|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Well, it would be fair to say that MLK was jailed for his religious beliefs.
OTOH, we do remember "Bull" Connor. And George Wallace.
OTOH, modelling how the oceans absorb heat is one of the more complex areas and one that's been surprising recently.
What? Back when gay bashing was cool?
Honestly, in many ways and despite my despair over humanity we really are improving. But it's damn slow and painful.
Divorce (or at least remarriage) was considered a sin by most groups well into modern times. It's not a matter of Old versus New Testament.
I think you're overly generous.
I don't think there has ever been a single human being who has followed the entirety of what the Bible says. Nor do I think there ever will be. I don't think it's possible. Without very careful interpretation it contradicts itself regularly.
OTOH, in many cases, it's not so much a matter of cherry-picking as interpretation and since almost everyone is taught what the Bible means rather than encountering it fresh with no preconceptions and working strictly from the text, that interpretation is always going to be driven by culture and history.
Thought experiment: Select and isolate a dozen or so small human populations. Convince them that the Bible is the Word of God, but give them no other context, background or meaning. Leave them alone for a few generations with the Book. See if any of the resulting religions resemble each other or any known form of Christianity.
I was thinking that too, but that's part of it.
Divorce isn't a new change. Interracial marriage isn't a new change. Women being equal partners in marriage isn't a new thing. Well, they're all relatively new, at least as common practice, but she's not so old as to have been raised without all of them around her. Her particular sect may or may not approve of any of them, but she's used to them, so they're no big deal.
This is of course stupid and hypocritical and not really religiously based - since she's not enforcing all of her doctrine, just bits of it.
But it's a good thing too. This is a test case. There'll be a few more. Then it will stop and same-sex marriage will continue and some people will grumble and a few will protest and by and large no one will really care. It's over. They've lost. These are the last stragglers.
Was it ever? (human decency or sense).
Orfamay Quest wrote:
I'm not sure even she claims that. There are lots of gay marriages going on all across the country, she's not actively obstructing them. Of course, she may think that.
At the very least, there remains a difference between, as Orthos suggested, a law that forbids a religious duty, with no legal way around it and taking an oath that requires you to do something against your faith, but that lets you both not break your oath to God and not act against your faith by resigning.
To be fair to her, she apparently converted/was born again/had the appropriate come to Jesus moment after all that. Her extreme religious convictions came after what I'm sure she now considers her sins. Unlike some religious hypocrits I could name, who were eventually found betraying their own principles even while preaching them.
David knott 242 wrote:
It's actually pretty common, as I understand it. It's not that there's only one clerk signing forms, it's that the County Clerk in charge of the office refused to let her subordinates do their job.
No. This is a different situation than your hypothetical. The proper answer for her, if she believes her duty to God conflicts with her sworn oath to do her job is to leave her job. That would resolve the conflict. She would be in violation of neither.
Not quite ended yet. There's an argument that, without her approval, even if her deputy clerks sign off, the marriages aren't official. I doubt it'll hold up, but it's another hurdle.
And frankly probably isn't necessary. She's in the process of being slapped down. The same may happen in a few other cases as they come up and everything will settle down and life will go on. People will get married and that's what really matters.
They're not "individual clerks". "Clerk" here isn't "one of those ladies behind the counter". It's an elected position. She heads the County Clerk's Office and has a staff working for her. Who actually can also sign marriage licenses, if I understand correctly, but as she's directed them not to, which she can do because she's their boss. She could have directed them to sign if her only objection was doing it herself, but she apparently believes that is also against her religion, since she would still have the responsibility as the official in charge.
She's not an individual clerk, she's the one in charge. Even if she doesn't sign herself, her name appears on the license so she has directed her subordinates not to sign.
Or more accurately, the Justices use both. Their knowledge and understanding of the law and their own moral philosophy. And they have always done so. Every Supreme Court decision you disliked: They did so. Every Supreme Court decision you liked: They did so.
It's just less obvious when it lines up with your opinions.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
[A] State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. Certainly it can, and plaintiffs did so in the instant case. More to the point, so did the various district judge, when they found, repeatedly and with argumentation, that there was "no rational basis" to exclude same-sex marriage.
Sort of aside from the legal argument, but the idea that the current meaning of marriage is one that has persisted in every culture throughout human history is itself nonsense.Marriage has taken many forms in different cultures throughout history. The most obvious and most commonly cited is polygamy, but the more recent and in many ways more relevant change is the gradual ending of coverture. Without marriage becoming legally a partnership of equals rather than a means by which a woman's legal rights and obligations were subsumed by those of her husband, same-sex marriage wouldn't make any sense. You'd have to determine who in the couple was the husband and who was the wife, because those were legally different roles. The last of those laws in the US wasn't repealed until the late 70s.
Gaberlunzie: The referendum was a sham, and put in effect a ban which went above and beyond what was voted for. And if you claim the "nuclear lobby" removed it, please explain what the "nuclear lobby" actually did, who did it, and who makes up the "nuclear lobby". I would say it is far more correct to say that the ban was removed through our normal democratic process. I mean, claiming the "nuclear lobby" actively pushed through the removal of a ban they have yet to use the removal of, years later, that is pretty odd.
Sweden has had a ban on developing new nuclear technology for ages, only recently removed, instated by the environmental lobby.
please explain what the "environmental lobby" actually did, who did it, and who makes up the "environmental lobby".
Wasn't that pretty much Gaberlunzie's point? I know almost nothing about this situation, but you did with "environmental lobby" exactly what he did with "nuclear lobby". And it's not the first time.
"What would make my character's backstory more interesting?" is not what he was saying.
He was saying, as you quoted: "People aren't saying 'I have this really awesome character concept, but I just can't find the rules, classes, and/or feats to make it work. Here's the story, help me make it a reality.' ”
You're arguing against something that wasn't said.
As you suggest, whether or not there is a tenet of Christianity that would support an objection to the decision in Loving v Virginia is irrelevant. Some Christian churches of the time claimed there was. Some (though much more fringe these days) still do. It is very much not for the Court to decide that certain claimed religious beliefs qualify as actual religious tenets and others don't. That's a route that no one should want to take. Whatever your religious belief or lack there of.
The Court found that the Constitution required same-sex marriage to be legal. The Court earlier found that the Constitution required interracial marriage to be legal. As I said, at the time, that was a very controversial decision, decried by many as judicial activism. The legal grounds of the decision were different, but the reaction and much of the argument was the same.
Yeah, but if you know out of game that they're vulnerable "trying it" is problematic. That's why we have knowledge skills in the first place.
Chris Lambertz wrote:
How big your inbox gets after taking 3 days off is kinda lame. I swear the bottom is here somewhere...
Just delete it all. It's mostly spam anyway.
Anything important they'll send again.
There is no actual first amendment conflict here. The court will show that. There is no reasonable 1st amendment consideration that allows a government official to use religion to not only not perform her duties, but also prevent her office from carrying them out. If this was one clerk saying "I won't do it, go to the next window", that might be arguable.
Beyond that, your argument is that if the Court determines that a law (or regulation or other government action) is in conflict with the Constitution, the Court should not act, but should wait for Congress to pass a law? Mind you, any Congressional action would be subject to Court challenge anyway. Would the same argument have applied to Loving vs Virginia? A decision even more controversial at the time and to which the same religious objections could have been raised by at least some churches of the day.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
I'd welcome it too.
OTOH, pundits have been predicting the end of the Republican party since 2008 (or even 06) and they now control the Senate and the House. Demographics and long term trends aren't in their favor, but they've been very good at holding on against that.
I understood that hypothetical request to be "Here's the concept/backstory for a character - help me find mechanics to make it effective."
In other words, help with numbers, but in the service of a non-mechanics derived concept.
I've seen it around here, but it is pretty rare. And is often derailed by suggestions to do something else entirely because it'll be more powerful.
Well, in that sense yes.
Not the actual court case though.
And whether it's her plan or not, I'm sure knowing she's got the support helps keep her from backing down. I'll bet jail time does it, though.
Directed against enemies who you'd be otherwise trying to kill, I don't have a big problem with them.
Even against innocents in extremis - charming the loyal guard to let you past so you can stop the assassination attempt on his boss, for example.
Wantonly used for your own advantage, not so much.
There's a hell of a difference between "EVERY character in ANY way connected with another more powerful character who tells them what to do" and property. Even milder forms of slavery.
Even indentured servants knew it would end and generally had more legal protections than slaves did.
Admittedly that difference does get narrower in older and more brutal societies - serfdom isn't far from milder slavery in many ways. In some despotic states everyone is officially the ruler's property.
In other words, no ones using a brush as wide as you pretend or as narrow as only American chattel slavery.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Agreed. Though, as the post you responded to and quoted said, asking the player about the character is a partial substitute. If you get nothing then but mechanics and DPR, it's a really good clue.
Actually, it's also possible and probably more likely that even if her case is upheld, any licenses granted while it was in process wouldn't be vacated. She would just be able to stop again.
That said, I really doubt she'll win. At any level. As apparently do the courts, since they wouldn't issue the injunction. Admittedly, likelihood of her prevailing is only one consideration.
As for the actual licenses, they'll soon be issued. Most likely she will cave to the contempt hearing, possibly before a fine, possibly after. She certainly won't sit in jail for 3 years. If she does, as you said, someone else will be issuing those licenses.
It ends the request for injunction. The SC has not said it will not hear the actual case, because the actual case has not been resolved and they have not been asked to hear it.
The question now is a) What does she do now that she has exhausted her legal options?
Quite often you still do. (Or the module author does, if you're using one).
Sometimes that's disguised - You know the DC to jump a 15' pit for example. But that's often backwards, it's a 15' pit because you wanted that DC.
If the player described D'Artagnan in terms of personality and the other things yronimos suggests and didn't just respond with "He's really good with a sword", than I'd agree.
And if you look at the beginning of the Three Musketeers, that's exactly what Dumas does - he tells (and shows) us who D'Artagnan is. Where he's from, a bit of his background and personality and then immediately how he reacts to situations. Which is, admittedly, usually by challenging someone to a duel. But by that point, you understand why.
Seth Dresari wrote:
That Bounded Accuracy thing sounds cool, but it also takes the uniqueness out of certain items, traits and/or feats that provide bonuses to certain skills, including but not limited to circumstance bonuses.
It wouldn't work imported into PF as is. There's too much else dependent on it.
I don't think it's quite as limited as Bluenose suggests. I believe there are other ways to get a few more points on bonuses, though the advantage/disadvantage mechanism replaces most of them.
But the basic concept of limiting how high you can stack the numbers certainly holds.
No. Because as has been said before, more steam doesn't lead to more water vapor. More temperature leads to more water vapor, which leads to more heat in a feedback loop, but just evaporating more water saturates the atmosphere and you don't get the kind of long term effects you get from adding carbon. The carbon builds up, because the atmosphere isn't already saturated with carbon.
Matthew Morris wrote:
So what do you do with the slave that tries to escape? Let him go and hope he can take care of himself? Hunt him down and punish/torture him?
Yeah, how to prepare slaves for a free life is a question. Keeping them as slaves is not the answer.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Cowboy Feng's Space Bar and Grill (1990), though it's clearly a set-in-the-future sci fi novel, nevertheless has a pretty strong current-day urban feel. As a point of interest, it's also got a nice bit of homage to Piers Anthony's Macroscope (1970), using a trope later made famous by Palahniuk in Fight Club (1996).
Okay, I missed that, though I haven't read Cowboy Feng in awhile. What was the homage to Macroscope? (Or the trope in Fight Club for that matter.)
Shows up on both sides. You'll note that several of my prior posts on this thread were of the "Lots of books doesn't mean a thing".
But no, no one's explicitly suggested it, but there's an awful lot of dismissiveness.
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
I don't think either of those are cognitive dissonance though. Those are really just subconscious assumptions kicking in. Far less of what's going on in our heads is really conscious rationality than we tend to think it is. Most of our "thinking" is just rationalizing decisions and presumptions we've made for subconscious reasons.
Or the ever popular "If you think I was describing you, then you obviously match the description. If not, I obviously wasn't talking about you, so in either case, you have no right to be offended."
Matthew Downie wrote:
Yeah. Once you've more confidence in your abilities, it's easy enough to fudge without changing die rolls. :)
OTOH, powergamers do exist. The multiclassing approach he's talking about was more of a 3.5 thing, since PF boosted the base classes, but in some cases it's still real. People really do plan out builds for power with little concern for the character reasoning behind it. They do look for unexpected synergies between different classes or between class abilities and feats or spells or any other powers.
Particularly convoluted character designs are a warning sign for that. Not a certainty of course and nowhere near as simple as "X number of books is over the line", but a warning sign.
It's a sign of focus on the build game part of Pathfinder, which isn't exclusive to the actually playing the game part, but does suggest a lesser interest in that. If you're looking to run a different kind of game, one more focused on actual play than on how cleverly we can build characters, you might have problems show up in play.
Even with a single class wizard, they're likely to pull feats, traits, spells and items from other books. Unless they're intentionally limiting themselves to one source.
Upho, each class has its own particular niche. There is a great deal of fluff before the mechanics of each one. When one pulls from many different sources, one is generally indicating that they care less for the motives and drives behind that class than they are interested in the one cool mechanic that is derived from a dip into that class. That is just one way “a player that creates his/her PC 'by pulling from a lot of different books' tell you [me] that the player is likely 'much more interested in ROLLplaying than ROLEplaying”?
Or a sign that they have a particular character concept in mind that is best represented by parts from different books.
And of course, it's pretty easy to get up to 6 books these days. An archetype from one book for a non-core class from another already gets you 3. Grab a feat from somewhere else and a couple spells or items from elsewhere and there you are - 6 books without even multiclassing.
Definitely sparingly.The thing is, I like having interaction with enemies before the final confrontation. It humanizes them, makes things more personal. It's usually best if it can be done socially without the party realizing they were talking to the BBG until later on, but having him rant at them a bit and leave them to his minions is also a trope for a reason. I'm willing to put up with a little handwaving to make that work.
Again and again in a real fight with the baddie? No.
But "I've been GMing a long time and people keep asking me to run" is a valid response to "If you GM like that all your players will leave". Big difference between that and "I'm a grognard so I'm right".
More generally, I'm all in favor of communication about playstyle, most of the time. Fudging, I'm less clear about. While I see the point, fudging, whether of dice or anything else, works much better when it's not visible to the players.
In theory it might, locally. It won't affect global warming, since it'll precipitate out. Whatever it does will be a short-term localized effect.
You also need to compare however much steam we're generating with the amount of water that evaporates from the world's oceans. I suspect it's much less and since it can't accumulate in the atmosphere, there's no long term additive affect, like there is with carbon.
As for ThaX, it's been a long time since he's shown any willingness to talk or be persuaded. He drops in, throws out a few talking points and vanishes. His next post rarely addresses anything said in response to the previous one. It's just another set of talking points.