|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I ask again: Do you disagree with the scientific understanding of greenhouse gasses and how they affect temperature?Do you disagree with measurements showing the rise in carbon (one of those greenhouse gasses) in the atmosphere, roughly tracking the increase in human emissions?
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Lying for the Lord has a long and distinguished history. :)
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.
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.
Was it ever? (human decency or sense).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
Players aren't going to put up with a lousy GM, if they have any choice.Whether that GM is fudging dice rolls, changing DCs, or playing everything strictly by the books. I've had good and bad GMs who did both.
There's also a tendency for people to grab onto the one example of something a GM does and assume the entire game is nothing but that.
I've played with GMs who've done similar things on occasion and still let the players drive the plot off in entirely different directions. I've also played with GMs who'd never dream of fudging any rules or combat results and still road you right down the rails to their planned end.
I can tell you which I had more fun with.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
With a potential penalty. And it might backfire. And it doesn't even get you out, but just gets a bonus on the escape check.
Not the Worst Feat Ever(tm), but only because the competition is stiff.
The official rules for using the feat are probably harsher than I would have house-ruled trying to do it without the feat.
And this is why I really don't like 3d6 in order.
We've got my -8(actually lower, since I've got a 5 Cha) point buy equivalent character, along with Rynjin's 25 pb character.
At this point, I really am just going to get him killed off and reroll.
1E DMG wrote:
While it is possible to generate some fairly playable characters by rolling 3d6, there is often an extended period of attempts at finding a suitable one due to quirks of the dice. Furthermore, these rather marginal characters tend to have short life expectancy -- which tends to discourage new players, as doesn't does having to make do with some character of a race and/or class which he or she really can't or won't identify with. ... it is recommended that the following systems be used.
Yeah, it's all cool and tough and old school and everything until you actually play it.
Plus the whole thing about not being able to pick what character (class or otherwise) you want to play, since the stats are in order.
Of course, the simple solution is just to get your characters killed off quickly until you get a decent set of stats. Take the DCC approach.
It might be fun to combine 3d6 (not in order) with the everybody rolls picks from the set of rolled stats approach.
Btw, I think you're the guilty stronger character and I'm jealous weak one. :)
Well, the outer lanes do go all the way around, but you're not supposed to use them to go all the way around. At least the ones I've seen.
If there are North, East, South and West entrances to the Roundabout, you'd use the outer lane to go from North to West or possibly to South, but the inner optionally for South and definitely for West or a U-Turn. OTOH, the guy coming from the West needs to do the same, but shifted by one, so the outer loop goes all the way.
At least that's how two lanes are supposed to work. And seems to me you're still crossing traffic to get from the inner to an exit.
Paris apparently has a 12 lane rotary and I don't even want to know.
I love roundabouts. Often I'll go around a couple of times just to relax and have plenty of time to figure out which exit to use.
I've got no idea how the multilane ones work though. Don't you just get trapped in the inner circle?
Bill Dunn wrote:
Yes and no. To some extent you have to design what things are to match what the PCs are capable of. The sheer glass wall shouldn't become a DC 15 just because the PCs are low level, but at the same time you have to take into account that the sheer glass wall is a absolute barrier at low level and only a minor annoyance at high levels.
One thing that I came across when doing climate googling is that CO2 is a mild greenhouse gas... the extreme greenhouse gas is water vapor. So WHY on this green earth are environmentalists pushing Fuel Cell engines which produce STEAM?! Isn't that like saying "We can save the world from this heat spell by Burning Everything to Ash?"
Yes and no. There are more factors involved.
Simply put, air can only hold so much water vapor. Add more and it just condenses out. Carbon has no such limitation (or at least we're nowhere near it, I'm not sure).
Methane is also a stronger greenhouse gas than carbon, but it also doesn't stay in the atmosphere as long. The problem with carbon is a long-term one. The carbon we're adding to the atmosphere now will be warming the planet for centuries.
Even beyond that, it's not really relevant whether the cool scene is required for the plot or not (In the airship case, there may well be another way to forward the plot - to track the airship down or otherwise intercept the bad guys later).
It's still a cool pulpy scene and having someone fall to their death with one missed roll isn't a cool pulpy way to resolve it. Nor is everyone deciding not to bother because you guy probably won't make the jump and they don't want him to die or be left out of the next session.
That's why you apply the fail forward approach. Consequences for failure, but consequences that lead to another exciting scene rather than instant death.
That's not the intent, as I understand it.
In some cases, without time pressure, when you can try again, you could Take 10 and then roll if that doesn't work.
Well, the poster then didn't offer any support for the 30s being the hottest on record either. Poking around a little bit, the source for that seems to be record highs in the US in the 30s, still surpassed by the last decade or so, but more importantly not global.
As for the levees, without more information, I can't even find anything to debunk. I can point at the wiki entry claiming funding, rather than environmental problems:
Well in fairness, even though they had the mechanism wrong, swamps were damn unhealthy places to live. That it was bugs instead of bad air doesn't really change that.
In other words - biking on the road is banned.Except possibly in the most deserted places. Stopping and getting off the bike every time a car is spotted is far riskier than just continuing predictably. And it's not always even possible to get off the road.
So road bikes should be banned, basically. You also shouldn't be able to walk anywhere in the winter, except in those places with nice sidewalks. Or at all in places without walkable grass by the roadside.
Currently the law treats bikes as vehicles and puts them in the road.
Not primitive reasoning. You're basically saying "Some extremists within the environmental movement make suggestions that don't mesh with some other suggestions from within the environmental movement."
Those arguing for near term global scale geo-engineering efforts are far from mainstream environmentalists. Those arguing against nuclear power are much more mainstream, but certainly not 100%. Overlap between the groups hasn't been shown and it needs to be if you want to make accusations of hypocrisy or whatever it is you're claiming.
And frankly if you haven't seen squabbles about orbital lenses it's because you haven't been looking. Or possibly because it's so fringe that no one's even bothering to fight it.
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
Sidewalks, especially busy ones, are not necessarily safe places for a bike to ride, depending on how many people and objects are on the sidewalk and the state of disrepair and so forth. in some jurisdictions you're actually supposed to walk your bike when on the sidewalk, not ride it.
Sidewalks also don't always exist.
I believe it's:
When Durkon next returns home, he will bring death and destruction to us all.
Though we don't see the actual prophecy, just the report of it to the high priest.
So, if we have all this temperature rise, and nuclear energy doesn't emit CO2, why is the environmental lobby against nuclear power? Aren't we at the point where we need to grasp every single straw available to us? Considering that we could extend the fissile cycle extremely far into the future through the use of breed reactors. It just seems extremely counterintuitive, is all.
Because it has other problems. Because it's even slower to build up nuclear capacity than wind or solar, especially if you're taking the precautions needed to mitigate the other problems. Because "the environmental lobby" isn't a single unified thing.
George Carlin: Everyone driving slower than me is an idiot. Everyone driving faster than me is a maniac.
Maybe. Though I agree with the decent pension part.
I'd want to see some research backing up the "deindividualization" allows people to get PTSD. People outside the military exposed to horrible situations also get PTSD.
As for bikes... I could rant for hours about bikes but it'd just piss people off so I'll spare us all the frustration.
And anyone who rides road bikes could rant for hours about cars.
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
The "Gas Station Right" is illegal in many places, but it's a specific law, not trespassing.
OTOH, it's very common for cars to make "rolling stops" at stop signs as well, when there isn't traffic. Bikes getting down to the same speed are barely slowing down. :)
I ride with a hefty dose of caution, but I certainly don't stop and put my feet down at every stop sign. Unless someone else has the right of way, of course.
In fact, if someone else is coming, but I have the right of way and stop completely anyway, they're likely to be even more annoyed, since it'll take me noticeably longer to get through the intersection.
No. The other topic. LazarX said "but when you look at the overall curve of averages, each year, including this one is still hotter than the one preceding it." True in essence since trends are rising, but not every year hotter than the previous. Most likely just badly phrased.
Possibly because they don't want to deal with traps and just want to hand-wave them and move on?
Of course the answer here is simple: Ask them. Don't try to divine their motives from their skill numbers, just ask them what they're looking for. You may still not want to give it to them or it may conflict with what other players want from the game, but at least you know.
There is consistency between games, and consistency between sessions. You do not want the exact same thing your character did last session to be resolved differently in this session.
Rarely do you do the "exact same thing".
Some level of consistency is nice, but locking everything down to a strict mechanic for this particular case, where this particular case is determined by abstracting away a whole ton of detail anyway, isn't always the best approach.
I am kind of curious as to the source of the "Katrina affected the global climate" claim. That one's out there, even by denier standards.
At least I can look at the temperature claim and see that it was true, if you pick the right starting years and play a few tricks with averages, though it's getting harder with every passing record year.
BTW LazarX, each year isn't hotter than the one preceding it. There are ups and downs, even in the 5 year average, but the overall trend is definitely up. 2014 was a record and 2015 is on track to be another, though that could change. 2013 wasn't as hot as 2010 though and 2011 isn't in the top 10.