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. 12,780 posts (13,551 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 6 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 12,780 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Arturius Fischer wrote:
thejeff wrote:

While Hamas has as it's stated goals taking over all of Israel and killing all the Jews, it's made remarkably little progress towards either goal and has often made overtures towards compromise and moderation. Not changing it's charter, but long term peace deals and power sharing arrangements with Fatah.

Meanwhile, while Israel does not claim to want to take over all of Palestine or kill Arabs, it's making steady progress towards the first and racking up quite a body count on the second. But it talks much nicer about it.

If you look at public statements, Israel is obviously the good guy and Hamas the dangerous aggressor. If you look at actions, things are much less clear.

Indeed. Israel should just, I don't know, rely upon the incompetence of people who want openly want to eradicate them from actually accomplishing that goal? That sounds like a plan.

If Israel wanted to take over Palestine, it would have been done in days, a week at most. The IDF also wouldn't care about a thousand or so casualties in a population of millions. Unlike their enemies, that have proven to be quite competent, as any brief look at history (Six Days War, perhaps) will demonstrate.

Also, it's ironic to say that the IDF wants to kill Arabs when it tries to minimize innocent casualties (though it could try a bit harder, no disagreement there) while Hamas openly admits it wants to wipe out Israelis. One side is trying to avoid killing, the other openly craves it. If this is doubted, please give examples of how Hamas attempts to limit civilian casualties.

If Israel wanted to take over Palestine while not overtly committing genocide or even ethnic cleansing because they still need to keep at least the US on their side, it's really hard to imagine a better strategy: herd the worst terrorists into a tiny area, keep expanding into the best land in the West Bank, use the terrorists as an excuse to keep the Palestinians under your thumb, provoke them into violence whenever it looks like moderation might start making you look bad.

I don't really think there's any such grand scheme. I suspect it's far more a matter of short term muddling through and political advantage. Keeping the various domestic parties inline and keeping them focused on the external enemy, cause that gets you support.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arturius Fischer wrote:


TheJeff wrote:
They've been accused of firing rockets from near civilians, storing weapons near civilians, having civilians on/in buildings Hamas was using, etc.

That is, in fact, exactly what using them as human shields is. They count on the Israelis not firing into those areas because they are hiding among the population. And it's not just accusations, those things have actually happened. Sometimes it even works. Sometimes it doesn't.

The difference, as you've pointed out, is that Israel considers this to be wrong and is willing to prosecute their own people who do it. When has Hamas...

A) The point of the first part of the argument was to differentiate it from the direct analogy of a guy shooting at the soldier from behind a civilian, where the soldier is in direct threat. Given the effectiveness of the rocket attacks, maybe teh rockets are closer to a militant shooting a rifle at a tank from behind a civilian.

Beyond that, these are accusations by the IDF. Which is not exactly an impartial 3rd party. The UN claims the weapons found in a vacant school recently were the first time. There is little to no hard evidence supporting the IDF's claims, other than that there is rocket fire from within Gaza. Amnesty and Human Rights Watch have investigated and not been able to confirm. Despite this Israel has been bombing protected sites for years. There is actually a process for handling these situations under the Geneva Conventions and it has not been followed.

And yes, Israel has prosecuted it's own soldiers. Twice, after a good deal of publicity. And, as I said, it's given them a slap on the wrist.

Israel can't be at war with Hamas. Not legally. That's the point. They can fight them, but they can't be at war with them. Legally that matters. They have obligations and responsibilities that they are ignoring and violating.

Frankly, what they should do is not conduct military operations in a dense urban environment unless seriously threatened. Not use attempt to provoke Hamas into open conflict for political advantage. Not use the excuse of looking for kidnapped teens they already know are dead to rampage through the West Bank. Not try to assassinate Hamas agents and kill a dozen civilians when you screw up (that was before the current mess, btw). Not do all of this as Hamas and Fatah are working on a reconciliation and unity government, while Hamas is doing it's best to hold to the last peace agreement and is likely to moderate even further as well as play an overall lesser role in the new government. Because what it looks like they're doing is trying to stop that.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Arturius Fischer wrote:
What should Hamas do? Not hide amongst civilians (not that they tell the difference). Not put stockpiles inside neutral or protected areas? That'd be a simple start, if you want to try and make the sides equivalent.

Please point to the map where exactly they would go to do that.

Can you explain how to carry out a fight against someone as heavily armed as Israel in that fashion AND accomplish their goals?

Forget "accomplish their goals". How about "Get all the moderates who aren't willing to hide among civilians killed off, leaving only those who aren't so scrupulous."

Evolution in action. (Well, not really, but in the metaphorical sense a group can evolve.)


While Hamas has as it's stated goals taking over all of Israel and killing all the Jews, it's made remarkably little progress towards either goal and has often made overtures towards compromise and moderation. Not changing it's charter, but long term peace deals and power sharing arrangements with Fatah.

Meanwhile, while Israel does not claim to want to take over all of Palestine or kill Arabs, it's making steady progress towards the first and racking up quite a body count on the second. But it talks much nicer about it.

If you look at public statements, Israel is obviously the good guy and Hamas the dangerous aggressor. If you look at actions, things are much less clear.


Arturius Fischer wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
Let me ask you a question - let's say you found an enemy soldier in a time of war. You get to kill him - that's how wars are like. Now, let's say that a civilian from that man's nationality is standing between you and your enemy, shielding him with his body. He is doing so willingly. From behind him, the enemy soldier shoots at you. Do you fire at the soldier, even if you know the man shielding him is very likely to die?

First off, he doesn't "get" to kill the enemy, he HAS to kill the enemy. Both because he's at war, and because the other guy is trying to kill him.

Second off, there's a difference between using someone as a shield against their will and someone willingly trying to shield a fighter. However, despite this difference, NEITHER IS A REASON NOT TO SHOOT BACK. In either case, the shielded party is trying to kill the example soldier.

First, this is an analogy, not the actual situation. As far as I know Hamas hasn't even been accused of this. Not in the direct, close range shooting at the IDF from behind Palestinian civilians. They've been accused of firing rockets from near civilians, storing weapons near civilians, having civilians on/in buildings Hamas was using, etc. The IDF however actually has used Palestinian civilians in the way described. We know this because they've convicted a few of their soldiers for this. Sentenced them to a slap on the wrist (demotions and suspended sentences for war crimes).

Second, even in the analogy, are there no other choices? Sure, fire back to defend yourself, but do you have to push the attack despite civilian casualties? Theoretically, sometimes you might, but in a situation like this where Israel is so dominant militarily, it's hard to think they can't find another way.

Third, as you say below, this isn't war. Not just in terms of goals, but even legally. Gaza is not a separate country at war with Israel. Under international law, Israel remains the occupying power over Gaza. That gives them obligations they are ignoring. They have the right to fight resistance movements, but they also have the responsibility to protect Palestinian civilians.


It's still a pretty small fraction of WBL.

Maybe you don't actually need every spell in the game.


Set wrote:
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:

For me, because Id love to be able to play a cleric that raises the fallen to to fight the good fight once more (with their permission). And to have that in PFS or whatever game where the GMdoesnt default to Golarion canon.

Its also a wonky idea (that all/most Undead are auto evil just because they are undead). Personally, in my opinion, it stifles options and creativity rather than invites it.

Even putting aside the corpse stuff, communicating with ancestral spirits, seeking their counsel, propitiating and honoring them, etc. has been a thing for millennia, and continues on in various cultures even to this day.

The concept that once a person dies their body and soul *both* become corrupt and malicious and / or insane is both kind of bleak (a lifetime of being a paladin or pacifist healer or whatever, and you get killed by a shadow and your soul turns evil (and possibly smarter and / or more charismatic than you ever were..., but forgets all the skills you had???), and you are now doomed to go to Abaddon when the shadow that is all that is left of your soul is destroyed, since you are now an evil abomination, through no choice of your own? Grim.) and takes away a ton of potential, as well as creating a surreal sort of situation where every culture essentially hates and fears their ancestors. Grandma's love causes her to manifest to distract orc raiders from the children hiding under the bed, and, 'oh wait, it's Golarion,' so instead she kills the kids and has to be smited by a Paladin or something. A young couple seek the blessing of their ancestors on their union, and instead get level-drained to death, because every soul that has left its body is Always Evil.

I actually just read a book that had an interesting take on that. Amanda Downum's The Drowning City. The rebels have enlisted the ghosts of their dead relatives, who are stuck as ghosts because they weren't allowed to bury the bodies with the proper ceremonies. The ghosts aren't naturally evil and are willing to cooperate, but they also hunger for flesh again and the easiest to posess are their close relatives, particularly children.

So not innately evil, but definitely to be feared. It's only desperation that drives the rebels to use them rather than find a way to help them pass on.


Odraude wrote:
Honestly, given my general curiosity and my constant tiffs with Sincubus, I always hover a person's name if it's purple :p

I don't think I'd noticed that purple means alias. :)


wraithstrike wrote:
thejeff wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


Example:
Drow: Hello sir.
Player: <Attacks and kills drow>

Result: The dead drow was evil, but he had heard of the PC's and he wanted them to kill another drow who was planning a raid on the town. The dead drow had double...

Alternate result:

Player: Hmmm. He seemed politer than normal, maybe something was up? Better safe than sorry, though.
Cleric Player: Speak with Dead Why were you here?

Death is not the end.

That is what sense motive is for, and you are assuming speak with dead is available, and that the drow will fail the save if it is availible.

Unless they had met the drow before they would not know how polite he normally is. I don't know if Golarion drow have the same house structure as FR drow, but in FR the landscape was political, so other drow were always polite if they were below you. In this case the drow needing the PC's help would be likely below then from his point of view.

That's politer than "Die foul surfacer!", not politer than this particular Drow usually is.


wraithstrike wrote:


Example:
Drow: Hello sir.
Player: <Attacks and kills drow>

Result: The dead drow was evil, but he had heard of the PC's and he wanted them to kill another drow who was planning a raid on the town. The dead drow had double...

Alternate result:

Player: Hmmm. He seemed politer than normal, maybe something was up? Better safe than sorry, though.
Cleric Player: Speak with Dead Why were you here?

Death is not the end.


Legion Janus wrote:

And my actual goal was not to create a rift, but to demonstrate an existing rift before moving on to discussing the idea of using education to hopefully close it and to get people to thinking about the political system in itself and how screwed up of a worldview it operates under in hopes of leading people to discussing different strategies for utilizing that worldview to advance causes and correct problems. Unfortunately, that got lost in the course of the conversation.

Have you noticed yet that these clever conversation plans of yours don't tend to work out?

Legion Janus wrote:
I included "Janus" in the name and said I'm a lobbyist. I thought it was rather obvious.

As I said, I should have realized. I tend to take aliases at face value, unless something slaps me in the face.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
taldanrebel2187 wrote:

Drow are a race of chaotic evil demon worshipers. Anyone that knows what they are will probably draw their weapons or kill them on sight. Those that don't will still get a creepy vibe, and probably deny them entrance. It's a case of BUT I WANT TO PLAY DRIZZT.

The "get more information" attitude gets the town burned down. Red dragons are chaotic evil. You don't negotiate with chaotic evil in fantasy games. You kill it...

Shooting at the dragon that might just be passing by also gets the town burned down.

Even if it is evil, it's probably worth trying to avoid a fight. Or try to set the fight up on your terms. Probably worth casting defensive buffs while you wait to see if it's going to attack the town, though. And start getting the non-combatants undercover. And bucket teams.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
taldanrebel2187 wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:
Jeven wrote:
Is it practical to attempt to parlay with every monster you meet, on the 1/1000 that it might be good?

No, but it's "Good".

No, it isn't. Good is not stupid. Good heroes would not sit there and look at a Red Dragon flying above their town. They would shoot it down and kill it.

BUT WAIT GUYS IT MIGHT BE GOOD. JUST WAIT. LETS TALK TO IT. Sorry, don't make me laugh.

Actually, what Good heroes do is nothing to attract it's attention while it's flying above their town. If it attacks, kill it. If it flies by, track it and get a force ready to deal with it, outside of town, away from civilians and property damage. Send for help, if you can. If it's willing to talk, talk, unless you're sure it's a threat (even to others) and sure you can handle it.

That's because Good isn't stupid.


Legion Janus wrote:

Two even more silly things are the idea that trans women can't be feminists or that lesbians can't be feminists. And I wish I was making either of those up.

I'm waiting for someone to connect what I said about different realities and which one I deal with most often with what I've said on here. It should put what I've said in an entirely different light.

Oh, I'm sorry. Should have realized from the "political reality" talk. I really need to look at aliases and realize who I'm talking to. It all makes sense now.


Mystic_Snowfang wrote:
Necromancer wrote:
At the end of the day, I see no difference between a choral angel and a ceustodaemon other than that they're X alignment, they took different courses at the Outsider Academy, and they're appearance was shaped by their training.

You mean aside from size, flying ability, weaknesses, abilities, immunities, origins, ecology, behavior...

They're two outsiders who happen to both be CR 6.

Aside from their very nature.

Choral Angels wrote:
They manifest from the souls of the pious dead who possessed exceptional musical talent and pure spirits in life.
ceustodaemon wrote:
Some claim the Four Horsemen created these creatures to serve as summoning fodder. Others believe that they form from neutral evil souls who commit suicide.

They weren't trained. They didn't take courses at the Outsider academy. There isn't an Outsider Academy, for that matter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
it isn't evil to kill Drow on sight..... if its Drizzt Do'Urden that guy's time has gotta be up right?

That's the best argument yet. Actually, Drizzt's alright, but it's worth killing any other ones just on the off chance they're Drizzt clones.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Better_with_Bacon wrote:


When hobgoblins come into a town to loot and pillage, that's 'evil'
But when humans go into an hobgoblin village to loot and pillage, that's 'heroic'

I'm sure the hobgoblins might disagree with that philosophical outlook.

When humans go into an hobgoblin village to loot and pillage, that's 'evil'.

When humans go into an hobgoblin village to stop the hobgoblins who've attacked the human village , that's 'heroic'. If they loot and pillage while they're there, that's part of the game.

I can't remember the last time I played a game that involved sacking humanoid villages for the fun of it. Probably something like Keep on the Borderlands, back in middle school. The vast majority of modules I see today make sure there's a suitably heroic motivation to back up the desire for loot and xp.

Hell, I even played one homebrew game awhile back where we rescued the lizardman village from the evil elven slavers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Snow wrote:

@Anklebiter - I think most of what you said in your replay to me is reasonable. I did misread a couple of things in that article (honestly, once I saw that line that quoted the Hamas twitter claims, I just shook my head and, perhaps prematurely, decided not to take it seriously because it didn't seem to take reality seriously).

However, I do think you cheat once in your replay -

Quote:
As to your hypothetical question, I have no answer, because as a lifelong opponent of imperialist militarism, I would never voluntarily serve in an occupation army. If drafted, I'd either follow the precedent of the refuseniks and refuse to serve, or the Bolsheviks and organize for international proletarian socialist revolution within the army.

We are discussing military ethics. The whole context of the discussion is an attempt to discern which bastard is doing what horrible thing currently. The line I'm holding is that I feel that the IDF is being treated unfairly - that it is blamed for it's actions, when often there simply is no better way to accomplish it's objectives, and no army would really fare much better in there situations. By the way - while I am not as anti military as you are, I would have never agreed to fight or kill anyone, especially not in the kind of circumstances as in the current war.

So dodging a truly difficult question (the kind of question that unsophisticated, normal, frightened kids in uniform - that is, IDF soldiers - face now every hour of every day) with a noncommittal "can't answer because I'll never be in that situation" is not a serious response. The entire point I was trying to make is that things are not as clear cut as that article made them out to be in the question of civilians purposefully grouping around Hamas operatives to protect them.

Of course much of the worst of this isn't done by "unsophisticated, normal, frightened kids in uniform", especially ones in imminent danger from Hamas operatives being shielded by civilians, it's being done by airstrikes and missiles and artillery, generally from a nice safe distance. The kids on the ground aren't so much the problem. Though there were some nasty incidents in previous operations and I'm sure more will come to light in the aftermath of this one.

Nonetheless, it's not the soldiers I blame, it's the leaders - political and military. They set the objectives. They know how the operation will go. They know that any military operation in this kind of urban setting will have a high civilian toll, even without human shields. They also know that it's futile, militarily. Mowing the lawn, as it's been called. Even assuming this was about the rockets, peace deals slow the rockets to a trickle, offensives bring far more. Of course, that's not the point, just an excuse.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Because Hamas has absolutely no reason to lie about committing war crimes, amIright?

"Look, I am not a fan of Hamas. You can look through my post record in this thread and the one Lord Snow started last time.It wouldn't surprise me if they did use human shields; at the same time, I'm not just going to accept the word of you, Lord Snow or, particularly, Doug's Workshop."

Hmm, I wonder what that might mean.

Especially since the video was submitted as evidence that Hamas had admitted to using its people as human shields. It's hardly reasonable to make that claim for the video, then claim the person in the video is lying when when he doesn't admit to doing so.

He may be lying. They may be using people as human shields. This video is not evidence of them committing war crimes.

Personally, I'm going with the UN, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty Int.


Ascalaphus wrote:

The cute thing is that a spell costs level^2)*10gp to scribe, and its level in pages.

Meaning that a level 1 spell takes up 10gp per page, while a level 9 spell takes 81gp per page. I imagine at some point it becomes an exercise in just completely coloring in pages in your spell book.

The higher level spells probably require rarer and more expensive inks and other ingredients, not more ink.


Irontruth wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Hmm, well, I'm nowhere near looking through all of the links yet, so it is quite possible that I am falling victim to Islamist propaganda, but I'll link them anyway:

Five Misconceptions About the Israel-Palestine Conflict by Hessam Akhlaghpour

In particular, I was interested in the assertions in Point 4:

Misconception 4. Hamas uses human shields.

** spoiler omitted **...

The Palestinian Interior Minister disagrees.Last week, a vacant UN school was found to be storing rockets. It was directly in between two other schools that were being used as shelters for 3000 civilians.

Putting civilians in danger is a matter of inevitability though, whether Hamas puts rockets near them or not... because there's no where else to put them. So then it comes down to the simple fact that the very act of resistance means that civilians are endangered.

Of course the misconceptions article describes the weapons in that school as "the first of its kind", despite the IDF claiming this kind of thing and using it as justification in previous operations.

The article also points out that the IDF has used Palestinians as human shields, in the most direct and egregious fashion, and the soldiers involved have suffered only minor punishments.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anonymous Visitor 163 576 wrote:

And you've proved my point. Monsters that are just there for you to kill aren't very interesting.

If you run into soldiers from an opposing nation, you can bribe them, insult them, cooperate against a common foe, or challenge them to a tug of war. There are options there.

Yes, you can still interact with other players and with NPC's. You're right. But see how that works? You're interacting with the non-automatically evil parts of the game....

Hell, you can do the same with the automatically evil ones too. Maybe not the tug of war, but you probably can't do that with a patrol from a nation you're at war with either.

You may be justified in automatically killing them because they're evil, that doesn't mean it's always the best strategic or tactical choice. Maybe you want to question them. Maybe you want to disguise yourselves and infiltrate. Maybe you want to follow them back. Maybe they can be bribed - evil certainly isn't immune to corruption. Maybe they can be tricked into fighting another group.
And of course all that is the same whether they're evil because they're racially evil or evil because these particular ones are evil.

If you think the only thing possible to do with evil monsters is just kill them on sight, you're sorely limited.


Drejk wrote:
Duh. B~@!~ing on my country degrading social politics continues. I just read an article about Polish Ministry Of Foreign Affairs removing from their guide for Poles going abroad list of countries where being non-hetero might lead to imprisonment or execution... Reason? "Ministry cannot favor any social group or be suspected of aiding any worldview option"... WTF?! Warning people that they might get murdered by barbarians violating basic human rights is favoring someone's worldview? Seriously?

Of course it is. It's favoring the worldview that LGTBQ people shouldn't be imprisoned or killed. That's a controversial worldview in many places.


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

An interesting thing about demon: "demon" comes from "dæmon" which from "δαίμων" (daímōn). The term demon has, over the years, been vilified thanks to Christian influence (whether intentionally or not) in English.

Demons were never "always evil" entities. That's a bone I've had to pick RPGs for years...

And by "never" you mean "always in the English language", just not in the root languages it comes from.
I mean the word encompasses a group of entities too large and variable to lump together into an always-evil category. It should have been used in place of "outsider" in my opinion.

But not in English usage, correct? Certainly not in modern English common use.

Besides, demons were in the game long before the category "outsider" was invented.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Necromancer wrote:

An interesting thing about demon: "demon" comes from "dæmon" which from "δαίμων" (daímōn). The term demon has, over the years, been vilified thanks to Christian influence (whether intentionally or not) in English.

Demons were never "always evil" entities. That's a bone I've had to pick RPGs for years...

And by "never" you mean "always in the English language", just not in the root languages it comes from.


Anonymous Visitor 163 576 wrote:

More to the point, it's stupid. Not a stupid action per se, but a stupid way to play the game.

Whenever we have EVIL races, then there's no thought or choice involved. Since we're the good guys, we can attack them, and we don't have any pesky morality or conflicts to deal with.

There's also no story.

You've successfully turned a role-playing game into a dull button-mashing affair. Instead of pressing X fifty times to win, you instead say "I full attack" fifty times to win.

Is that fun? Not for me.

Look at Game of Thrones. You know why it's so good? Because you can relate to every side. That gives us drama, and great characters.

And a shout out to Quinn Murphy for showing me this problem so clearly.
www.thoughtcrimegames.net/new-rules-of-fantasy-1-evil-is-a-choice/

Meh. You can tell good stories either way. They're just different stories.

A war with a true innate evil race or force can still have interesting, even moral choices. Obviously, tactics and strategy, but how far are you willing to go to stop them? What are you willing to sacrifice?

Sure, if it's just an encounter with a bunch of orcs for you to kill, there's not much there. But the same thing is true, if it's just a bunch of human bandits. If they're still just there for you to kill, what does it matter whether they're innately evil or not?

But then, I'm not really fond of Game of Thrones.


Mine all mine...don't touch wrote:
As someone who routinely says the wrong thing at the wrong time I found both jokes amusing and posted with no malice, since when is it wrong to laugh? I don't think anyone here intended to be insensitive just to make somebody laugh. Mission accomplished.

I have to say I chuckled at it too.

It reminded me of a blurb for an old S. Gross cartoon book

Quote:
The kind of thing where you laugh hysterically for five minutes then say "That's not funny!"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Set wrote:
bob_the_monster wrote:
Drow seem to be pretty much universally reviled in lore.

In Golarion, 99 out of 100 people don't even know that Drow exist, let alone that they are evil demon-worshippers who probably eat babies and kick puppies and grind up and snort rainbows. (And the 1 in 100 who do are high ranking elven leaders, are part of a secret society like the Lantern Bearers, or have just completed Second Darkness, and are 15th level or so.)

The elves have kept the existence of the Drow secret from all other surface races, and there are entire elven communities that don't even know that they exist (the forsaken elves in the Mwangi Expanse, for instance, are a continent away from the nearest Drow community, which is almost 1000 miles to the north, and across an ocean).

So, yeah, anyone who has their character freak at the sight of a Drow and goes to kill it is either playing someone who psychotically attacks *any* elf (or humanoid, or living creature, or whatever) on sight, and is probably playing an evil and / or insane character, or is a meta-gamer, and should be shunned with great shunning.

If you're not playing in Golarion, or in a version of Golarion in which Drow have invaded the surface world or something, and are widely known as bad mofos, then it's at least not meta-gaming any more, although it's still a bit squiffy to murder folk because other folk of that skin color once did something bad, under the assumption that some people, color-coded for your convenience, are only for killing.

It might be a good *idea* to kill them on sight. But it probably won't be a good *act.*

Morality and pragmatism aren't always comfortable bedfellows, which is one of the many reason that doing the good thing is rarely the same as doing the easiest thing or the safest thing.

Some courage may be required, to walk the moral road.

Yeah, pretty much this: "Why are you killing the funny looking elf?"

OTOH, if you are aware of what Drow are and don't want to take any chances: Attack first, kill if you can't take them alive. Then use Speak with Dead to find out what's going on and then Raise them and apologize if you made a mistake.
Magic makes ethics more complicated. Or simpler. I'm not sure which.


It's funny, because the same exact things have been said about feminists since the days of the suffragettes. The words change, some bits of the rhetoric, but the general theme of "feminists are man-haters" runs straight and true for 100 years.
Who knows, maybe it's finally true.

I don't buy it.


Given the new crop of Palestinians with friends and relatives killed by Israel, I wouldn't hold my breath either. Lots of new recruits is more likely.


taldanrebel2187 wrote:

It's the element of realism. If you're a guy in full plate walking down a narrow hall, people on the other side of a thin wooden door are going to know you are coming. Because CLANK CLANK CLANK.

If the party has reason to suspect danger ahead, then they can gamble and send the Rogue ahead. The rogue can sneak up and listen at the door, pick the lock, disable traps and so forth. Or send the BSF crashing through.

And then the Clanky fighter still has to walk up to the door, so unless you're gonna have the rogue open the door and attack solo, they're still gonna know. A round or so less warning.

And that's assuming there's a door.


memorax wrote:

Well said LazarX I completely agree.

thejeff wrote:

Obviously, as I said before, they need to bring in enough to pay the bills, but that's very different than being focused only on the quarterly profit statements.

They are still in it to make a profit. Big or small. Privatly or publically owned. It does not matter. a person or group start a company to make a profit It should at least be one of the goals imo. Bills, staff, priting costs etc it all needs to be paid. No difference between a big or small company imo.

There's a difference between "Bills, staff, priting costs etc it all needs to be paid." and making a profit. In fact all of those things are expenses and come out before any profit.

As I said in every post I've made on this topic, "they need to bring in enough to pay the bills".
Beyond that though, smaller private companies are free to have concerns other than "maximising shareholder return". If the people running the private company are in the business because of their love of the hobby, they can make decisions based on that. Based on what they'd want to play and how they want to treat their customers, rather than on what the bottom line on the spreadsheet they have to show to the corporate headquarters at the quarterly meeting.
As long as they make enough to stay in business, of course. There's always that bottom line.


daimaru wrote:
thejeff wrote:


I've really never been able to see how to run the standard "Invading the orc tribes lair" without either slaughtering the party as they face the entire tribe at once, probably from several sides, or ignoring any realistic reactions from the bad guys.

That can certainly happen, but there -are- ways to deal with it. If you're the DM have the lair set up so the orcs are spread out and can't all pile on at once. If you're the adventurers, once you're aware that you're in trouble, fall back to a defensible spot and set up a defense in depth.

If you and the DM are -both- trying to make this survivable (and you should be, if the adventurers aren't being fools) the DM should design the lair so there -is- a defensible spot. That's the ideal adventure after all. The DM shouldn't be -trying- to kill off the adventurers and they -should- be thinking, not just fools rushing in.

Granted, again, accidents happen. :)

Personally, I tend to avoid such scenarios in my design. They're a staple of published adventures though and I never can tell how they're supposed to work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Wizards is in this game to make money. So is Paizo. You don't run a company any other way because rent needs to be paid, and people have to eat. Even Paizo answers to people who hold stock in the company and expect a return on investment. That's the American way. it's also been the way since we stopped expecting hunter gatherers to feed only themselves, and we entered into a goods and services exchange.

Paizo's privately held, isn't it? Is it venture capital or actually owned by Lisa (and the other founders?).

If it's just them, it's a very different setup with different responsibilities than WtoC.

Obviously, as I said before, they need to bring in enough to pay the bills, but that's very different than being focused only on the quarterly profit statements.


ShadowcatX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Note "complaints about civilian deaths" by CNN as if both sides were equally killing civilians. This is the "anti isreali" american media.

BBC Gaza death toll over 1,000 - Israeli toll up to 42 The palastinians have killed TWO civilians in this flare up.

Look at that bomb crater that used to be a house and tell me with a strait face they're trying to minimize casualties.

Whose fault do you think the civilian deaths are, the ones pulling the trigger, or the targets who are hiding behind the civilians and hiding weapons in civilian targets?

Also, for what it is worth, the IDF has said that some of the Palestinian casualties aren't actually from their fighting, (the UN school for example, they claim their mortar caused 0 casualties) implying that HAMAS might be purposefully killing their own just to be able to blame it on Israel.

Considering that requires the UN personel on the scene to be shills for Hamas, I'm with BNW on this one.


daimaru wrote:
taldanrebel2187 wrote:


Intelligent foes should attempt to get the ambush if the party is stupid. I've had players rage at me over it, but the reality is that if you go clanking around a dungeon, comically kicking doors down... Well, that crap has consequences. An intelligent enemy is going to hide, flank and try to take your butt down. Not just sit there like a lump on a log.
Yup, really. They deserve it. OTOH, that wastes a huge amount of prep work (usually the whole first session) so as DM you can give them some sort of do over or maybe just not have quite so lethal a monster on the other side of the doors until they smarten up a bit.

I'm always curious exactly how this is supposed to work.

I mean, I get the "not kicking doors down" thing. Use someone with open locks or magic, fine.
But are we really supposed to not bring anyone in heavy armor (clanking) or without a high stealth skill? And in any relatively close quarters organized dungeon isn't the first fight likely to make enough noise to alert the whole place anyway? If there's a chance of hearing you clank around, they're definitely going to hear swords clashing and their friends screaming as they die.

I've really never been able to see how to run the standard "Invading the orc tribes lair" without either slaughtering the party as they face the entire tribe at once, probably from several sides, or ignoring any realistic reactions from the bad guys.


daimaru wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Ambushes aren't necessarily from the front. And the stealthy type tend to be vulnerable if they're spotted.

Sure, but then they weren't (usually) taking the terrain and situation into consideration. The stealth character usually works best out front in a dungeon checking for doors and traps. Out in the open where your party can't really hide, hold him back and let the tanks lead.

And an ambush from behind gives -everyone- a chance to spot them as they go by.

Not all areas are straight single corridors with doors conveniently sealing off the rooms. Anytime you pass an intersection, a clever enemy who knows the layout could be circling back behind you. Think Tucker's kobolds. :) Though it doesn't have to be that nasty.

If all the enemies aren't carefully secured behind doors, the scout can easily be spotted, especially if there's nothing to hide him in the hall except darkness and the enemy is under cover and has darkvision. And there very often isn't anything in the average hallway - which might just mean, don't scout.


daimaru wrote:
Axe Haggart wrote:


There is a handful of reasons for this. Players HATE being caught constantly in ambushes. Also the look of disgust I have seen on peoples faces when their character dies before they can act in combat. I have seen people quit games over it.
ks.
What were such fragile characters doing out front anyway? Someone stealthy if you have them, one or two tanks to protect the wizards and range specialists, then the ones likely to get hurt when surprised. If they were shoving ahead then they kind of deserved what they got.

Ambushes aren't necessarily from the front. And the stealthy type tend to be vulnerable if they're spotted.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Craig Bonham 141 wrote:
Trust? I don't trust any company. Companies (with very few exceptions) exist for one singular reason, to make a profit. Any ethics they exhibit usually exist only due to limitations of law.

That's more and more true the farther up the corporate food chain you go. All businesses need to make enough revenue to stay afloat, pay their workers and the owners, that's certainly true.

But for many small businesses, especially in what's esentially a niche hobby market, profit is far from the only driver. Even many brick and mortar mom & pop businesses are more in it for the love of doing what they're doing rather than to drag every last possible penny out of it. As long as they make enough to keep doing it, that's enough.
Paizo is still a private company. They're not responsible to shareholders and driven by quarterly earnings reports. Obviously, they want to make money, but they're still at a scale where it's possible to have ethics, rather than just business decisions. Their treatment of LGBTQ issues in the game is an example of this. I don't believe that's a cold money motivated business decision (though they might well have backed off if the initial tentative moves had obviously hurt them), but a reflection of the personal beliefs of the owner and management.

WotC is not in that position. They're owned by a large corporate company who can't care beyond the profit numbers. That's the way it is.


Headfirst wrote:
thejeff wrote:
It depends on how many times you have to roll those rolls.
Have you ever played Classic Battletech? You roll hit locations for every attack. Yes, it takes a little time to do that, but I think the results are worth it. It's more fun to imagine my war machine stomping around the battleground with a kink in its knee and one missing arm than it is to imagine my ranger standing on the battlefield with 42 of 65 hit points.

I wasn't really talking about rolling for the hit locations, but about my concern that it will be common to only fail the fort save on a Nat 1. Going back and forth waiting for someone to roll a Nat 1 enough to be sufficiently crippled to lose is not going to be fun. Even if you do get to imagine a crippled arm at the end of it.


Freehold DM wrote:
Legion Janus wrote:

I've been gone for awhile for personal reasons. But, as part of being gone, I've been made aware of something important... and I need to bring it up on here because it is related.

A story about what charges of inappropriate conduct are common to modern feminism that anti-feminism gets right. Please give it a read; it's not misogynist in the least. If anything, it's utterly fair in its examination of the item at hand (and, it does call the anti-feminists out on some B.S. they spout).

Now, how does the above relate to this topic?

There is this article from Jezebel that discusses trans women and issues of socialization in relation to feminism. I would suggest giving it a read; it's an interesting article and the author makes some interesting comments. The accuracy of what the author has to say about the experiences of trans women does not matter; what matters is this article presents two ways that trans women are viewed within feminism. What matters even more is what this article does: It presents two ways trans women are involved in the Gender War. One in which they are the enemy, and one in which they are a weapon against the enemy.

It is unfortunate this situation exists. But it does not change that some people are trying to decide what position trans women have in the Gender War without even consulting them. Even going as far as to lump them in with men in quite a few cases.

I am shaking my head at this. And, unfortunately, this means that trans women may have to be very aware what the extremist feminists are saying about men because some of those extremists are applying the same to trans women.

I really enjoyed the first article linked, it really does a good job of pointing out why feminism and I don't get along in some places. At this point in the movement, I wonder if they(yes, I'm making a sweeping generalization here, deal with...

Well, in the real world women don't usually have the natural physical ability to rip the head off the nearest man, so the more common reaction to someone who offends you is to be offended and possibly to express that verbally - or in writing if the whole thing is online. It's pretty rare to hear of men being actually physically assaulted for offending women. (At least by the women - in more traditional cultures it was and is common for the man responsible for the woman to do so on her behalf.)

And really, I wouldn't take the Black Furies as anything like a fair introduction to feminist ideals. An extremist parody, if anything.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
williamoak wrote:

And to be honest, I'm unsure who would win. The west has strong militaries & the best tech. BUT they have almost no manufacturing left.

The east has excellent manufacturing, a well-develloped resources sector (and the willingness to pollute) and massive numbers.

There is a pretty good chance that WWIII would not be a war of production like WWII, however, because it takes a massive amount of worker expertise and time to construct an F-16 compared to a P-51. F-35 is even worse. It's also much, much, much harder to retool factories now compared to WWII. We couldn't even have that done by the end of the first year. Do to the massive number of SAMs possessed by both NATO and Russia, air forces are not believed to have a particularly long life span. It will most likely hit the stage where production can't even keep up with a small fraction of losses rapidly. Tanks are in a similar situation. It also takes a LOT longer to train competent pilots and tankers than it used to. Chances are, this would be a war fought with whatever vehicles you brought on day one and dug out of your reserves. Ammunition and small arms will comprise most of production, which the US is as capable of manufacturing as Russia, if not more so. The war itself either ends quickly as air forces and tank divisions get depleted and can't be replaced, causing one side to fold or press the button, or it grinds down into trench warfare because there aren't sufficient vehicular assets for a mobile fight.

You're right about air forces having a short lifespan, but I suspect that WWIII will be as different from both WWI and WWII as they were from each other, and for roughly the same reason -- the current crop of generals don't really know how to use new technology on a large scale and so are overinvesting in new iterations of fundamentally old technology.

WWI, for example, literally opened with a cavalry charge. (Aug 22, 1914, 4th Dragoon Guards). Of course, between the...

Einstein had a theory on that.


Freehold DM wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:

How did I know you would go in this direction?

Sam in his costume is all well and good, but ensures he will remain a side-kick with no title of his own beyond a limited series. An eternal second banana getting a pat on the back every now and again. Which seems to be how you like it.

I'm surprised to see you admit that Sam can't support his own book.

I'm just arguing for the same diversity we're seeing in yet another 'not Steve as Cap' storyline and 'Not Thor as Thor.' What's wrong with diversity?

I maintain that you're still encouraging a second banana/sidekick treatment of black characters with an eye towards replacing them with white characters at the earliest opportunity- this isn't the first time you've made the White Panther "joke" if it is indeed a joke.

Of course Sam can't hold down his own book- he's never been on his own as a superhero beyond a token black character- has he even been given his own limited series? This has been quietly encouraged by the mostly white fanbase of Captain America. Are they all bigots who want Sam out of the uniform for the color of his skin alone? No, but I doubt they would buy a Falcon comic book if it came out, and will loudly clamor for Sam to not be Captain America, as you are now. It's not bigotry as much as a stubborn ignorant segregation to keep a black character in their place- far, far beneath that of the great white hero. That you maintain this attitude- perhaps out of ignorance- and then clamor for diversity is worrysome. To paraphrase a movie I hate, I don't think that word...

In fairness, most characters can't hold down their own books. Black, white, male, female, former sidekick or original hero. It's hard to get a new superhero enough traction for a long term book.

I doubt Steve Rogers could hold his own book, if it didn't have the Captain America label splashed all over it.

That said, I probably wouldn't buy Falcon book regularly. I'm also not buying the Cap book now and probably won't pick it up when Sam takes over as Cap. For me it depends almost entirely on the writer and there aren't a lot I'm willing to follow.


Headfirst wrote:
As for slowing down combat, I think it's worth it to add some really visceral moments. Taking an arrow to the arm, hitting a troll square in the head, knowing that a spike trap disabled one of your legs... those help put you in the moment. If the time it takes to roll on hit location charts can be "paid for" by removing other boring parts of combat, all the better!

It depends on how many times you have to roll those rolls. I'm worried that some fights will just be waiting for someone to roll a Nat 1 on their Fort save, because neither side has enough damage to hurt the other.

I'd still love to see a combat example.


Freehold DM wrote:
thejeff wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:

And Israel is willing to call a cease-fire in order to allow Humanitarian aid into Palestine, if Hamas, and the rest of Palestine is.

Quote:
"We are now maintaining an unlimited humanitarian cease-fire," Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor told CNN on Monday. "Our troops will only fire if they come under direct attack."

Are they allowing Gazans to come back into the areas they control? To search for survivors, or bodies or belongings. They weren't in the previous ceasefire.

Are they continuing to seek out and destroy tunnels, possibly with people inside (or in the buildings above)? They were in the previous ceasefire.
There seems to be an issue on both sides, where "cease fire" really means "reload".

That's always true. No military, under a potentially temporary ceasefire, isn't going to do what it can to prepare for the next phase of fighting. At best it's "Reload and negotiate".

This was more like "Reload and continue." Normally with a ceasefire you not only cease actually shooting, but you try to separate the two parties so they don't clash. The IDF continued operations in Palestinian territory, in an urban environment, searching for Hamas tunnels. I'm amazed that ceasefire held as long as it did. I suspect the IDF mostly "reserved the right" to blow up tunnels, but mostly waited until after it expired to actually do so.


ShadowcatX wrote:

And Israel is willing to call a cease-fire in order to allow Humanitarian aid into Palestine, if Hamas, and the rest of Palestine is.

Quote:
"We are now maintaining an unlimited humanitarian cease-fire," Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor told CNN on Monday. "Our troops will only fire if they come under direct attack."

Are they allowing Gazans to come back into the areas they control? To search for survivors, or bodies or belongings. They weren't in the previous ceasefire.

Are they continuing to seek out and destroy tunnels, possibly with people inside (or in the buildings above)? They were in the previous ceasefire.


NobodysHome wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

"No" what?

Falsely prosecuting day care workers for using killer robots to sodomize toddlers is pretty bizarre.

thejeff clarified; when I first looked at your post it looked like you were saying there was no Satanism scare of the 1970's. I was contradicting that. But you were saying that the Satanism scare wasn't as bad as McCarthyism.

I wasn't around for McCarthy, but as far as I know you and thejeff are correct, it was far worse.

Which is scary, because I still remember the strong vibe that every family had at least one teenage daughter who'd joined a brainwashing cult and needed rescue. McCarthyism had to be out-and-out terrifying to beat that.

And the false accusation of teachers goes on to this day -- you have policies where you MUST keep your door open whenever meeting with students, or have a second adult present. Because one kid who decides to yell "Child molester" because he or she got a B instead of an A is enough to end your career even now.

a) I really don't remember the Satanism scare as being that big a deal on a personal/local level. But my parents are sane and I was probably our of the country for part of it. I remember news stories about it, but no real effect on anyone I knew.

b) While I'm sure false accusation of teachers goes on today, so does actual child molestation and statutory rape. On a much greater scale than false accusations. Though without any Satanic conspiracies or any such.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
thejeff wrote:


And when a business screws me over, even if it's in a perfectly legal fashion, I reserve the right to be upset about and not give them my business anymore. That, even more than the letter of the law, is how you get businesses to behave well.
True but good luck trying to get them to behave unless one has the money to do so. Boycotts only work if a majority participate. Not to mention does that mean that because Drivethru made the mistake of selling Wotc pdfs without their permission. That you will no longer give them your money either. Wotc pulled the pdfs yet Drivethru where the ones that started the entire mess in the first place.

As I understand it, Drivethru had permission to sell the PDFs. If they did not, that would be an entirely different story. WotC pulled with less than a full day's notice permission to sell PDFs from all it's online resellers along with their right to distribute even to those who had already purchased them. There was no mess other than the standard panic about people sharing/pirating digital content.

But you're right, I don't have any real expectations of getting them to behave. All I can do is patronize companies that treat me better.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
remember, though, is that the whole country was caught up in a massive Satanism scare at the time, and it made the Red Scare in the 50s seem normal.
Not sure I'd go that far, but, yeah, it was pretty bizarre.

I wouldn't go that far either. We're still dealing with the consequences of that.

Though the Satanism thing might have been more bizarre, it certainly wasn't as pervasive.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:

While I don't agree with Scott on everything. I do think unlike many posters on the boards he tends to be more rational and logical than most. Like it or not he is correct. Legally Wotc were in the right. Drivethru had no business selling the PDFs if they were not allowed. Morally not that much. Except morals don't pay the bills at the end of the day. Nor a accepted form of currency at any bank.

Business is not FAIR. That's why we have the 995 vs the 1%. Do I wish it were different yes. I don't think it's ever going to change. I would have done the same thing with the PDFs. I would have given a week at most three days. Then pulled the pdfs.

And when a business screws me over, even if it's in a perfectly legal fashion, I reserve the right to be upset about and not give them my business anymore. That, even more than the letter of the law, is how you get businesses to behave well.

1 to 50 of 12,780 << 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.