|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Yes obviously the capture of 10 Russian soldiers in Ukraine proves that they were the only ones there. Only captured or killed and positively identified Russians are proof of anything and then only proof that those particular troops were there, and they aren't there anymore, so it still doesn't mean anything. Very convenient argument.
The article I linked also talks about casualties, but it is of course, just western propaganda and can be completely ignored.
Military advisers is probably the closest term, since that's commonly used to cover anything from a few guys actually giving advice to thousands of actual boots on the ground. Again, I don't think Russia is openly invading. I think there's good evidence, if not ironclad proof, that they're covertly supporting the rebels, including with actual troops in relatively small numbers.
"Administrative detentions". Not to mention torture.
1) They are not at war. They cannot be at war. War exists between states. Israel is an Occupying Power, holding control of the Palestinian Territories. As such they have far more responsibility for protecting civilians under that control than they would in a normal state of war. Hamas is a resistance movement in occupied territory.
2) That said, Israel does have the right to kill or arrest resistance fighters, which would include Hamas's military wing, the al-Qassam Brigades and arguably the senior leadership of Hamas itself. Not, "every member of Hamas", which would low-level bureaucrats and other government officials. However, they do not have the right to disproportionate use of force or excessive civilian casualties. They do not have the right to collective punishment of Palestinian civilians.
But that's all legal niceties and doesn't really matter. Practically, Israel has the right to do damn near anything it pleases to Palestinians as long as it doesn't upset the American public enough that the US government has act on it.
Are Palestinians arrested by Israel all given due process, phone calls, lawyers and bail?That's why I made the comparison. When Hamas does it, it's kidnapping. When Israel does it, it's arresting. But it's the same thing.
Vlad Koroboff wrote:
How about the Russian Ministry of Defense? And Putin himself?
The Russian Defense Ministry, in a curt statement on the incident on Tuesday, said nothing about Russian soldiers being killed or wounded in Ukraine, but admitted that a group of paratroopers had been captured on the wrong side of the border. Asked about their fate on Tuesday night, Putin suggested that they had simply gotten lost and veered into Ukraine by accident. “What I heard is that they were patrolling the border and might have ended up on Ukrainian territory,” Putin said with a shrug. He expressed hope that “there wouldn’t be any problem” with getting them back home, but offered no promises or plans to do so.
Unless you really believe they just wandered across the border by accident.Regardless, they were there. And most likely, where there's one unit operating, there are more.
OTOH, maybe they really did just get lost. Maybe Ukraine shouldn't be worried about Russia invading. They'll just all wander off in the wrong direction. Invade some other country by accident.
I'm sure they would rather not have been killed. Other than that, there's not a lot of difference.
Of course they don't kidnap Palestinian teenagers. They arrest them. There's a huge difference.
When they don't just shoot them, that is.
Guy Humual wrote:
And even more would they be able to evolve into something other than a terrorist organization, like so many other terrorist organizations* have done in the past, had Israel and the United States been willing to work towards that end.
Such as Sinn Fein, the PLO, Irgun, etc
Most of the tunnels were. Food and other supplies. Including military equipment of course.
Some were for attacks on Israel. Judging by past practice with the tunnels, not for attacks on Israeli civilians, but on soldiers. Gilad Shalit, for example, was captured in a raid through a previous tunnel.
Whether it was worth it or not depends partly on what you think Israel would have done if Hamas hadn't been rearming and digging tunnels. If you think Israel is simply being provoked into defending itself, then it seems obvious that it wasn't worth it. If you think Israel isn't quite so pure in it's motives, it's hard to fault a group under its thumb for trying to arm itself and prepare ways to strike back.
Except for the part where he's actually casting spells and has to follow all those rules. Uses per day. Can be dispelled. Doesn't work in anti-magic. Anyone with a spellcraft roll knows they're really spells. Has to chant & wave his arms.
And I do love this one, though it probably fits better in the Ferguson thread.
It's always the pivot to "But America is evil".
Sure. The US meddled in Ukraine. I'm suspicious of damn near everything they do. But I also don't swallow Russia's line without thinking either.
Paratroopers got lost and wandered across the border? Give me a break.
But regardless of who's lying, which is probably everyone, your argument that Russia can't be covertly aiding the separatists because "If Russia invaded you'd know" is simply nonsense.
Yes, if Russia invades openly, everyone will know.
That of course makes it impossible that Russia will act more covertly.
True that the issue wasn't "Race or class ban", but I don't see that as the root of the issue.
The issue was that the GM had laid out what he wanted from the game and I'd gone with a character that didn't fit, even if I'd done it by misunderstanding. I'm trying to emphasize that it's not "race-you-hadn't-already-put-in-your-setting", but race/class/concept that doesn't fit in the campaign. Might even exist in the setting, but isn't going to work in this particular campaign.
But even in the larger setting sense, it's not that easy to remove races that nobody wants to play. Not unless you're capable of throwing the setting together on the fly after character creation. If you like to have a world with some sense of history then the races are all likely to have their own roles to play in that history. You can't just cut the dwarves out and replace them with gnolls because they wouldn't have done the same things in that history.
Under most circumstances it would be perfectly legal for any government to threaten or even use lethal force against any foreign nationals who come in, evict their citizens from their homes and take the land for themselves.
On the flip side, while not all the missions have been "Maim, Murder, Kill", I can't think of any I've done that have been anything like archaeology.
A couple cleaning up after something the actual archaeologists had dug up and a couple of faction missions that seemed to come close, but none of the actual missions.
Granted I haven't played a lot of scenarios yet, so I may just have hit the atypical ones.
Two separate but related things: I like to have stuff in the setting connect and make sense. If there's a race in the setting, I like to know something about its history and how it fits in with the other races and cultures. This helps me root the characters in the setting and develop plots for them to deal with. The Eberron Changelings would be fairly easy to work in to most settings, since they don't really seem to have much culture of their own. They blend in to others. So they're a mystery with a few references to past historical events. Fine. Eberron's Warforged would require much more effort to find them an origin and a place.
Second and more important: I don't run (or often play) sandboxes. Nor do I just run players through basically unconnected adventures that they get sent on or happen to hear about.
If your group is just a bunch of random murder-hobos who met in a bar and off killing things for fun and profit, then none of this matters. Include anything you like. I like my games to be more focused than that. I like that as a player too.
Oh, since you mentioned superhero games, not all concepts work there either. The one I mentioned where the GM went with it and it ruined the game was a superhero game. And partly my fault. The game proposal, as I heard it, was child proteges of 1950's superheroes. I played a demon mageling adopted and being taught by that world's Sorcerer Supreme equivalent. Another player was playing a ninja with some complicated background I don't remember. What the other players heard for the proposal and what the GM intended had much more of an emphasis on the 1950's 4-color, code-approved, straight-forward heroics. And that's what the other characters were. Clashed with our two gritty 90s style near anti-hero characters.
I've seen it happen even with long-term groups. Though it's usually been more miscommunication than anything. At least once the GM rolled with it and it pretty much ruined the game. A couple of times the player's argument was good enough to spark something in the GM's head and make the game even better.
I agree. If it's just that you hadn't thought to put the race in the world yet, then "I just popped in from some other dimension" can work fine. For example if you were playing wide-open Golarion and someone wanted to use a 3rd Edition race that hadn't been ported over to PF, then it's not a big deal to add.
But if you're planning a campaign where the restriction on theme and setting actually matter, then asking to play something that doesn't fit is a pretty big warning flag that either the player didn't understand the theme and the setting or that he didn't really care and went on to do his own thing. The first can be fixed. The second is a problem.
My response, after making sure it isn't just miscommunication, is to get the player to sell me on it: "This concept doesn't really seem to fit what we talked about. What am I missing? How is this character going to make the campaign better?" Not just, "How can you justify bringing it in", but either "Why does it really fit, even though I can't see it?" or "What is so awesome about it that it's worth reworking the campaign so that it really does fit?"
What you're angry about is someone that was fighting for a good cause, actively tried to keep the casualties to a minimum, and oddly enough was human so he didn't do it perfectly and three people died. As opposed to say, Dick Cheney collecting speakers fees from universities when he deliberately cooked the information so the oil company that was paying him could make oodles of money in iraq and at least 100,000 civilians got killed.
Or John Yoo writing secret legal arguments to justify torture.
Currently a Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley.
I'd say the basic theory, especially when you apply intersectionality to consider the different types of privilege (or the opposite) that affect each case. Members of the dominant race/ethnicity/culture in any given place have advantages over others that they are generally unaware of, unless they've educated themselves on the topic in one way or another.
What groups get those privileges and exactly what the privileges are various from country to country and even in different regions within the country, but the basic concept applies.
Matthew Morris wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I've said it before and I certainly don't blame Gencon for it, but I've been in places that had this dynamic and it's freaky when you realize it. And I'm a white guy. I really can't imagine what it's like if you match the servants, not the guests.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Will Smith isn't exactly ancient history.
Her other complaint was about someone selling nazi paraphernalia at a booth. This was explicitly against the rules (no 20th century costumes) and I heard it got shut down for that and other reasons, so, yeah. It's a damn cosplay. Not a very okay cosplay, no, but seriously? We have Irregular Webcomic featuring a group of nazis as joke villains. We have Springtime for Hitler. I know joking about nazis still upsets people, but...are we really gonna call GenCon racist over this?
I don't know if that booth was eventually shut down or not, but according to the linked story, GenCon officials basically ignored complaints and did nothing about it.
More generally, I agree with you. The racist problem is a more generally American one and less a specifically GenCon or gaming one. That said, in the sense in which George is using the term racist, the GenCon organization is racist. As are most of us. Well-meaning, as he acknowledges, but clueless.
Darche Schneider wrote:
That's even easier and I don't know why I didn't think of it. And that means it really does get much easier as you get more dice.So 15d6 ⇒ (4, 6, 3, 1, 1, 1, 5, 3, 6, 4, 1, 6, 5, 4, 3) = 53
101 = (5*5*4 + 1) + 1-1*( 6 + 3 + 3 + 6 + 4 + 1 + 6 + 4 + 3)
103 = (5*5*4 + 3) + 1-1*( 6 + 1 + 3 + 6 + 4 + 1 + 6 + 4 + 3)
107 = (5*5*4 + 6 + 1) + 1-1*( 3 + 3 + 6 + 4 + 1 + 6 + 4 + 3)
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Well, it's not like he has to deal with this particular website. He could, for example, ignore it.It's almost like he's some kind of anti-Social Justice Warrior, "constantly perched like a falcon, ready to swoop in to right wrongs."
And the first accusations of racism in this thread were thrown at George, not Correia.
Don't forget that one of the officers involved in that is one the city council.
But it's not one out of X. The number of combinations is ridiculously large, but so is the number of combinations that solve the problem. And you only need one of those combinations.
I'm not sure what problem your math is actually trying to solve. What you don't allow for is how many working combination there are. That essentially divides your search space, since you only need to brute force until you find the first one.
In reality, you don't need to brute force of course. I'm not sure how I'd write a program to solve it, but it really is a few minutes of work at worst to actually solve any given example.
As suggested earlier in thread: multiply a couple dice together until you're near one of the targets. Add or subtract to reach the target. Pair the rest of the dice together so they come to 1 or 0, then multiply and add.
Let's say you roll 15 dice trying to cast an effective level 9 spell. The prime numbers are 101, 103, 107.
15d6 ⇒ (4, 5, 2, 3, 3, 5, 1, 4, 2, 1, 5, 4, 5, 3, 3) = 50
Edit: Solved for the wrong thing
That took about 4 minutes, but it's actually easier to match dice together than to keep track while typing it out. (And there's a cat demanding attention.)
I don't know about formal mathematical solutions to the problem, but it's pretty trivial to do by hand.
Vod Canockers wrote:
But still my point was to commit crimes in the name of a movement, so Universities will hire you later.
I still think you've got causation and correlation screwed up here.Universities may hire you despite past criminal movement activity. You have not demonstrated that "committing crimes in the name of a movement" is actually a useful way to get universities to hire you.
Especially since one of your two examples was dismissed because of it.
Abraham spalding wrote:
Right, your judgment is impaired, just like with a sufficient amount of alcohol. The difference I wasn't thinking of when I wrote that was that unlike the alcohol the charm itself was almost certainly applied without consent.
But in the real world, you're serious?
And you think this is the law already? Have sex with someone who's had a couple of drinks and you're busted for rape. Both of you, if you'd been drinking too.
BTW, that's actually a great hedge against rape prosecutions: If the rapist has been drinking too, he can charge the victim.
Abraham spalding wrote:
Define drunk.1) Had any alchohol.
2) Past the legal limit for driving.
3) Beyond that, but still walking and talking coherently, but judgement is probably impaired.
4) Incapacitated. Passed out or at least not capable of coherent conversation or control of your body.
As I understand it, 4 is the only one where you're likely to get a conviction. 1-3 would criminalize an awful lot of sex. And 3 is basically what we're talking about with charm magic.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Yes, just like I am "insufficiently not-white", or as I usually put it, "white".
And nothing on him actually claiming any discrimination?
Without even trying to dig into the math, that analysis is fundamentally flawed because you're not looking to exhaust the search space. There is not only one solution, nor do you have to find all the solutions. You only need one.
Others have posted fairly simple and elegant approaches to finding those solutions. It's not really difficult, but will definitely slow down play.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Or more accurately, "white".
But leaving that aside, where does Correia claim he's dealt with discrimination. He says
So, he grew up poor, but I don't see any actual claims of discrimination.I didn't reread the whole thing, so I might have missed something.
No. The Irish guy doesn't heal faster nor does his beat down become less discrimination.He also doesn't become a person of color because he got beaten up.
Or to prevent combat when the alternative is killing them.
When it's not a news site?
NewsBuzzDaily.com is a combination of real shocking news and satire news. Please note that articles written on this site are for entertainment and satirical purposes only.
Sorry, Comrade Anklebiter, this one doesn't seem real.
The handcuffed guy shooting himself in the chest after having been searched for weapons is real though.
I guess now we have appointed posters to decide who's white or a person of color,and based off of that who can or cannot experience racism (even if they have experienced racism).
Words actually mean things. They have definitions.
I give up.
Can I declare myself a person of color too? Maybe I'll be black and pontificate about how I've never been bothered by racism even though I've decided to be black.
No. And I'm not.He's Portuguese-American. He's European-American. He's white.
It's not about being not [color] enough to be a REAL [race].
This doesn't mean he wasn't poor. This doesn't mean he didn't face discrimination, 1st and 2nd generation immigrants often face discrimination where ever they come from. I lived until recently in a town with a high Polish immigrant population. They had a rough time of it in many ways. But that doesn't make them people of color.
By which you actually mean, be in an organization that commits crimes, but either don't actually commit them yourself or at least don't get charged and convicted for committing them, or for only minor crimes, and it's still possible to get a University job, assuming you also have the credentials.
It's not exactly a career path I'd suggest.
That last may well be true, but for the first, yeah if you reduce Correia's screed to "Don't write tokens" or "Story is more important than message", then all three of them agree.
Which makes Correia's takedown of MacFarlane's post pretty pathetic already.
Except I do think he's saying more than that. And I think it ties into his mocking of George.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Sorry. Programming usage. "!=" would be my other go to.
And it would be "Less than or Greater than", with equal remaining as the untrue option. :)
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Yeah, it is pretty crazy there are people arguing that Larry is bigoted for saying that.
That's because some of us don't think that's all he's saying. Though it's kind of hard to get through all the stuff about there being only 2 biological sexes (which pretty much misses the entire point, even though it's true. Because gender<>sex)
He's writing an attack piece on a post which absolutely doesn't say "Write lousy token characters" and the only thing he has to say is "Don't write lousy token characters"?
To steal from Jim Hine's take on it, because he's a professional and says it better than I can.
I can't believe the argument has devolved to "Larry said writers shouldn't write lousy characters. Unlike that guy he was responding to who totally said they should."
No one has said anyone should be writing token characters. At least if you define token as badly written.OTOH, Paizo definitely wanted to have a trans iconic, so in some sense she could be considered a token.
And yes, she is awesome.
Luckily no one actually advises new authors to add diversity just to fill the box. Including the post he responded to about going beyond two genders. Correia added that in all himself.
And that exact criticism has been aimed at Paizo with nearly every appearance of new diversity, particularly the recent trans characters.
This is pretty much the exact point Correia was trying to make. In fact he even uses the "everything is for a reason". The entire post was to basically tell aspiring authors not to follow the advice just because, because then you will be shooting yourself in the foot trying to tie something in that doesn't really fit. Write the story that you want and add the details where needed, but not because of any particular social justice cause.
I'm amused by this in the context of the official reason for this thread: Larry Correia praising Pathfinder for diversity.
The official stated reason for that diversity is exactly what he complains about: making sure they had representative characters of different genders and different races and even now LGBTQ characters.
Vicious accusations like "Usually, they are well-meaning people who do not realize how their roles and decisions impact the larger gaming community and its lack of diversity."
Damn, that's some serious active racism right there. I still think most of this kerfluffle is about Correia substituting his definition of racism for George's and then being offended when George uses the word.
You can not accept that definition, but you can't pretend George means something else when he uses the term.