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. 15,416 posts (16,215 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 6 aliases.


1 to 50 of 3,025 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MagusJanus wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Fergie wrote:


The book doesn't talk much about exactly what happened, but I think it involved some catastrophic stuff on the coasts, followed by famine, disease, and lots of hardship. One of the themes of the book is that information beyond word-of-mouth just isn't available.
Then it's patently ridiculous. Ham radio with 1800s tech is trivial -- which in turn gives us universal Internet via packet radio for anyone who wants it.
That doesn't even make sense. You could get ham radio - or actual broadcast radio - with late 1800s tech, but you couldn't get Internet via packet radio without computers and you're not going to have computers with 1800s tech. Babbage engines, in theory.
The first modern analog computer was invented in 1872.

Could it handle the Internet packet radio protocol?

Hey, we don't even need the radios, we can just implement RFC-1149


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Game Master Scotty wrote:

In the sense that massive changes are on the horizon that will change the way humanity currently lives forever..

Yes.

We can not sustain the explosive population growth indefinitely.

Our increased food production, transportation and technology relies on a non sustainable resource, fossil fuels.

We will run out. It is a fact.

Will we end up in a Mad Max style world?

No.

Will the way of life we have lived, the comfort we have enjoyed and much of the technology we have created become obsolete?

You bet your bum!

Just my opinion.

As far as population goes it is expected to decline in the long term after peaking in the next 100-150 years. This is based on aging population trends and slower reproduction rates in first world nations. There will be a time in our relatively near future (ie less than 500 years) where labor jobs will be unnecessary and virtually all occupations will be research or creative.

Assuming no crash.

Also assuming we manage to restructure society so that those who can't research or produce creative works for sale have some way to survive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
I'm always amazed when these kinds of issues come up that people just don't ask their GMs to simply indicate which opponents it's okay to kill without having to resort to racial stereotyping.

I can't believe there are games where the answer isn't 'those who have actually been verified to do things where they are asking for it'.

'Oh, look, it's an (X), let's go kill it because it exists' are things I expect out of twelve-year olds, the same ones who say 'I'm going to go find a barmaid with huge (boobs) and (fornicate her against her will).'

How about "It's an (X), let's go kill it before it gets to the village and starts killing our families."

Unless you're quite the diviner, you cannot accurately predict the future. Unless you have some evidence that an attack is being planned, you have ZERO reason to launch a pre-emptive strike. That's just asinine. I wish I could make an analogy, but I can't think of a good one that doesn't go into RL religion and politics.

Do people over the age of thirteen actually run game worlds that lame anymore?

Yes, there's always the chance that this time the Viking ships are just coming to the coast to trade. We'll go down to the coast and welcome them in.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really have to say that discussions like this are the reason I like the approach 5E has taken (and that the old Basic took). Just describe what the item does without hiding details and changes behind references to other things.

However you actually want the item to work, actually say that in the item description. If you want it to cast invisibility on the wearer when the command word is said, say that. If you want it to make the wearer invisible until he attacks, say that. If you want it make the wearer invisible when the command word is said, but only for up to 3 minutes or he attacks or the ring is removed, say that.

It's a style of rules writing that purports to standardize everything but doesn't actually succeed, because it's not clear what falls into what category. It generally worked with potions, scrolls and wands since they really are standardized, but not so much with more complex items.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Prince Yyrkoon wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Prince Yyrkoon wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Prince Yyrkoon wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Prince Yyrkoon wrote:
Well, I'm most disappointed as GM. This essentially makes a hat of disguise useless for masquerading monsters hiding amidst the humans. It also seems rather counterproductive for an item ostensibly used for infiltration to require you to vocalize a command word every ten minutes to maintain a disguise.
The hat, not being a ring, might be mental activation. The ring of invisibility however is most definitely a command word. What happened was the ring discussion took over the hat thread. :)
That seems much more sensible.
Also, you're the GM. So, if you want the item to be mental activation, then make it mental activation.

Oh, I'm more than willing to do so if necessary. I do, however, prefer to run things 'by the book" as it were when possible.

That, and it just bugs me that an item whose sole purpose is to make a magical disguise has such a glaring flaw. It just makes no sense.

It depends on of you think the item is supposed to make a relatively permanent disguise or not. It's supposed to be limited by the spell's duration, so the disguise isn't supposed to be unending. Basically, the design of the item isn't really to guarantee long term undercover work; it's supposed to help you pass by the guards, etc.
Just getting past guards is what a potion is for. As a Hat of Disguise has no limit on the number of uses per day, it is effectively an unlimited duration, and as such the disguise is, in fact, unending. Requiring a command word activation would just an unnecessary burden.

That's my basic problem with all these items. Command word (or even mental) activation every 3 minutes or every 10 minutes is an unnecessary hassle, since it really is unlimited except in some odd circumstances.

I'm also amused by fretgod hand waving the price calculation of the hat away after so many pages arguing based on the price guidelines. The hat is the only item we've talked about that actually matches the command word pricing, but hey, no reason it can't be use-activated.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
CapeCodRPGer wrote:
I say reboot Green lantern with Guy Gardner.
Green Lantern is a crappy story. Period. You can try to make crap look good by adding fragrance to it, powdered sugar, and other masking effects, but it's still deep space, boring, uninspired crap. DC space stuff is absolute garbage (IMO). ;)

I grew up loving DC's space stuff, especially the Legion from around Earthwar/Pulsar Stargrave until Time Trapper/Glorith and the reboot that ruined it all.

I like the Green Lantern stories set in space far more than the Earth bound stuff.

I don't really see how anyone can write off decades of work by different creators with very different approaches as "Crappy story. Period". I'm not really a big fan of the current take on Green Lantern, but it just doesn't make any sense.

and LLL!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
lorenlord wrote:
thejeff wrote:
lorenlord wrote:
Alex Martin wrote:
Tinkergoth wrote:
As Carell said on twitter, it's a sad day for creative expression.

This right here - spot on.

Whether you find the movie to be terrible or funny; whether there's a matter of safety involved, you have essentially allowed one of the most repressive, human-rights abusive regimes on the planet dictate what's acceptable to a major corporation and countries from a computer terminal.

When a Danish cartoonist made a slight parody of Mohammed, and several Muslim countries/organizations lost their minds and made threats, everyone was standing up for the "rights of the artist." But North Korea makes vague threats based on the work of hackers over a movie and it's OK to just be like "meh, I don't even like Seth Rogen." That's missing the point, I think.

Just great to see America letting terrorist regimes push us around and dupe us. Again. Great precedence we're setting.

So what should "America" do? Should Congress pass a law requiring Sony and all the theaters to show "The Interview"?

"America" is doing nothing here. Sony is a Japanese company and they pulled the movie. The theater chains may be US companies, but they're not "America".

I dont know, maybe show some guts, tell them "screw you" and show 'Team America' like was planned? But then again, yet another gutless movie (Paramount) company caved. it's a sad precedence. They alredy cancelled one for Steve Carrell's new movies as well because of this. So I guess if your country has in issue with a movie, just say you'll bomb every theater and they'll cave. Awesome.

Again, that's not "America".

If you want to complain that giant multinational corporations won't take stands on principle if it's likely to cost them money, go for it.
But no one's going to be surprised.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
I'm always amazed when these kinds of issues come up that people just don't ask their GMs to simply indicate which opponents it's okay to kill without having to resort to racial stereotyping.

I can't believe there are games where the answer isn't 'those who have actually been verified to do things where they are asking for it'.

'Oh, look, it's an (X), let's go kill it because it exists' are things I expect out of twelve-year olds, the same ones who say 'I'm going to go find a barmaid with huge (boobs) and (fornicate her against her will).'

How about "It's an (X), let's go kill it before it gets to the village and starts killing our families."

If you're in a game where every orc you've ever met has attacked on sight (or possibly delayed or lied for tactical advantage) and no one you've talked to has known an orc to do anything else and not ambushing the orcs when you get the chance puts you at a serious tactical disadvantage then it gets really irritating when you also have to treat each and every one as an innocent until they attack you, which they unfailingly do.
They don't even necessarily have to be evil. Maybe they just consider themselves in a state of war with humans - or your people in particular.

Talk to your GM out of game and figure out what the rules are this campaign. Assumption clash sucks either way. Once you the player know what the rules are, you can choose to play the murderous racist who kills them on sight because of personal history or the naive idealist who keeps trying to trust and redeem but is always betrayed, depending on which way your GM is going.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adjule wrote:
Spook205 said wrote:
As I stated, people have this deluded and wrongheaded belief that positive change only occurs in the 'progressive' or ever changing direction. Sometimes you have to say 'we changed things, it didn't work out, let's go back.'

Too bad that will never happen. Like you said, people seem to have it in their head that the only good things are the new and different, and going back to something means you are doing it wrong. Which is funny, since Pathfinder wasn't the "new and different" edition around 2008-2009 and was the "old and bad" with a slightly new paintjob (like 1 shade darker red painted over the slightly lighter red).

But going back to something older and simpler? How dare you!

I'm not sure that's a general rule at all. Resistance to any change is pretty common, certainly. Nostalgia for the good old days is also plenty common.

Reaction to 5E seems to be much more positive than to 4E, which seems to point towards people being more willing to move back towards an older style system than forward to something completely different. OTOH, it could just be a different attitude today than then. Or 5E could just be a "better" game than 4E.


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


I'd be really hesitant to ascribe failures (or slumps) in individual game systems to something as high level as rules heavy/rules light.

I think it is a factor a big one imo. I used to just be a fan of rulesheavy rpgs. Over the years I went more towards rules light. I still enjoy rules heavy. It's not my preference. At the same time I think some in the hobby put up with rules heavy rpgs because at the time that was the only thing avaliable imo. When rules light came out being easier and faster and to learn. They went towards that. Look at the market. The main non-D&D rpgs of the moment are Fate followed by Savage Worlds. I have yet to see any new rpg that is rules heavy become popular. I might be wrong and they may very well be. So far I'm not seeing anyone releasing it.

thejeff wrote:


Over the same years Hero and GURPS haven't been doing great, Pathfinder has been growing. And SJG has been supported by Munchkin for years, IIRC. There may well be other trends or internal reasons that explain their decline.

With Hero the 5E of the book is very large. Already some who wanted to get back into the system were frightened away. With 6E they catered just to the hardcore fanabse. With no real significant changes to the system. No attempt to reduce the complexity. Made worse that it became two big books. It was almost like they listened to no one but the hardcore fans. Between the cost of both books.The cost of publishing both books. No attempt to offer much in terms of new material in a new edition. Think a 3.5. to PF. The trend towards rules light games. Vastly overestimating the popularity of the system. Compared to D&D fans the number of Hero System fans imo is nowhere even close. It was a disaster imo waiting to happen.

I think people in the hobby forget. If for example I dislike rules heavy/complex systems. Why would I invest in it another time. If the changes between editions is so small again why invest. Having bought both core books. I returned 6E and am sticking with 5E. More support and no real incentive to switch over. I liked the changes in 6E. The price tag was simply not worth it imo.
thejeff wrote:
Different people will still like each and some will like both for different things. Which games are most popular will change and that may make it look like rules light is winning or rules heavy is, but I doubt it's nearly that simple.
I think to a certain extent it is that simple. Why use the rpg that is more complex. When one can do the same in a rules light rpg. Maybe it's a changing community of gamers. To be honest I don't know. Rules complex rpgs are here to stay to be sure. I just don't see the trend suddenly revering from rules light ro complex anytime soon.

Because some people actually like complex systems. There have been plenty of people in this thread and others saying how they're not interested in 5e for more than an intro or one-off, because it's "dumbed down" and simplistic.

It's not my preference, but plenty of people do like the complexity. Plenty of people like the build game of character design. It's a large part of what made 3.x popular and a large part of what's kept PF popular. There have always been rules light games, since the early days of rpgs and there have always been rules heavy ones. I really doubt people have always been stuck playing heavy rpgs because they had no choice and are finally going to be freed to play light games.

Obviously, if you dislike rules-heavy games, there's no reason for you to invest in one. There's also no reason for you to invest in rules light games if you prefer heavy ones. Or SF if you prefer fantasy. Or generic systems if you prefer games that come with setting and are designed for a specific style. Or any other divisions you choose.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Logan1138 wrote:
strayshift wrote:


All over version 5 is D&D Dumbed Down (AD&D,D,D.) and whilst fine for a one off game or players who just want to play a 'simple system' it will eventually have to become more sophisticated to appeal to a lot of older players in the long run (although I suspect it is aiming for a 'new crowd' which is fine).

Hmmm...I'm an "older player" (age 42, began playing D&D in 1981) and I prefer the simplicity of 5E to 3.X/PF. 5E is closer to B/X and 1E in terms of options and complexity which is what I prefer. It still has a LOT of "new" stuff I don't like (spammable cantrips and non-magical healing are two examples) but I still would actually be willing to play it. I will not play 3.X/PF/4E.

I'd be willing to bet that there is a large group of players like myself (late 30's and older) who prefer 5E's simpler game to the complex "building game" of 3.X/PF/4E.

I agree. I don't think there's any correlation between "complex" and "sophisticated" or "simple" and the reverse.

There might be a very slight correlation for introductory games, but past that I've seen no such thing. If anything my tastes have shifted in the other direction as I aged and I've seen the same in others.

I certainly don't see why 5E would only be suitable for one-offs. There's certainly no reason I can see for not playing long campaigns in it. I can see why people who are focused on the build game might expect to exhaust the mechanical design space fairly quickly, but that's still going to take multiple campaigns, even without any new releases.

I could argue that complex crunch heavy systems are loved by munchkins and power gamers, while rules light systems appeal to roleplayers who are more interested in the personality of their characters than the stats, but that would be disingenuous and doesn't really fit my experience, though it comes closer than the reverse.
There is no One True gaming system. People have different tastes and enjoy different things. Many gamers are actually capable of liking more than one system or even style of game. This is a good thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergurg wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:
Also, look at what Fergurg is actually writing. They're clearly and over the top victim blaming, and both claiming that if you resist you should be shot and then accusing a black guy that teaches their kids basically the same thing of "hating everyone not of their own race".

Wrong again. Yes, if a person is resisting arrest, the police need to stop it from happening. If a person tries to grab the cop's gun, that is grounds for stopping him. The cop does not have an obligation to not protect his life.

And as for accusing the black guy, I quoted what he said, He said he HATED this country and its countrymen. I asked him why he chooses to stay, given his HATRED (caps were also his).

And as for victim-blaming, is it your opinion that a person making an assertion of being a victim should be believed at all times? Because asking questions about these things is often how the truth comes out (e.g. Duke University, Rolling Stone). And if a person making an accusation should be automatically believed, would it not make sense to extend that expectation to white cops or Hispanic neighborhood watchmen who say, "He attacked me."?

No. My opinion is that such claims shouldn't be investigated by the accused's friends and co-workers and left up to the local prosecutor, who needs the close cooperation of the police force to do his job.

I also think that cameras will help and that there need to be other reforms to police training and practice - more community involvement and less reliance on dominance by force.

In the meantime, knowing that the police often lie upon the stand and will generally be believed, until things actually change, I'm going to err on the side of believing the victims, not the killers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
But you know what Rosa Parks didn't do? She didn't yell, "Burn this b~*$* down!"

What she did say was, "It was not pre-arranged. It just happened that the driver made a demand and I just didn't feel like obeying his demand."

So what she did was more along the lines of not getting out of the street while holding some cheap cigars...

Oh, wait.

I guess the bus driver should have shot her, right?

Only if she was running at the bus driver, trying to take his gun.

She was breaking the law. She refused to move and was arrested.

According to some here, any resistance, even passive disobedience to the arresting officer, justifies beating the criminal while yelling "Stop resisting". Throw in a "Stop reaching for my gun" and you can shoot them too.

Of course, it was a different era back then. The cops didn't need to make excuses, they just waited for the all-white jury to let them off. Nowadays the same thing happens, but the legal contortions have gotten more complicated.

Who here has said that? Who here has said anything even remotely close to that? I'd love to see a quote.

Of course no one says that outright, but if the cop says they were resisting, it always seems to be fine.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergurg wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
But you know what Rosa Parks didn't do? She didn't yell, "Burn this b~*$* down!"

What she did say was, "It was not pre-arranged. It just happened that the driver made a demand and I just didn't feel like obeying his demand."

So what she did was more along the lines of not getting out of the street while holding some cheap cigars...

Oh, wait.

I guess the bus driver should have shot her, right?

Only if she was running at the bus driver, trying to take his gun.

She was breaking the law. She refused to move and was arrested.

According to some here, any resistance, even passive disobedience to the arresting officer, justifies beating the criminal while yelling "Stop resisting". Throw in a "Stop reaching for my gun" and you can shoot them too.

Of course, it was a different era back then. The cops didn't need to make excuses, they just waited for the all-white jury to let them off. Nowadays the same thing happens, but the legal contortions have gotten more complicated.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:

I see 2 groups. Group 1 says "the victims shouldn't have to do anything, and saying they should do anything is victim blaming" where as group 2 is more concerned with keeping people alive than they are with deciding who is to blame when people get killed. Group 1 might be "right" but I can't help but think I side more with group 2.

The time to worry about your rights is when you're safe. Until things change significantly, when you're dealing with a cop, worry about not getting shot. (Especially if you're not caucasian.)

Of course in some cases you don't get your rights back once you've given them up.

Example, a cop can't search your car (under most circumstances) without a warrant or your permission, but he can demand your permission and if you let him, even if you only let him because you're worried about it not being safe to refuse, then whatever he finds is admissible.

More generally and probably more importantly, while Group 2's stance may be the more practical one when you're in the situation, it's very easy to turn into victim-blaming - You didn't do the right thing, therefore you got shot/dead/beaten. Or even, you got shot/dead/beaten, therefore you must not have done the right thing.
The attitude among cops that citizens need to behave correctly towards them and can be forced to if they don't and the lack of consequences for when that goes wrong may lead to more deaths and abuse than Group 1's policies.

Add to that, while it may be a good plan on an individual level to know how to manage police encounters in the safest way possible, police often deal with people who haven't or can't master that skill. Whether they're kids or mentally handicapped or just in the middle of a crisis they're not trained for. The police need to be able to handle people in bad situations without using force, except when it's actually necessary. They need to be able to deescalate. Sometimes that may require backing off, if there's no imminent threat except them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Given the cute assumption that it costs you nothing to be religious, Pascal was completely right.

And the assumption that God will accept you even though you're just faking it for the wager. As well as that the basic Christian assumption about God/Heaven/Hell is the only possibility. What about a God who rewards freethinkers and punishes people who pretend to religion? Or a God who punishes those who believe in other Gods more than he punished atheists?

It's all so deeply rooted in a particular Christianity, that it doesn't make sense out of that context.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Yuugasa wrote:
Andrew Turner wrote:
A lot of [fairly sarcastic, but sometimes sincere] incredulity regarding my previous post: this is why I wrote 'my experience' and 'my opinion'.

I don't think there is anything seriously wrong with your opinion and your experience is what it is but it does come off as 'Advice for white people, by white people'

While it's certainly good to not freak out when dealing with cops and also to have respect for authority (even if that respect is more the fear based respect you would give to say, a potentially rabid animal)a lot of times when you are black in the U.S. that s~+! doesn't even mean anything in regards to protecting you.

Like, say, when some cops jump you from behind and crack your skull open before beating you half to death without ever saying anything or interacting with you in anyway(personal experience).

In that case the only reaction you can even have is to spray blood everywhere.

It also comes off as "It must be black people's fault. If they behaved properly, cops wouldn't have to beat them and shoot them."

Andrew may not have meant that, but in response to a discussion about cop violence towards black people, it's hard to read it otherwise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tarinia Faynrik wrote:
Chris Lambertz wrote:

Removed a post and the replies to it. We are not okay with the framing of posts that attempt to speak in place of other users intentions or feelings and we do not consider the revealing of contents from private messages to be in the community's best interest. Additionally, if you are noticing posts that seem "off" or violate any of our Community Guidelines please flag them and move on. Do not respond to them.

Additionally, because several longer posts were removed because they were quoting/in response to removed posts, if you would like any of this text recovered, please ping community@paizo.com.

So i cant let my Fiance speak for me when i'm to shy or paranoid to? I have high paranoia and bipolar disorder. So i cant always bring myself to talk and he talks for me when i'm to paranoid about speaking. -lets out a sigh- I dont even get to see the responses either.

Not everyone is a strong enough person to always speak for themselves....

I just wanted to say that for someone like me especially if it has to do with me. I would be more comfortable knowing what was said before it was removed....

I dont know if i will speak up again in the forums knowing how paranoid i am and that i wont be accepted. Especially since me and my fiance like to keep our accounts as something that is you know seperate. Especially since he phrases things differently then i do and so forth.

It took me alot of courage to even create my own account and speak up and ask questions. Not knowing what was said but knowing something was said about something having to do with me. It doesn't make me feel comfortable and welcome. Infact it makes my paranoia quite high wire.

I wish everyone a nice and happy day and life for i dont know if i will be posting anymore in the forums. I hope relationships surgeries or whatever you do to make you happy goes smoothly and well and inevetilbly lead to what will lead you to a...

Don't go away. Please. We're really pretty friendly.

Contact Chris and ask what happened. I'm sure they didn't realize it was your fiance or that he was posting for you because you were too shy/paranoid. From outside and not knowing the relationship it looked like he'd had a private PM/email conversation with you and then posted parts of it, probably without you knowing. The moderation seemed like it was intended to protect your privacy, not as an attack.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
lorenlord wrote:
I think that they went overboard because he had been picked up for this and other offenses so many times, that's the only thing I could think of, because you are correct, just write a ticket and move along. Unless they know he hasn't paid the tickets in the past. Still, THIS particular case there shouldve been an indictment, no doubt. I wouldve wanted to see the officer go to trial.

But there won't be. And you're happy to dismiss all the other cases where there isn't convenient video to convince you it's over the line.

If the system can fail in a case this obvious, are you sure it was just in the other cases?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

That hat is not always being used. You have to choose to use it, so it has a duration. It was even one of the examples used in the FAQ.

Not liking it does not make it "not a rule".

Didn't say it was. Even said a post above "that it had been ruled that way".

It being a rule doesn't mean I have to like it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
archmagi1 wrote:
Its pricing pretty much hits directly on it being command word rather than continuous. 1800gp is the 1*1*1800 for command word items vs the 3000gp for a continuous 10min/level 1st level spell item (1*1*2000*1.5).

Yeah, some of us just find the idea of a limited duration, unlimited usage item of this nature kind of silly.

Since you can effectively use it continuously, it should be continuous.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergurg wrote:


This isn't about whether or police shootings motivated by racism is acceptable. It is about whether or not it is acceptable to automatically assume that police killings are motivated by racism.

If that's the only question, the answer is no. It's not acceptable to automatically assume that.

There are plenty of police killings, even of blacks, where the question doesn't arise because the killing is clearly justified.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Protoman wrote:
If it's a continuous effect, how do you change the appearance the hat of disguise is granting?

Take it off and put it back on?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergurg wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
I do agree that there is a high number motivated by racism. I just don't believe that racism is the default answer to shootings, and many people do, even after proof is shown otherwise.
OK, next question: granted that it is less than 100%, what percentage of police shootings motivated by racism is acceptable to you? I think that's what the source of strife is here -- most people would answer "zero" rather than merely "any is okay because we know it's not 100%."

This isn't about whether or police shootings motivated by racism is acceptable. It is about whether or not it is acceptable to automatically assume that police killings are motivated by racism.

Take the case in New York with Eric Garner. Looked like a combination of incompetence and tempers flaring up due to the fact that the cop and the suspect had a history, and not a pleasant one. But unless somehow the black supervisor on the scene was somehow a race traitor, the death was not because he was black.

For the first part, it fits in fine with the racism theory, once you get past the "racism = hatred" thing.

If you're dealing with the "black males are likely to be violent, dangerous thugs" racist stereotype, then it makes more sense. This attitude is pervasive in media and in cop culture especially. It's not surprising to find it even among black cops. Which isn't the same as being a "race traitor".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergurg wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
I do agree that there is a high number motivated by racism. I just don't believe that racism is the default answer to shootings, and many people do, even after proof is shown otherwise.
OK, next question: granted that it is less than 100%, what percentage of police shootings motivated by racism is acceptable to you? I think that's what the source of strife is here -- most people would answer "zero" rather than merely "any is okay because we know it's not 100%."

This isn't about whether or police shootings motivated by racism is acceptable. It is about whether or not it is acceptable to automatically assume that police killings are motivated by racism.

Take the case in New York with Eric Garner. Looked like a combination of incompetence and tempers flaring up due to the fact that the cop and the suspect had a history, and not a pleasant one. But unless somehow the black supervisor on the scene was somehow a race traitor, the death was not because he was black.

BTW: You want a conspiracy theory? I got one, and I don't think it's too far-fetched: Garner's legal issues, and the reason he knew that particular cop, were related to not paying cigarette taxes. The mayor of NYC loves himself some taxes. The people who elected him, the same people who would be part of the grand jury pool, elected a man who campaigned on raising taxes.

Is it just me, or does this sound like a "Business man didn't pay the money we wanted him to pay. Sure was a tragic 'accident' what happened to him. If only he had paid, that could have been avoided."

Are you seriously suggesting the Mayor put out a hit on a street loose cigarette sales guy?

Including a "And make it look like an accident."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
I suspect 5th has some form of WBL as well, or everything is just that nerfed. I did look at the DMG, and even for a level 30 monster, the recommended AC was 19. So maybe things are just that nerfed.
It is not nerfed, it is a different f$%#ing system.

No. No. The numbers are smaller. That means it's nerfed.


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


<snip a lot out due to space issues>

In fact I said that in my first post on this topic. Will you agree that a problematic number are motivated by racism? Probably in a subtler form than "just hates black people".

I do agree that there is a high number motivated by racism. I just don't believe that racism is the default answer to shootings, and many people do, even after proof is shown otherwise.
Proof?
I mean that even after a shooting is proven justified, people still call it racist murder.

Shootings are very rarely proven justified. Sometimes they are declared justified by an internal investigation. Sometimes a grand jury declines to indict. Rarely a case goes to trial and it is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooting was unjustified.

None of these things is "proven justified".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergurg wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
considering that the shooting was originally found to be justified by the police department, I would say that DOES NOT go against the narrative that police hate black people.

You mean the same police department that was infiltrated by a crime ring?

I said that it goes against the narrative that the ONLY reason a cop would shoot a black person is because "police just hate black people". Sounds more likely to be a targeted hit than anything else.

This is a narrative that only exists in your head. (Well, an in the heads of some other police apologists.)

Others will argue for more or less racism on the part of law enforcement, but no one here and only a tiny fringe anywhere will argue that's the only possible reason for a black man to be shot by police.

From the original story, we don't know how deeply the police department was infiltrated. If it was less than near-total, including the prosecutors, then it's still likely that racism played a role in making it easier to cover up.

Part of the difficulty is that we don't know the whole story, or even most of it. Here's what we know:

1) The cop killed an unarmed black man while he was, according to witnesses, reaching for his wallet.

2) The police ruled that the shooting was justified.

3) Years later, it is discovered that there was a crime ring that infiltrated the police department. How far, and how many were infiltrated is not told to us, but we know that this cop was one of the corrupt cops in the crime ring.

And .... that's it. To come to an informed conclusion, or even an educated guess, we would need more information. I personally want to know more about the guy that was shot. Literally all we know is that he was black and he was unarmed. Did he have enemies? Did he have any dealings with the mob? For that matter, was he doing something that was negatively affecting the mob? He could have been a business man who wasn't paying protection money, a...

Whereas you seem to be grabbing this case as a desperate attempt to show that it isn't always racism.

Which we all agree it isn't. But it's subtler than that, and even more subtler than "police just hate black people".
The response here was generally: You're right, it's not just that cops hate black people. There are other reasons they shoot black people. This could well be one of them. Even if it was, the pervasive racism would make the officer's story of being threatened easier to believe and thus make it easier for him to get away with it. Note that the "pervasive racism" is generally not "hates black people", but closer to Fergie's list - assuming blacks are more likely to be violent, more likely to be armed, more likely to be criminal, more likely to be a threat in general.

But step back from this to the more general argument: I'm perfectly willing to concede that not all police killings of black men are because the police hate black people. In fact I said that in my first post on this topic. Will you agree that a problematic number are motivated by racism? Probably in a subtler form than "just hates black people".


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergurg wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
considering that the shooting was originally found to be justified by the police department, I would say that DOES NOT go against the narrative that police hate black people.

You mean the same police department that was infiltrated by a crime ring?

I said that it goes against the narrative that the ONLY reason a cop would shoot a black person is because "police just hate black people". Sounds more likely to be a targeted hit than anything else.

This is a narrative that only exists in your head. (Well, an in the heads of some other police apologists.)

Others will argue for more or less racism on the part of law enforcement, but no one here and only a tiny fringe anywhere will argue that's the only possible reason for a black man to be shot by police.

From the original story, we don't know how deeply the police department was infiltrated. If it was less than near-total, including the prosecutors, then it's still likely that racism played a role in making it easier to cover up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergurg wrote:


My position is simply that there are people tend to genuinely believe that the ONLY reason a cop would shoot a black man is because "police just hate black people"; here's a scenario which, if true, is a different explanation: organized crime putting out a hit. But that possibility goes against the narrative of "Police just hate black people", which is why the people with that belief cannot accept any other possibility.

People will believe or disbelieve whatever they need to in order to justify their love and their hate. It's human nature.

So that post merely provided anecdotal support for my position. Your response, however, DOES confirm my position.

Racism is not always as blatant as "just hate black people". I think that's where your trouble understanding lies.

No one here, and very few elsewhere, claim

Quote:
the ONLY reason a cop would shoot a black man is because "police just hate black people"

I can only assume you're interpreting "police racism is to blame" as "police kill black people just because they hate them."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergurg wrote:
Yuugasa wrote:

When I was a kid there was an incident where a police officer stopped a black man in my area and asked him for I.D.

The man complied without complaint, but as the man pulled his wallet out of his pocket and opened it to get his I.D. the officer drew his gun and emptied an entire clip into the man at almost point blank range. When the man was on the ground, likely already dead, the cop calmly reloaded and emptied an entire additional clip into the man's unmoving body.

This was on a public street and there were many witnesses who saw the whole thing. The cop claimed he thought some weapon might have been in the wallet so he defended himself. The man was in fact unarmed and turned out to have no criminal record. Less than a week later the shoot was declared justified.

The adults in my area were extremely disturbed and frightened by this but nothing could be done about it. The incident actually spawned a game at my school were we would yell; "Look out, he has I.D.!" before surprise punching each other in the chest.

Now, to be fair many years later a criminal network was taken apart and it was discovered that that same cop(among others) was on their payroll, leading to speculation that maybe that incident had been some kind of hit, but as far as I know nothing ever came of that.

You mean it's possible that a black man could be shot by a cop for a reason other than "Police just hate black people"?

I don't think the root of the problem is "Police just hate black people", but that many officers have internalized the stereotypes of black men as "superpredators", thugs, prone to violence, overall just incredibly dangerous and likely to attack without warning.

Then a young black man who hasn't done anything wrong and isn't thinking of himself as a scary threat does something like reach for his wallet without warning and dies in hail of bullets.

Obviously there are other reasons. Some actually justified. Not "justified", but clearly and obviously right - like shooting someone who was committing a crime and is firing back.
Or others like Yuugasa's case where it may not have been racism or the same kind of overreaction, but actual police corruption. You'll notice however that it was covered up and whitewashed in the same fashion as many other shootings with no criminal corruption links. Of course, it may still have been unrelated to the payoffs. After all, on officer on the take is probably not the best in his other interactions with citizens.

So there's another reason to oppose these kinds of things - It makes it easier for the actual corrupt cops to get away with things like executions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:
thejeff wrote:
But don't worry, that's just the 1% of the time Andrew was talking about. Most of the time you'll be fine.

While there is a certain truth to your sarcasm, there's just as much to Andrews comment that the vast majority of people's interactions with the police don't end in violence of any sort, let alone fatalities.

Far too many do though.

The problem with Andrew's comment, without the sarcasm, is that it shifts the blame to the victim. Sets up the default as "police abuse is mostly due to the behavior of the abused". Which strikes me as much like what abusers and there defenders always claim.

It's fairly common for bullies to pick those who can be provoked to respond and then use that response to justify their bullying. With police never needing to deescalate and in fact being trained to escalate to take control, it's very easy to mask such behavior. Only looking at whether a shooting was justified in the last moment when the officer felt threatened ignores the build up and all the ways the officer could have kept it from getting to that point.

It also completely ignores both racial and class disparities. Not only is the 1% more likely in some departments, but it's also more likely to happen to some groups of citizens.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Coriat wrote:
Andrew Turner wrote:
1% of the time this isn't true.
That said, it is also frankly a severe problem if 1% of police interactions involve arbitrary police misconduct against a well-behaving citizen - more so if the legal system can't be relied on to address many of these cases after the fact.

Exactly, because that's still thousands every day.

I suspect the percentage is much lower than that, but still too high to be acceptable. It's also another reason why racial harassment or Stop and Frisk programs are bad. Increasing the number of hostile police interactions increases the number of bad ones, even if the percentage stays the same.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

But don't worry, that's just the 1% of the time Andrew was talking about. Most of the time you'll be fine.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Turner wrote:

My experience with police forces in the US follows.

My opinion:

When you're polite to an officer, they're polite to you. 1% of the time this isn't true.

When you're belligerent with an officer, they're belligerent with you. 99% of the time this is true.

What some Americans (and internationals) are calling fear of the police, I call respect for authority (which I have).

Simple rules, from my point of view:

If an officer engages you, be polite and respectful.

If an officer issues a directive, follow it.

When an officer says, "Hands up!" don't start walking toward them! Put you hands up and be quiet.

When an officer asks for ID, don't invoke the Constitution or Patrick Henry, just show them your ID.

When you've broken the law, no matter how trivial or what circumstances you believe mitigate your offense, be contrite and respectful--that doesn't mean you have to admit you did or didn't do anything, but don't be deliberately stupid.

When an officer tells you to calm down, or stop cursing at them, calm down and shut up: the officer's demand was explicit and black-and-white; there is absolutely zero chance that they actually meant for you to teach them all the profanities you know, and in as loud a voice as possible.

You forget "Don't be black." and "Don't have a mental illness or other disability".

Beyond that, your last point completely ignores human nature. People who are upset don't calm down on command. Emotions don't turn off like a switch.

And when the officer asks for ID, remember you have to comply quickly without backtalk, but also without reaching for your waist or back into your car. Either might get you shot.

Remember as well, just because the Constitution says you don't have to show the cop ID, doesn't mean you won't get shot for not doing so. The place to insist on your rights is not on the spot, but later on after you've voluntarily ceded them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gaberlunzie wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
The idea that people deserve to die just because they are jerks is completely outrageous.

No it really isn't. Everyone is going to die over something -- the fact you (generic sense, not you specifically Big) constantly cause grief and it finally catches up to them isn't tragic. It's a better reason to die than simply being in the wrong place and someone not liking the way you look (Zimmerman I am looking at you).

You piss off enough people and eventually it's going to come back and bite you. People forget that humans are social creatures, if you don't play in the society eventually the herd (or pack) will cull you or something else will.

Thing is, this argument is never used when a cop is shot. Then it's all "oh they were a hero dying to that criminal scum". Despite that they cause grief all the time.

It also ties in nicely to the "It's the black people's fault" theme. If it's not because they're criminals, it's because they must just be jerks to cops more often.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Fergurg wrote:


He was a trespasser who refused to leave. That is a very good reason for the cops to be there.

And I'm sure there was a good reason for the choke hold...

He was resisting arrest. The officer had no choice and didn't intend to kill him anyway.

There's pretty much no way the officer could be convicted or even charged in this case - because they only look at the very end. At each step along the way, the officer did nothing illegal. There were of course plenty of things the officer could have done to deescalate the situation and not wind up forcibly arresting the poor man (and thus killing him), but the police have no obligation to do so.

I'm going to disagree here.

Well, the grand jury didn't. And frankly I really doubt a jury would have either.

Mind you, I'm not saying that's a good thing. I'm saying that's the way it is. That it's a good part of the problem that the police have no obligation to try to deescalate or even avoid escalating. That the really scary thing is that quite often they don't need to cover up or lie or game the grand jury system. That their actions were actually legal, because the law is on their side and doesn't require them to calm you down.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Of course. It's always been the same. Politics has never changed, there's never been a difference in polarization or tactics. It's always been complete dominance or giving in completely.

And if only Democrats had been willing to compromise more and adapt more of the Republican's legislation then we'd be so much better off. Meanwhile, the Democrats are completely to blame for those conservative ideas that did pass, the ones that have helped Wall Street boom while Main Street is barely crawling out of recession.

What's your take on the current spending deal? Particularly opening up the slashing of some pensions and peeling back some of the Dodd-Frank financial reforms, so the government may wind up backstopping the same kind of derivative deals that caused problems a few years ago?
Both Republican priorities. Do Democrats lose either way? Taking the blame for passing them or for not compromising and forcing a shutdown?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

With the stated goal of McConnell being to make Obama a one-term president, I have a lot of trouble spreading the blame evenly.

The stimulus back in 2009, while too small, stopped the initial bleeding and kept states from collapsing. From then on, they haven't been able to get any real stimulus and even normal government spending has been cut back, generally in attempts to compromise with the Republicans and get something done.

You can blame Democrats for those compromises that did hurt people, but you can't both blame them for that and for upsetting Republicans by blocking House legislation.

They can't both let Republicans do what they want and not compromise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Barathos wrote:
Unearthly Serpent wrote:
DM Jelani wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

24 Strength humans via RAW: they're level 16 Commoners. Gain 4 ability point increases for leveling up.

They definitely aren't level 16.
Xp don't come only from fights.

Source on something with a specified XP reward for doing something that isn't a fight/trap/combatencounter?

Common sense house rules don't count.

Nearly every AP and plenty of modules have examples.

From the CRB, pg 399,

Quote:

Keep a list of the CRs of all the monsters, traps, obstacles, and roleplaying encounters the PCs overcome. At the end of each session, award XP to each PC that participated. <snip> Pure roleplaying encounters generally have a CR equal to the average level of the party (although particularly easy or difficult roleplaying encounters might be one higher or lower).

<snip>

Story Awards: Feel free to award Story Awards when players conclude a major storyline or make an important accomplishment. These awards should be worth double the amount of experience points for a CR equal to the APL. Particularly long or difficult story arcs might award even more, at your discretion as GM.

Roleplaying encounters and Story Awards (which are not the same thing, both give xp, according the Core rules.


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

Yeah, being mentally is about as dangerous as being black when it comes to dealing with police.

What do you expect? They're trained to demand compliance and to escalate force until they get it.

On the flip side, there is a growing mentality of "Ain't nobody gonna tell me what to do!" Anybody who works with the public deals with people just like that, who believe that the rules don't apply to them and that nobody has authority over them.

These are the people who will argue with the pizza driver for not accepting a check from them when the company doesn't take checks, or the parents at a school outraged when they are required to show ID to pick up their kids when the sign is on the door saying ID is required, or the guy who got in trouble at work for showing up 15 minutes late and saying, "So?" when told he was late.

So when you get a clash between people whose entire job is to be in control of a situation that is going bad and people who refuse to let anyone tell them what to do, it will necessarily escalate until one side is in control, and that only happens by force (not always physical).

This was a man with Down Syndrome. Not some punk idiot refusing for the fun of it. His aide was there and his mother on the way. But screw it. Yell at him. Threaten him when he doesn't comply and then attack. Even though you've been told and it's obvious that he's not really competent.

Maybe their job shouldn't be "to be in control of a situation that is going bad". Maybe their job and their training should include "keeping the situation from going bad". Should include deescalating the situation rather then escalating it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, being mentally is about as dangerous as being black when it comes to dealing with police.

What do you expect? They're trained to demand compliance and to escalate force until they get it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:


thejeff wrote:


For me, 3.x/PF still feels like D&D, even though there are parts of the system I dislike. 4th didn't. Though it played well enough objectively, without the D&D feel, that wasn't enough to keep me interested. I'm aware that's an entirely subjective feeling, but subjective feelings are an important part of appeal.
5E seems to have the feel again. It's too soon to tell if it'll avoid what wound up annoying me about 3.x and avoided bringing back what I didn't like about AD&D (which I've mostly forgotten, it having been a long time.)
I play PF and dislike some elements as well. It's fdunny because many elements of 5E were in 4E. They just repackaged them differently so hearing a fellow gamer like one but not the other is interesting. Same reason that 4E was less complex than third edition because fans asked for it. Yet with 4E is was not as well received. Now with 5E it is. We really don't know what we want sometimes do we.

Don't assume too much. It's not necessarily the elements of 4E that made it into 5E that made it feel wrong to me. Maybe it's the stuff they didn't keep.

And even if people want simpler, that doesn't mean they want the particular form of simpler that you come up with.
It's not always about "We really don't know what we want sometimes do we." Obviously there's truth to that in general, but in this context there's a strong implication of "You really wanted 4E, but didn't realize it." Maybe it's more like "They were aiming for something but got it wrong with 4E and closer to right with 5E." At least if they were aiming for something that I want.

I'm not going to go any further into why 4E didn't work for me. I played one extended campaign soon after it came out and haven't gone back to it since. (Oh look, people not sticking with systems in the past and going off to try something else.)


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

Some certainly will shift over. Others will stay. Unlike shifts from AD&D->2E or 2E->3.0 or 3.5->PF or 4E, PF isn't going away. Support won't be drying up, so I doubt games will be either. Certainly less so than with previous shifts.

Support for 4E is done though. It'll be interesting to see what happens with its fans. Move on to 5E? Switch to a 3rd part clone? (13th Age is something of a 4E clone, right?)

I think you maybe surprised. The attitudes of gamers have changed imo. gone are the days where a player will bend over backwards to make a rpg system work. They find one that is fast, easy and with relatively small amount of flaws and stay with that. It's the reason why Hero System despite being one of the more complete and flexiable generic rpgs on the market has lot much of it's market share. With Fate, Savage Worlds that while not as comprehensive are much faster and easier to play and run. Gamers with more than one choice of rpg just don't want to put with issues within rpgs imo. It's not just the younger generation as well. When the hobby stops becoming fun and feels like a job most take a hard look at the rpgs they run and play and switch accordingly.

I'm not sure those days ever existed. There have always been many options and the marketshare has always mostly gone to a couple.

But I'm not suggesting people will stick with PF despite it not being fun. I'm suggesting there are a lot of people who find PF fun. Who enjoy all the options and all the complexity. Who really like the build game aspect of it. 3.x/PF was and is extremely popular. It's not just that it was the only choice and people couldn't find anything else and it never was.
4E was simpler than PF and an obvious option. Far more obvious for switching, especially at first. That didn't keep PF from becoming popular. I don't think 5E is going to kill PF.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

US cops in many cities don't walk a beat. They don't interact with the populace except when dealing with crime or some other problem. They cruise around in cars, isolated. They're not part of the community.

We know what affects this has. We know how to fix policing issues. We've done it before to individual departments, usually when the feds stepped in court orders due to rampant civil rights violations. Some of the departments that went through that in the 70s are still among the best in the country.

We just don't do it widely and thanks to our federated system, unless Constitutional violations are proven and no other remedies work, the fixes can't be imposed on states or cities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
Gulian wrote:
Zhayne has the right of it. How is the name of the class relevant to the player characters?

The class name is shorthand for the basic set of rule themes a player chose. These themes can be circumvented to carry a different flavor, which isn't a bad thing, but the majority of Barbarians are in fact from tribal societies, not knights. To set up one set of rule themes under a term for "undeveloped, primitive savage", and then use that shorthand to describe the abilities of warriors from civilizations that my not too distant ancestors demonized as stupid, violent, ignorant savages, and ethnic cleansed from land they wanted and couldn't have full of heathen primitives. The first of my ancestors to come to the United States was an Indian Fighter who didn't consider shooting "savages" to be wrong. The fact my own ancestor took pride in having committed such evil is sickening. Stuff like this is a really sore issue for me.

Now, I do like Westerns. I've also recently been asking for a "Vikings and Indians" PF adventure path. Thing is, it really needs to come with a fair minded view of Native Americans (which, incidentally, I would trust Paizo's writing with). That means both not portraying them as violent savages and avoiding the Noble Savage myth. To me, using the term Barbarian, even in metagame, has connotations with the first.

If it helps, the Indians did do a lot of war, enslavement, and land dispossession on each other, long before the white man came into the picture.

I doubt it really does. Largely because that's a very common argument used to absolve white people of any blame for what amounted to genocide and ethnic cleansing. Very similar to blaming Africans for black slavery.

Either point can be raised in a more nuanced discussion and the noble savage myth should be avoided, but using them to whitewash what Europeans did in the Americas is not kosher.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RJGrady wrote:
Undone wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
how many high level clerics can there be? Kill them. :)
If .0001% of the population are high level clerics with a population of billions on the material plane and billions in heaven and the positive energy plane (Which the evil outsider don't DARE go to) eliminating everyone who can cast true res/reg res is nigh impossible. If the target you kill is rich (And popular enough to warrant a raise) they're not going down. You'll just anger them. In pathfinder death is cheap and the powerful are rich.
I was thinking more in terms of 13th level clerics who were willing and able to make a house call.

For the King? Quite a few. Of course, it may depend on the internal politics and what the heir says about it.

If the crown princess sent the devil....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
thejeff wrote:

You did in fact say exactly what you say you did, but you did so in such a fashion as to draw exactly this kind of response, which lets you attack the climate change side of the debate.

He did not alter your words, he misread a poorly phrased post. Intentionally or not, this kind of thing is a habit with your posts.

It might have been poorly worded, but I do not accept that the meaning of it wasn't clear. I know my posts tend to be poorly worded, so I am trying to avoid long-form stating of what I have to say and allowing for even poorer wording to get involved.

I had stated earlier in my post "Humanity also isn't responsible for all of the planet's climatic changes." That does absolve humanity of 100% responsibility in wording... but at the same time, makes it clear that humanity is responsible for climatic change. My last sentence was both to make it clear I wasn't challenging that humanity has an undeniably major effect.

And despite being given an opening to attack climate change, I did not single it out any more than I did the deniers.

I figured it out because I've debated with you before and I know to double read everything and look for the out clauses. I did read it and think "Someone will misread this as denial". And then he did.

You also said in that post "Beyond humanity creating the technology that was affected? Nope. It's one of several climatic events that would have happened no matter what humanity did with the environment." Which is far more emphatic than we have any right to be. There is no such thing as "climatic events that would have happened no matter what humanity did with the environment" since we started messing with the environment. Or at least no way to tell the which ones are which. Climate is too chaotic for that.

That line, and the following bit about changes we weren't responsible for also set up an expectation for the following one to be read as a denialist viewpoint.

To be...

Volcanoes aren't really climate events, though they effect climate, if that's what you meant. But that effect generally ties into whatever else the climate is doing.

And we may be causing earthquakes, so who knows.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:

I like building things in an orderly manner. I like Civ 5, I like construction games, I like building. That's why I like the 3.X system.

Because 5th stripped out so many defined parts of the game, there are less choices to build with. That's all I'm saying.

It may be all you're saying, but the manner you're saying it in comes across as very hostile.

And very concrete. Very much: "It's wrong that it works like X", as opposed to "I don't like systems that do X, because I prefer Y".

Liking different systems is great. People have different tastes. That's why we have all kinds of games. Telling other people there game is wrong is a different thing.

1 to 50 of 3,025 << 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.