|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
If you're going to elaborate and attempt to be authoritative about it, you should probably link or source your information somehow.
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.
That is one characteristic of "fluid". Another is "Changeable".
2 and particularly 4.
Definitely needs a Hunting of the Snark section.
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?
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I read that specific bit as a belated reference to this exchange
"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."
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.
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.
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.
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
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:
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.
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.
Scott Betts wrote:
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."
Scott Betts 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?
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."
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.
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
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.
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:
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:
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.
Usual Suspect wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
By this point everyone knows that the vast majority of drow are angsty Good outcasts on the run from their evil brethren.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.