the person: not only because of the fat guy/train scenario (though there's that), but also because of the fact that I'm not super healthy...

As I hinted above, it's both much easier to justify morally and practically if I can just designate someone: say a clear mass murderer on Death Row or some known terrorist higher up.

I'd be much less happy with either "Some random person will die." or "You have to kill them yourself", since my access to and ability to kill people I'd be fine with seeing die is very limited.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Goddity wrote:

I would only take the deal if I could get a whole bunch of questions answered first.

Thinking about the scenario, two major questions are the availability of metamagic feats and material components.

What's there to ask? It's simple. You become immortal, someone else dies. How you provide that someone is up to you.

I think Goddity was talking about the original version of the question, not yours.

As for yours, I get to pick the person, right? Do I actually have to acquire them and/or kill them myself or can I just designate someone I might not have easy access to?

Cause I can think of a few candidates who wouldn't be missed.


I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

You...seem to be talking about half a dozen thing at once here. I think this is partly a "not on same page" problem.

Still, the center is an illusion - and equating all those groups you mentioned there is likewise a fallacy; they're not equivalent.

Keep in mind what's considered "mainstream" because the Republicans and corporate media insist on it (that there's ANY controversy about global warming, that 19th-Century economics didn't die a well-deserved death in 1929, that America is a "Christian nation," that the rule of law and the Geneva Convention are dispensable, etc) - these are all fringe crackpot ideas. The fact that a major party has been taken over by them doesn't mean they're no longer crackpot. American politics have been skewed to the extreme right by a consensus-manipulating minority. Hillary Clinton is NOT a liberal (and as I pointed out earlier, Bernie really isn't either - he just wants to preserve/restore the New Deal) - and nobody would say she would were it not for a loud, antirational, lavishly-funded minority projecting their delusions onto us, shouting down every other voice, and determinedly trying to erase the Post-War Liberal Consensus and smother a new, better America in its cradle.

We're definitely not on the same page. As I said, I can barely tell what you're talking about either.

No, those groups aren't equivalent. Except that they're all outside the mainstream and they all think (or at least it's common for their supporters to think) they've got a lot more support than they really do and that they'd win if people would just vote without worrying about who's viable. Your "self-fulfilling prophecy".

Beyond that, ideas aren't fringe when the they're widespread. That's pretty much inherent in the meaning of fringe. They may well be wrong or stupid, but they're not fringe. Politics are skewed to the right*, but that's mostly by changing actual public opinion.
We're not living in the immediate post war period. Politics have changed. Public opinion has changed. The parties have changed with it. Sure, in many ways Clinton is more conservative than say an Eisenhower Republican. In other ways not only is she incredibly liberal, but so are modern Republicans. That "Post-War Liberal Consensus" accepted Jim Crow and sent women back to being housewives.

And that's not incidental, because changing that is exactly what broke the "Post-War Liberal Consensus".

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Vincent Briggs wrote:

Also for the record, one the dictionary definition of propaganda is:

information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.

The word can be a positive or negative thing, but it certainly isn't a neutral term to only mean mass communication. Just sayin xP

Okay, I guess I missed the mark on that one - I must have leaned too heavily on judging it by its wholly apolitical Latin roots ("propago" just means "extend, enlarge, increase"*).

Shockingly, words don't mean what their roots mean.


Except that Intensify just doesn't give you more globes, not because it's not capped, but because that's not what Intensify does. It raises the cap on damage dice. Not the cap on number of rays, missiles or force spheres.

Rays aren't damage dice, even though you do more damage with more rays.

The damage dice for each Globe of BB are capped. That's what gets raised with Intensify. Yeah, it's crazy good for this particular spell. That's the kind of interaction that you're supposed to look for in PF, isn't it? Combinations of abilities that synergize extra well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
thejeff wrote:
5) A prayer of actually getting the nomination, much less winning the general election -- no check.
You realize that's largely (not entirely, but largely) a self-fulfilling prophecy, correct? Like I said previously, reality in politics is determined entirely by fiat. Sure, the power to create fiat presently goes mostly to those who control the media (it sure as hell isn't "liberals" - but present company is clear on that) and have the most money and the most access to the Washington string-pulling access, but the Internet Age can change that - it only takes a handful of clever citizens willing to use the power of propaganda for Good.
No. Really I don't. There's this fallacy on both the left and the right that extreme ideas really are tremendously popular....

"Fallacy?" You're soaking in it.

For starters, this "Left-Right" h*~$+##&% is nothing but a throwback to 18th-Century French architecture, and a political tableau that applies poorly, if at all, to 21st-Century America. So, too, is the concept of "extremes" and "balance."

The truth is that there is no "center" (save for the individual ego). The fringe is a privileged position - not only do those "farthest out" dictate the boundaries of what is seen and thought about, but they're where all the IDEAS come from. "Centrists/moderates" are suckers who hold in disdain those who are in fact puppeteering them.

It always makes me think of one of my high school teachers, one of the few halfway-qualified teachers at the crappy high school I was stuck at for my final two years of K-12. He prided himself on being a "moderate/centrist," even insisting that Dr. King was a "moderate" compared to, for example, Malcolm X (you don't need to look through too many Dr. King quotes to know the man himself would have been inclined to disagree). Funny thing about him, though: One of his hobby horses he got on occasionally was when he lamented...

I've got no idea what you're even ranting about now. Sure. I get that left & right could be considered outdated since the origins of the terms come from French Revolution era seating arrangements, but they're still common shorthand.

My point still stands. I could list individuals or parties, if you'd rather. The Greens, the Libertarians, the Bernie or Bust types, even the Tea Party, apparently some of Lessig's followers, just to name some prominent recent examples. It's all about "The masses are with us, if the system just didn't stop them, we'd win in a landslide."
It's bull. There's no great mass that supports them. That's why they're fringe. Maybe, maybe, if you could reach them and teach them, they'd actually agree, but that's work. Not like bongoing that the people are too dumb to realize that it's just the perception that the two parties are all there is that stops the Revolution.

Now don't get me wrong, you're right that a lot of, maybe even all?, come from the fringes. But they work their way to something closer to the center and into the existing political system before they get accepted - they don't get adopted because some fringe joker makes a presidential run. Or at least not because he wins. Activism is great. You can raise attention, you can pressure, you can push ideas into the mainstream. And quixotic presidential runs might be part of that, but they're not actually going to win.
Not because people are too blind to vote for what they really want, but because by the time the ideas are accepted enough to win, they get coopted by the big parties. And because you need those kinds of resources to compete in the election.

1 to 50 of 22,073 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.