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. 14,478 posts (15,277 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 6 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 14,478 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Drejk wrote:

Different continent, different country, different rules.

For a long time blood donors here in Poland received a tablet of chocolate (or multiple tablets), "regenerative meal", and some other things. The exact composition of what blood donor got was and is changing.

Ah. Wasn't thinking. That's that American privilege kicking in again.:)

Usually just assuming we're talking about the US doesn't leave me looking stupid.


Drejk wrote:

Maybe I start donating blood this year... Assuming they will want it in the first place.

Are you suffering from...? No idea, never bothered with checking.
Do you have pressure? No idea, no one measured it since I was kid.
What is your blood type? No idea, hoped you will tell me.
Do you had sex with...? Haven't sex with anyone in ages.

I wonder if they still give you a tin can and chocolate after donation?

I haven't seen a tin can, but most places give you some kind of snack and juice or water. What you get generally depends on who's organizing the drive. Some of the church ones put on a pretty good spread. :)

They'll take your blood pressure and test your iron levels. They'll ask you about a whole bunch of diseases and drugs you've never heard of. It's generally a safe assumption that if you don't recognize it, it's not relevant to you. Some questions about travel. A bunch about sex.
Lately they've passed the laptop to me and had me go through and answer the questions on it, rather than doing it all verbally.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Big Justin wrote:
you guys mostly read hacky genre fiction from what I can tell ._.

It's a fantasy gaming site. People reading fantasy fiction shouldn't be surprising.


Rysky wrote:
Now that I think on it on the questionnaires I have to fill out they just have questions like have I had unprotected sex in such and such times since, have I paid for sex, etc. I don't think gender has ever been brought up, I'll double check the next time I donate.

There are a couple. Most of the sex questions are gender-neutral, but there is definitely a "Are you a man who has had sex with another man" question.

There's also a pregnancy question and I think a couple more medical gender specific ones.


Usual Suspect wrote:
Drejk wrote:
With common sue-happy mentality in USA I wouldn't be surprised that they are more afraid of people suing them: "You gave me gay blood?! noo! Wargh! Give me ten zillion dollars because you made me a sinner! My right to be bigot was violated by proving that gays have the same blood as righteous folk! No! It can't be! Waaarrghhh!"

I don't believe your sexual preference is recorded with your donations; and even if it was the doctor/patient confidentiality laws in the US would prevent you from learning the sexual orientation/identity of a donor.

No, it really is just bigotry on the inside of the government bureaucracy.

Which is even worse. You could get gay blood and never even know it!!!

More seriously, I suspect it's not even so much bigotry as inertia and ignorance. Nobody's losing their job for maintaining the status quo. If by some million to one longshot something did happen, it would be blamed on whoever proposed or supported the change.


Bandw2 wrote:

i'm fine with everything you said, except hormone replacement therapy.

I think it would effectively be as expensive as an elixir of sex shift if not more, as it's significantly more complicated, and likely isn't even a thing in golarion.

@ the relation to their body thing, I was under the impression we were talking about people who wanted to be the opposite sex. if that is incorrect then we aren't arguing the same goal post.

also, while I understand not everyone would use it, i think it would be more favorable than any modern treatments as it doesn't carry the weight of surgery, nor does it carry the regimen requirement of hormone replacement. Also, it is 100% legit DNA to organ replacing accurate and functional. It is 100% successful and safe, and instant, and completely reversible, negating most reasons to not do modern equivalents. so basically, at least I am saying anyone who would do any modern medical remedies would likely have this as the statistical favorite option.

IDK, i understand this is delicate and bigger than just being the opposite sex, but i fail to understand the difference between being androgynous and identifying as TG but not wanting to be the other gender(and thus not really useful to the discussion at hand). perhaps clarity on this particular distinction will help me understand?

A version of HRT figures in Shardra's backstory. I think the item was actually officially written up, but I'm not sure.

I do suspect you're right that more trans-people would opt for a magical transformation than for surgery, since it's a better and safer option, but I doubt it would be 100%. If nothing else the cost is at least significant for most people. There may be other reasons as well. People are complicated.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
lastknightleft wrote:
simple solution, body cams on all on duty cops on a beat at all times. solves all the problems when you are always held accountable for your actions with video evidence.

I'll reprise the story, as apparently people missed it. However, there is more information that's been reported. I've also included what is the most logical conclusion of what was happening.

Jose Calzada called a suicide hotline which I believe probably called the police to do what they call a safety check, to ensure that the guy was safe and not going to be an immediate danger to himself or others.

The others at some point were allowed to leave the home.

Police showed up at Jose Calzada's home.

They find what probably was an ARMED guy, BARRICADED. They had a negotiator which tried negotiating. They called the SWAT team, which took over the negotiating duties. (Edit: I should add, from what I understand, these were professional negotiators. These were not just simple off the street PD, but people trained and experienced in talking others into a peaceful resolution, or at least the one that came with the SWAT team who took over the negotiations after arriving).

Once that was done...who knows what happened in the ensuing hours. Supposedly the negotiators were working this entire time to de-escalate the situation and negotiate a peaceful situation.

However, due to how it is labeled (assisted suicide or suicide by cop), he raised a weapon as to shot the police/SWAT.

Eye-witnesses report that there was one shot...a pause, and then several other shots after this.

It is not impossible to conclude that the Mr. Calzada shot at least once to provoke others to shoot at him, and this is the point where negotiations failed.

He was shot instead.

It is still thought to be a suicide, suicide by COP.

At least one of the officers was NOT on the SWAT, but was a ROY police man. At least two are on administrative leave, perhaps more as the chief stated all involved with the shooting have...

If you're going to elaborate and attempt to be authoritative about it, you should probably link or source your information somehow.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
I think of it this way: There are enough orthorectic health nuts to donate blood for most occasions. Thing is, it is important that the checks work and are simple and cheap enough. I think it really IS the desire to donate blood that matters.

I have no idea what "orthoretic health nuts" have to do with donating blood. Regardless, there aren't enough. Blood shortages are common. Demand is growing faster than donations. Keeping a large number of people from donating without medical reason is a problem.

The current tests on the blood work and whether they're simple and cheap enough, they're applied to all donated blood anyway. The tests for AIDS in people are also good enough that restrictions like "Are you a man who has had sex with a man even once since 1977" are completely ridiculous. Someone who regularly has unprotected casual heterosexual sex with different partners is at greater risk than someone who had protected sex with another man years or decades ago, but the first is free to donate.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the desire is what matters". The need is what matters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Werebat wrote:
KSF wrote:


This is getting off-topic, so I'll make one comment here. You're misunderstanding genderfluid. The idea isn't that a genderfluid person's identity is shaped by society. It's that it remains fluid in spite of the binary system of gender that society as a whole enforces. So it's kind of the opposite of the way you're describing it.

Also, you're conflating sexual orientation (gay, straight, bi, asexual, etc) with gender identity (trans, cis, genderfluid, etc.) Two different things.

Fluid takes the shape of its container. Maybe another word would be better. It sounds like you're describing the gender version of bisexual.

That is one characteristic of "fluid". Another is "Changeable".

Quote:


Fluid adjective
2.
pertaining to a substance that easily changes its shape; capable of flowing.
3.
consisting of or pertaining to fluids.
4.
changing readily; shifting; not fixed, stable, or rigid:
fluid movements.

2 and particularly 4.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Liranys wrote:
Haladir wrote:
Liranys wrote:

So, after having a lot of fun writing a module using the 7 Deadly Sins, I started thinking (Dangerous, I know): "What am I going to do to top this module next year?" and I came up with this idea: Classical Books.

The first one I'm going to tackle: Alice in Wonderland

Gary Gygax beat you to it...

...and he also did an adaptaion of Through The Looking-Glass.

But that's First Edition and I have no desire to try to update a first ed adventure. Personally I think it's easier to just start from scratch and I have a little bit of a different take on the whole adventure. I've decided to make it an Adventure Path that travels through various book universes, starting with Alice.

Definitely needs a Hunting of the Snark section.


ShinHakkaider wrote:
Muad'Dib wrote:

Civil war has the bones of a good story.

It would expect it to be on a much smaller scale since so many of the players have yet to be introduced and you can't reasonably pack that many people in one movie.

I was hoping they would have some Netflix casting news about Luke Cage, Iron Fist, and Jessica Jones.

From what I understand from what was said by Kevin Feige yesterday is that Civil War will be less about Secret Identities and registration than about to whom super powered people are held accountable by. or is it to?

The Avengers, or at least some of them, breaking their ties with SHIELD? Possibly because of SHIELD's policies towards some of the other heroes?


TheJayde wrote:
I feel that the gender change issue would likely be based on the world that you're playing in and the GM you're playing with. With magic being able to do... whatever... I find that the gender changing stuff would be more commonplace and maybe even more accepted. Heck - it may not even be something people consider an issue at all because its so easy to attain. I mean... who would even know in a world where people rarelly even leave thier village thier entire life?

Equally it could be something that the decadent nobility plays around with and the common people never even consider.

In a world where people rarely even leave their village, the girl who's really a boy may wind up married off with 3 kids before even considering the possibility of transition - unless he runs away to be an adventurer.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
Liranys wrote:
Romance is all the stuff that happens before the sex gets involved).
I absolutely agree! People these days spend too little time on the Romance, and too much on the sexual aspect. I blame modern day movies.

Though as the Usual Suspect said, the Romance doesn't have to stop when the sex starts.

They're not the same thing, but they're not exclusive either.


Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
mechaPoet wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
mechaPoet wrote:
-that on Golarion, royal parents will used elixirs and cursed girdles to change their children from daughters to sons (so to speak), because apparently despite the lack of or reduced gender discrimination on Golarion only male heirs can ascend to the throne?
It's not that only male heirs can inherit. It's that under certain circumstances it's beneficial to have male heirs who can father a child with the heir of the family you want to have an alliance with.
True, but (without actually checking this) I feel like every time someone suggests it, it's either talked about without mentioning gender or in the context of turning a daughter into a male heir. It just reinforces, for me, the disconnect between people talking about the ostensible gender equality on Golarion and the Golarion that some posit where no one ever mentions that turning a son into a female heir is politically desirable.
That's correct, logically we should see both versions about equally often. Or perhaps not: there is some degree of sexism in Golarion, just much less than in most Earth societies. Or rather, some societies are sexist, when the writers writing an adventure or a story in that society feel like exploring sexism. It's a rather wibbly-wobbly thing.

Also many people in our world where sexism is still a thing and was even more so back in the days from which we get our ideas of kings and heirs and princesses and the like are likely to default to the "male heir" version without even noticing, if they're not thinking about sexism or reversing or avoiding sexism when they're writing.


EntrerisShadow wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I've lampshaded that one a few times. The character who believes he has to be the emotionless murderous bastard because the stakes are so high, but can't quite pull it off.

It only works when the stakes really are that high, of course.
I would be interested to actually see a deconstruction of the antihero trope. I mean, we deconstructed the hero to get the modern day ubiquitous antihero - so I wonder what a major deconstruction of THAT would yield for future media?

I'm not quite sure it's a deconstruction, but the reference character I use for the concept is Morgaine from Cherryh's Gate novels. She's on a quest to save all of existence from catastrophe and spends a lot of time talking about how she can't afford any weaknesses or attachments and threatening to leave our viewpoint character behind if he slows her up at all. She does leave a trail of destroyed civilizations behind her. But she keeps finding excuses to not be quite so cold as she thinks she has to be.


Sissyl wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Your value as a human being doesn't lie in whether you can donate blood. Seriously. Not taking LGBT donor eggs and sperm is, on the other hand, a concrete problem.
I would not be here if several people beyond my father had not been generous with their vital fluids. So yeah, to me, value as a human being is very heavily wrapped up in blood donation.
While that's quite understandable, I think it's quite enough to know that you would if you could. Heck, I take medications which make me ineligible, so I can't do it either. See, having those in the body increases the risk of fainting while donating blood, so they don't want it. Otherwise, I would. Fainting is also a risk I am quite willing to take, so I find it pretty pointless. I have a hard time seeing myself as less of a human being than if I did donate blood, though.

I don't see it as "less of a human being" at all. Or for donating eggs and sperm, for that matter. Especially for the anonymous version, rather than the "store to use later myself" variant.

The blood rule more bothers me because we have a blood shortage and rule, which was a good, perfectly sensible rule back when AIDS was largely confined to the gay male population and there weren't good tests for, is kept in force and keeps perfectly safe blood from reaching the blood supply.


RDM42 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Sissyl wrote:

I do object, however, to the idea that has been thrown about here several times that you should only play kitchen-sink games that accomodate every possible character that could be made with the rules in Pathfinder, and that anyone wanting to play anything else should use some other system. That just comes off as a rather primitive territorial argument. The truth is that it's perfectly fine to play different styles of game within the Pathfinder framework, from gonzo mythic campaigns, to everyone playing commoners, and everything in between, without one iota of change. If you are changing things, it all depends on what gets changed. Tearing out the WBL and CR systems as well as cheap healing, and you should be able to make a rather functioning gritty ruleset. Add in more on diplomacy and such and you should be able to do intrigue. And guess what? If the GM does this, and one of the players say "Pathfinder doesn't work for this", the proper response is:

MAKE. IT. WORK.

Or use a different system. Sure, PF can work for a lot of more restrictive concepts. It's not intended as a generic system* and there are plenty of things it doesn't do well. I'm not attached to it enough to prefer hacking it to make it sort of work rather than using system designed for the concept. There are lot of other fun games out there. Why limit yourself?

If someone wants to GM a game with a concept that requires modifying PF significantly, I'd probably suggest a different ruleset, if I knew of one that fit better, but I'd be willing to try if he stuck with it. Assuming I liked the concept in the first place, of course.

Possibly you don't want to spend money on new systems every time you have a new concept? Or learn a new system from scratch every time you have a different concept? Perfect should not be the enemy of 'good enough'.

As I said, if another GM wanted to do it, I'd go with it.

Though there are certainly some concepts I don't think PF could be sufficiently hacked to do justice to. At least without essentially being a new system.
Besides, I like new systems. And tend to prefer less mechanics heavy games, which have much less of a learning curve than PF. Generally less cost too.

Edit: Again, certainly not claiming that no restricted games should be run in PF. Just that PF is not designed as a generic system and really works best within a certain range of genre.


Snorter wrote:
Westphalian_Musketeer wrote:
What happens if half of the transgendered PC's party dies, and they have to start adventuring with a new one that doesn't know they were born of a different biological sex? That's another potential prompt.

Wouldn't that be the absolute ideal situation?

I could see many trans PCs and NPCs deliberately cutting ties with their past, to ensure that everyone they deal with has only ever known them in their new, improved, identity.

No-one to remind you of your past, no-one to accidentally refer to you by the wrong pronoun, no-one to bring up your old social faux-pas?
Oh, the day when you were caught in the 'wrong' restroom, and were pilloried in the town square, as a 'peeper'! You remember all their faces, every rotten fruit and even some rocks, all the names they called you, and you swore you would even the score.

Kill everyone who ever knew the old you.
Kill them, and burn all the bodies beyond hope of raising.
It's the only way to be sure.

True, from a certain point of view.

OTOH, losing (or killing!) every relative, friend or even casual acquaintance you've ever had is a hard thing for me to consider ideal. Certainly traumatic, if nothing else.


Sissyl wrote:

I do object, however, to the idea that has been thrown about here several times that you should only play kitchen-sink games that accomodate every possible character that could be made with the rules in Pathfinder, and that anyone wanting to play anything else should use some other system. That just comes off as a rather primitive territorial argument. The truth is that it's perfectly fine to play different styles of game within the Pathfinder framework, from gonzo mythic campaigns, to everyone playing commoners, and everything in between, without one iota of change. If you are changing things, it all depends on what gets changed. Tearing out the WBL and CR systems as well as cheap healing, and you should be able to make a rather functioning gritty ruleset. Add in more on diplomacy and such and you should be able to do intrigue. And guess what? If the GM does this, and one of the players say "Pathfinder doesn't work for this", the proper response is:

MAKE. IT. WORK.

Or use a different system. Sure, PF can work for a lot of more restrictive concepts. It's not intended as a generic system* and there are plenty of things it doesn't do well. I'm not attached to it enough to prefer hacking it to make it sort of work rather than using system designed for the concept. There are lot of other fun games out there. Why limit yourself?

If someone wants to GM a game with a concept that requires modifying PF significantly, I'd probably suggest a different ruleset, if I knew of one that fit better, but I'd be willing to try if he stuck with it. Assuming I liked the concept in the first place, of course.


Orthos wrote:

As someone who is very fond of and prefers to run/play in kitchen sink/"throw it all in" campaigns, I just have to shake my head at the hostility such are receiving here. It seems like quite a few people seem to like using "you're just running a kitchen sink game" as a sort of insult bludgeon, as if it's some kind of lowest-common-denominator standard and thus anything with any level of restriction is instantly better.

Seriously. Comments like this:

Sissyl wrote:
If someone suggested a generic, kitchen sink campaign where they did not intend to make a coherent plotline, deal with NPCs, keep track of combat, etc

seem to suggest the poster in question believes that those two go hand in hand - and little effort is made to clarify if they do or not. Would it change your mind if said kitchen sink campaign DID have coherent plot, elaborate NPCs, and steady flow of combat gameplay?

I don't want to believe that's what some people believe, and I honestly don't think Sissyl does, she just provided the first example I could find. But some of the comments here have me wondering.

I read that specific bit as a belated reference to this exchange

Davor wrote:
"Hi, I'm the GM. I sink hours of preparation time and planning, including running dozens of NPCs and monsters per game, keeping track of combat and in-world consequences of PC action, and organizing a grand storyline that will carry the players across continents and levels."
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I don't do any of that. Things seem to work out just fine.

Not really a generic accusation.

Personally, I don't have anything against generic kitchen sink campaigns. They can be fun. So can more focused games.

Even with the worst interpretation of Sissyl's and other similar posts, it's far less obnoxious than several direct statements that any restrictions on character generation mean the GM is going to railroad or read you his fan fic.


Sissyl wrote:
Your value as a human being doesn't lie in whether you can donate blood. Seriously. Not taking LGBT donor eggs and sperm is, on the other hand, a concrete problem.

True. OTOH, given that we have good tests for AIDS today, there is no longer any purpose in banning blood donations from any "man who has had sexual contact with another man since 1979". Perhaps banning anyone who's had recent casual sex would make more sense.

And they need blood. It may not determine your " value as a human being", but it might save someone else's life. Arbitrarily limiting donors is not a good thing.

There's no reason I can see for not taking LGBT donor eggs or sperm. Again the testing process is good enough to remove concerns.
OTOH, though I support letting LGBT people donate eggs and sperm, I don't think your value as a human being lie in whether you can have children or not.


DM Barcas wrote:
I'm not sure you got my point. Police aren't in the top 10 because we actively prevent people from killing us. If every attempt succeeded, we would have more than 25 per day killed. My point was that firefighters and soldiers are also not in the top 10, but no one would claim that they have a safe job.

I would say they have a safer job in general than those occupations with higher death and injury rates. It would be hard to conclude otherwise without some serious distortions: "It's obviously much safer to be a logger than a soldier. You just have a much higher chance of death or injury."

Now, during the height of WWII or even Vietnam that likely wasn't true and it wouldn't be again if we got into another full commitment war.

The fact that we have a distorted impression of the risk of joining the army or becoming a firefighter doesn't actually affect the danger involved. Nor does it with a cop.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Abrir wrote:

sure, maybe it's possible, but that doesn't mean that it'll happen. there is 3 laws of gender bending. As a GM or a player I'm going to attempt to follow them.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FirstLawOfGenderBending
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SecondLawOfGenderBending
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThirdLawOfGenderBending

Enforcing tv tropes unto a serious real world issue may come off as crass.

Generally Gender Bending isn't quite the same as being transgender.

It is kind of a question how much playing around with literary or magical tropes of changing gender comes off as offensive. Would a character like Orlando bother some trans people? Or in a sillier mode, Ranma?


Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Werebat wrote:
kikidmonkey wrote:
...if Seal Team Six burst into a room with flash bangs and assault rifles, which one of them may be transgendered is probably going to be the last thing on even the biggest bigot's mind.
I'm still laughing about this, maybe a minute after having read it. Thanks!
Ironically, the military is so anti transgender that even having a history of seeing a gender therapist prevents a person from being able to enlist.

Yeah, I'm going to say it might not be on the target's mind, but it might be on one of the team's mind. And there's certainly some commander back at base freaking out over it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
The restrictions in place at the beginning has little to no inherent connection to the amount of agency the players will,have once he curtain rises on the stage.
the restrictions are a harbinger of player agency. If a DM is unwilling to let a character be a race or class or even idea (pirate, magic-user) then do we really expect that DM is going to let the players shape the world? No way. That DM will always have the circle of baby-sitters of 8 be 10-12 levels higher than you can ever be. That DM will never let you ride in politics in a major city. That DM will retire your character by murder, campaign ending or alignment change (ie, that one act caused you to become NE, hand over your c-sheet) to remove player agency.

Not in my experience at all. Either as a player or GM. I've been horribly railroaded in games with completely free choice of character build and I've had character driven games with serious class or race limits. No correlation at all, much less causation.

Admittedly we often retire characters by the campaign ending, but I'm not sure that's removing player agency. Game has to end sometime.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
thejeff wrote:

See that may be what the conversation looks like to you, but from the other side of the aisle it looks more like:

A: The GM should always accommodate whatever character the players want to play.
B: Well, usually I try to find a way to fit it in, but sometimes it's just to big a change to the game I was planning to run. Sometimes the other players wouldn't be happy with the change either.
A: It's always possible and you're just a railroading tyrant with control issues if you don't let Bobby play his TMNT in your LotR game. Why is your pristine vision more important than his fun?

Why does my take on the conversation reflect things that are actually being said, whereas your take on the conversation contains an absurd strawman of the position you don't like?

What do you think that says about this discussion and the people participating in it?

Well, the 9 out of 10 thing had been said, but only by you, apparently with no source.

You may not have said "Always", but every example that anyone used that you responded to, you said it would be easy to change the setting/campaign. Plenty of other posters have agreed.

The TMNT/LotR thing was directly from an earlier post. "railroading tyrant with control issues" was an extrapolation, but you made some dark insinuations about possible motivations earlier and BDTBone just filled in nicely with "shove my fan fiction novels down other people's throats and disguise it as an RPG either."

I'm not sure where my absurd strawman is.

Many people posting on the pro-GM side have talked about compromising as well, including me in that post, but you've pretty much dismissed that as so rare as to not be worth bothering with.

As I said, radically different assumptions. Probably based on our personal experiences and gaming styles. That's cool. I'm sure yours are fun. And I'm sure mine are just a way to "shove my fan fiction novels down other people's throats and disguise it as an RPG."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
If it's just a twist it's not a problem. Adding in cat people, lizard folk, Tieflings, etcetera, isn't "adding a couple new twists"

Sure it is. In fact, adding a new fantasy race to an existing fantasy game world is one of the easiest changes to make!

Quote:

On the other hand, why couldn't those players try "a couple new twists" on the type of character they like to run and play something which can conceivably exist with the colors already on the pallete, even if combined in new ways?

Have you read this thread?

Players do this. All the time. In fact, it's becoming so standard for players to do this that it's seen as imposing on the DM when someone suggests it go the other way.

This is what the conversation we're having looks like:

A: "9 times out of 10, when a player's character concept bumps up against a DM's setting concept, the player is the one forced to change his concept. We think that should probably be evened out so that both parties are accustomed to compromising."
B: "But changing a game world is hard!"
A: "No, it's not. Especially when the change is largely additive. You probably only have to make a minor change. It's certainly easier than coming up with an entirely new character concept."
B: "Why can't the players just fit themselves into the campaign world?"
A: "They can. And do. 9 times out of 10."

Hopefully you can see why this is becoming frustrating.

See that may be what the conversation looks like to you, but from the other side of the aisle it looks more like:

A: The GM should always accommodate whatever character the players want to play.
B: Well, usually I try to find a way to fit it in, but sometimes it's just to big a change to the game I was planning to run. Sometimes the other players wouldn't be happy with the change either.
A: It's always possible and you're just a railroading tyrant with control issues if you don't let Bobby play his TMNT in your LotR game. Why is your pristine vision more important than his fun?

Edit: And then there's my player side standing in the corner saying "I have a lot of fun playing in the quirky restrictive premise games. I wouldn't enjoy them so much if I was the only one holding to the premise. I've even seen a couple of games implode because the GM gave in too easily or compromised too much."

It's becoming frustrating I think because we're talking past one another, starting with radically different assumptions. I've really seen very little of this in real life. And the attitude on the boards that I've seen has been far more "Always let the player play what he wants" than "Always have the GM stick to his original restriction", with probably a dominance of "Most of the time the GM can compromise to make something fit, but some things just aren't going to happen."


kikidmonkey wrote:

For PC's, when you consider what the party consists of, the transgender character may be the MOST "normal" of the group. When one person on the party can change SPECIES at will, most people are probably going to ignore what your character has in their pants.

Really, unless you are absolutely pressing the issue (and/or trying to "snowflake" it up), it will probably come up MAYBE once in the whole campaign. I would say that most adventuring groups are meritocracy based and really don't care what you are as long as they see results, and most npc's aren't going to say anything to the dude(ette) who single-handedly tore a dragon in half, or reduced it to ash (at least not to their face).

For NPC's, yeah, they'll be treated differently, but they also have to deal with land deeds and such that will be dependent on gender.

As for all your background questions and such, I have not played a transgendered character, but I have played a bisexual character (being a straight white male, playing with other straight white males), I jotted his sexual preference in my background, the DM was aware, and even with my character being a rampant hedonist, it still only came up maybe a dozen times, and that was because the group was in a country known for their hedonism, and it was mostly off-hand remarks such as "you awaken in a pile of naked bodies, men and women blah blah blah..."

Depends on the game. Some aren't all about killing monsters, but actually deal with personal lives, relationships, ambitions, past hidden traumas and all the fun kind of stuff you see in plenty of fantasy literature.

Along with killing monsters, of course.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

"Tread carefully" is not a solution.

It's what's easiest to do for self preservation.

Generations of compliance lead to a police force that sees non-compliance as a crime, even in the absence of any other crime.

We need to support our police officers by recognizing how hard their job really is, and holding them to a higher standard than civilians.

Very much this. Even if non-compliance isn't quite a crime, it's definitely considered suspicious.

Even more, it's not the job of the citizen to deescalate and control an encounter with the police. He's not trained for it. He's not prepared for it. Unlike the officer, the encounter has probably taken him by surprise. Who knows what mental state he's in. He may have psychological issues that hamper him from controlling the situation. There may be physical issues - there have been deaf people shot for not obeying commands they couldn't hear.

Many of us are aware of the protocol, right? Keep your hands in sight, don't move without telling the officer exactly what you're going to do, all that jazz. Is that formally taught to all citizens and residents? No. Of course not. Is it a legal requirement? No, of course not.
But they can shoot you if you don't do it. That's b#+~~$%+.

If that's the behavior they want, they need to make that explicit during the actual encounter. None of this "Give me your license and registration" and then shoot you when you reach for them crap. Ask the person you've stopped where their license and registration are and then tell them to slowly reach for them.


Usual Suspect wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:

...

But nothing kills the fun faster for me than characters which are grimdark, amoral antiheroes who kill without a second thought and remain completely detached from any sort of emotion whatsoever.

I think because as long as you understand it's evil and dastardly, you can enjoy a villainous character the way you enjoy Loki or The Joker - with an understanding that what they've done is wrong and taking satisfaction in their eventual downfall.

The second variety, though, is just so off-putting. It's like you don't even understand the difference between right and wrong.

I have played in so many games over the years with that one (or more) player just like that. The typical murder hobo player who enjoys acting the antihero trope too much; and actually seems to get excited about being an emotionless and murderous bastard. I start to wonder what's in their closet as I'm moving on to a new game group.

I've lampshaded that one a few times. The character who believes he has to be the emotionless murderous bastard because the stakes are so high, but can't quite pull it off.

It only works when the stakes really are that high, of course.


Freehold DM wrote:
thejeff wrote:
DM Barcas wrote:
Debate all you want, but you should stay in the realm of reality. Life is not a movie. People try to kill the cops (about 10% chance per officer per year of being assaulted, 2% with a deadly weapon). If there is a reasonable risk that I will be killed, I will do whatever it takes to prevent that. I won't rely on a technique that has the possibility of me not succeeding and getting killed. I will pick the most reliable method of protecting myself.

While I'm not going to debate the merits of various disarming techniques, I'm not comfortable with the "Cop's safety first, at any cost" attitude. It's not even always the best for long-term safety. Increasing militarization and shoot first attitudes might make you safer in the moment, but if they alienate the population and the community you're working in, that leads to a more hostile environment and likely more attacks, which justifies more defensive measures, creating more hostility, etc.

And frankly, despite the anecdotes, policing isn't an extremely dangerous occupation.

agree with the first part, disagree with the second part.

I suppose it depends on your definition of "extremely dangerous". It's not in the top 10. Below things like construction worker and truck driver.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Usual Suspect wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Usual Suspect wrote:
I would love to see somebody run a game in a Valdemar type realm using Dreamscarred's psionics rules to model the Heralds of Valdemar. The Heralds practically scream Psionic Warrior.
Frankly, the heralds scream "Paladin" even if the powers don't quite line up.

Heralds are universally Good in alignment but not always lawful. Heck, the trainees are almost universally chaotic in all the stories. Though certainly some might be paladins; most people just think paladin because of the Companions.

There are many gifts though.

Yeah, it's not exactly a match. Not exactly a match to anything in D&D/PF really.

It's the Companions partly, but also the role in society: Unimpeachable, completely trustworthy law enforcement and troubleshooters. The books mostly focus on trainees and major crises, but their main job most of the time is riding the country and being the law. Police and judge all in one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Liranys wrote:
Christopher Dudley wrote:

.

I was also thinking of running an adventure in Galt based on the Scarlet Pimpernel, but abandoned my early planning stages because in a proper adventure game, the players don't want to meet the Scarlet Pimpernel, they want to be the Scarlet Pimpernel, and I didn't really have an angle to give them that.

Scarlet Pimpernel was injured and is laid up for a few months. Oh No! Who will take his place? lol

I've long had an idea for a Doc Savage style pulp game where the PCs are various assistants to the real hero.

Who is killed early on, leaving the character's to avenge and carry on the great man's work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Usual Suspect wrote:
I would love to see somebody run a game in a Valdemar type realm using Dreamscarred's psionics rules to model the Heralds of Valdemar. The Heralds practically scream Psionic Warrior.

Frankly, the heralds scream "Paladin" even if the powers don't quite line up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Love the attitude that when police abuse their powers we should just give in.

Post right above yours. Give in at the moment, as you are in personal danger. Document exactly what happened. Report it and publicize it once you're safe.

Too many people think that "in the moment" confrontation is the best path.

It rarely is.

I'm skeptical of the results of your approach, but I'll add, if you're going to do this: Document it. Record the encounter, audio at least, video if you can do it without further inciting the officer. Or do so if the officer is harassing someone else.

Because if something does go down, it's your word against his and the jury and everyone else in the system will believe him. And the bad cops lie.


Vod Canockers wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Vod Canockers wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Another article by the same author:

Officer Pulls Woman Over. Instead of a Ticket, He Showed His HumanityNot a very exciting article, I admit, but not exactly one you'd expect to see written by someone who would only be happy if police officers are killed.

True, but it was also an officer violating their sworn oath.
What?
The Officer swore an oath to enforce the law. By law he should have ticketed the driver. He didn't, he did something better.

Officers (and pretty much anyone throughout the law enforcement/justice system) have a lot of discretion in when to strictly enforce the law and when to give warnings or just ignore things, especially minor offenses.


NobodysHome wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Edit: An example bit of data, admittedly probably from the anti-police propaganda machine

Quote:
The NAACP presented statistics from Oakland authorities on 45 officer-involved shootings from 2004 to 2008, one-third of which were fatal. Of the people shot, 37 were black and none was white. Although weapons were not found in 40 percent of cases, no officers were charged.

Having been in Oakland at night and seen Oakland teens dealing with officers, I'm afraid I'll just say... Oakland is a REALLY bad example if you're looking for unjustified officer shootings. Our (admittedly hostile) encounters with them usually ended up with officers involved, and the Oakland teens were even worse than my friend who nearly got himself shot. Honestly, though I was not one of them (the Oakland teens), they seemed to feel like getting shot by an officer would be a badge of honor, so they tried REALLY hard to get officers to shoot them. But I haven't looked at all 37 cases. Obviously some officers could take advantage of this general trend and run off on shooting sprees of innocents.

I'm not naive enough to believe police corruption doesn't exist.
I'm not paranoid enough to believe that every officer is corrupt.

Whatever the attitude of Oakland teens and whatever the level of corruption, it's a pretty clear counter to ""if he or she shoots an unarmed civilian, he or she will never work in law enforcement again, and may likely do jail time".

Which is all I really intended.


NobodysHome wrote:
An officer shot him. It's basically a career-ending move for said officer. The anti-police propaganda machine is such a juggernaut that every officer knows that if he or she shoots an unarmed civilian, he or she will never work in law enforcement again, and may likely do jail time. Yes, I am well aware that unprovoked beatings by officers are all too common, but unprovoked shootings always end up in Internal Affairs, with the likely end of the officer's career. I don't see an officer shooting an unarmed suspect without being scared spitless about something.

I agree with a lot of the rest of your post, though I will note that personal experiences vary not just with race, but with the area.

This last part I'm really not so sure of. There are plenty of cases of cops shooting unarmed civilians and certainly not getting jail time or even losing their job. Even in the high profile cases, that get media time and get the "anti-police propaganda machine" going, trials are rare and convictions rarer. (Especially for shooting minorities)

They all go to Internal affairs, but they're generally ruled good shootings there. If Internal affairs rules it was unprovoked, then the officer is in trouble, but even many that seem unprovoked to an outside observer aren't.

Or am I just corrupted by the anti-police propaganda machine? Do you have data backing up the "if he or she shoots an unarmed civilian, he or she will never work in law enforcement again, and may likely do jail time" claim? Sadly, despite federal laws, no centralized data is kept on police shootings, so it's hard to be definitive.

Edit: An example bit of data, admittedly probably from the anti-police propaganda machine

Quote:
The NAACP presented statistics from Oakland authorities on 45 officer-involved shootings from 2004 to 2008, one-third of which were fatal. Of the people shot, 37 were black and none was white. Although weapons were not found in 40 percent of cases, no officers were charged.


Poe's Law strikes again.


Rysky wrote:
Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:
DM Barcas wrote:
Debate all you want, but you should stay in the realm of reality. Life is not a movie. People try to kill the cops (about 10% chance per officer per year of being assaulted, 2% with a deadly weapon). If there is a reasonable risk that I will be killed, I will do whatever it takes to prevent that. I won't rely on a technique that has the possibility of me not succeeding and getting killed. I will pick the most reliable method of protecting myself.

While I'm not going to debate the merits of various disarming techniques, I'm not comfortable with the "Cop's safety first, at any cost" attitude. It's not even always the best for long-term safety. Increasing militarization and shoot first attitudes might make you safer in the moment, but if they alienate the population and the community you're working in, that leads to a more hostile environment and likely more attacks, which justifies more defensive measures, creating more hostility, etc.

And frankly, despite the anecdotes, policing isn't an extremely dangerous occupation.

More likely to be attacked and injured on the job working retail than as a cop.
Maybe it has to do with cops carrying guns while retail workers are pretty much threatened and trained to not defend themselves, lest the company get a bad yelp review.

Obviously the solution is to arm everybody and teach them all to shoot first because "An armed subject can lift a weapon from their side, aim, and fire faster than you can recognize the action, process it, and then respond."

It's the only way to be safe.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DM Barcas wrote:
Debate all you want, but you should stay in the realm of reality. Life is not a movie. People try to kill the cops (about 10% chance per officer per year of being assaulted, 2% with a deadly weapon). If there is a reasonable risk that I will be killed, I will do whatever it takes to prevent that. I won't rely on a technique that has the possibility of me not succeeding and getting killed. I will pick the most reliable method of protecting myself.

While I'm not going to debate the merits of various disarming techniques, I'm not comfortable with the "Cop's safety first, at any cost" attitude. It's not even always the best for long-term safety. Increasing militarization and shoot first attitudes might make you safer in the moment, but if they alienate the population and the community you're working in, that leads to a more hostile environment and likely more attacks, which justifies more defensive measures, creating more hostility, etc.

And frankly, despite the anecdotes, policing isn't an extremely dangerous occupation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
KenderKin wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
I did a game where the Wizards are the Bad Guys. Hard to play a wizard then, eh?
Arguably the most famous, well-loved D&D character of all time is a drow in a setting where I can totally picture someone sitting behind the DM screen with a scowl saying, "No, you can't play a drow. All of the drow are Bad Guys."
Actually it was the opposite everyone was trying to play a drow elf and tsr kept saying no, until they realized the monetary error of their ways!

Actually, playing a drow in a party would still have been bad, not that Drizzt was a solo for much of his adventuring life.

It's one thing to want to play a drow, and have fun with being hunted, hated and shunned- it's another to FORCE the rest of your party to be hunted, hated and shunned. It's damn selfish is what it is.

By this point everyone knows that the vast majority of drow are angsty Good outcasts on the run from their evil brethren.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marco Polaris wrote:
Perhaps I am naive, but wouldn't a transgender PC not want magic to alter their body? I thought that a transgender was someone who wanted social and cultural recognition as a member of the opposite perceived gender without changing their sex--that someone who wanted to be the other sex as well as be recognized as the other perceived gender was a transsexual. Did I get that mixed up?

Terminology is tricky. I believe transgender was originally a broader term covering both and some other related things, but it's become the preferred term for many people.

It's worth bringing up though that some people don't actually choose to alter their body or not to alter it beyond hormonal treatments. The trans-iconic may or may not be one of those. The only change referred to in the backstory is a HRT analogy.

Some of that is likely because of the imperfect nature of current surgery, so more would probably take a complete magical transformation, but some might well opt not to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kolokotroni wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Thelemic_Noun wrote:

Well, this thread went south fast.

But back on point...

Since the corrective measures for gender dysphoria in Golarion (2,250 gp one-use wondrous item) permit "passing" with 100% success (including biological functions such as reproduction), a great deal of the issues facing the real-world transgender community don't exist in Pathfinder.

Many don't, but many still do.

You still have to deal with all the relationship issues with anyone who knew you before transitioning, including and especially family. 2,250 gp isn't exactly cheap for most, so you'll likely have to live at least some of your life without it, unless your parents will cover it when you're a child.

The item also raises new issues, like transforming someone against their will.

While the rules dont represent it, there really isnt a reason a genders swap spell that isnt a curse cant exist. Its just hasnt really come up to the point where it shows up in the spell lists. In any world where this is an issue, it would really just be a casting of a single 3rd or 4th level spell, not necessarily a magic item. And though that still wouldnt be cheap, it isnt impossible even for normal people, and especially not on an adventurer's budget.

Certainly possible, but still not on the casual expense list for most people's budgets - especially if they have to travel for it. Meaning they'll likely have to live a decent part of their lives before transition and spend a good deal of effort planning for and arranging it. And if you're not leaving home forever to do it, everyone will know.

Even adventurers will have to spend at least a few levels before affording it - or affording it without spending all their WBL that's supposed to be keeping them alive. And becoming an adventurer to be able to afford the change is itself a major life choice driven by your transgender condition.


Thelemic_Noun wrote:

Well, this thread went south fast.

But back on point...

Since the corrective measures for gender dysphoria in Golarion (2,250 gp one-use wondrous item) permit "passing" with 100% success (including biological functions such as reproduction), a great deal of the issues facing the real-world transgender community don't exist in Pathfinder.

Many don't, but many still do.

You still have to deal with all the relationship issues with anyone who knew you before transitioning, including and especially family. 2,250 gp isn't exactly cheap for most, so you'll likely have to live at least some of your life without it, unless your parents will cover it when you're a child.

The item also raises new issues, like transforming someone against their will.


ShinHakkaider wrote:
noretoc wrote:
should they be within their right to specifically shoot for a female dev, just so they can get one on the team regardless of any more qualified male applicants?

And that's part of the stickler for me. How do you define "more qualified"? If they're looking for someone who may not be as strong in one area of development but stronger in another that they feel is more needed, is she still less qualified as another male applicant?

I used to have a lot of discussions with a friend of mine who worked in HR and alot of the hiring ultimately comes down to who people feel more comfortable with. There are more than a few times where people get hired who know the minimum but get trained after they're on the job.
People hire those who will "fit" and that's mostly WHITE and MALE with WHITE and FEMALE being a close second, ESPECIALLY in management.

The illusion of fairness and meritocracy in this country in particular is a JOKE. So if Paizo wants to hire a female developer just to hire a female developer? Especially since they're gonna have to probably train ANY developer that they hire in how they specifically do things anyway?
They should go right on ahead and do just that.

Agreed.

I don't think they should hire someone completely unqualified just to get a female, but I don't think they would and I don't think they'd need too. It's more like diversity has value in itself, especially in a creative field, so that can be considered as part of the qualifications.

That's any kind of diversity, mind you. Whether it's gender, race, nationality. Anything likely to bring a different viewpoint to the work they'll be doing.


Sissyl wrote:
So when is the theory going to be launched that it's a US government weapons project with a testing ground in Africa? Ages ago, right?

Yes. And such theories have been hampering efforts on the ground in West Africa. Keeping people from trusting MSF and the other groups.


Coriat wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:


We actually don't know a LOT about this strain of Ebola to tell the truth. It seems to be LESS fatal than other strains previously (but still remarkably high).
Ebola lethality in past outbreaks has likely been far higher than is optimal from the disease's standpoint - a virus that is both fairly difficult to transmit and quickly lethal to its hosts causes survival problems for itself. It's not entirely surprising that a more successful outbreak has involved somewhat lower lethality.

Lethality also depends heavily on treatment. The fatality rate for cases treated in the US is 1 in 9 at the moment.

Also remember that the fatality rate for an ongoing epidemic will skew low, since they're reported as deaths/cases, but some currently infected will likely die. Given that the rate of infection is still increasing, a fairly high percentage of the infected cases are still sick.


Vod Canockers wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Another article by the same author:

Officer Pulls Woman Over. Instead of a Ticket, He Showed His HumanityNot a very exciting article, I admit, but not exactly one you'd expect to see written by someone who would only be happy if police officers are killed.

True, but it was also an officer violating their sworn oath.

What?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vod Canockers wrote:
That first article is written by someone that if a non police officer were sent in to talk and was killed, he would complain that the police weren't doing their job. The only way he would be happy is if the police were killed.

More likely he'd be happier if no one was killed, but continue assuming that the only reason for anyone to ever be critical of police is hatred.

1 to 50 of 14,478 << 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.