|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Black Dougal wrote:
I was really hoping for spider-man. In my opinion, his arc was the best part of civil war.
I really can't see this Civil War being much like the comic's Civil War. The pieces aren't in place and they've only got one movie to work with. You weren't going to get anything like Spider-Man's arc in the movie, even if he was in it. He'd get a few personal scenes and play a support role in the basic Cap/Bucky/IM arc.
The problem still is that there really isn't another common term, so what I'd be likely to do in a case where I was bringing it up would be to use "cisgender", explain it the first time, and then use it thereafter rather than say "people whose gender identity matches their assigned gender" every time.
This bit also pretty much explains what's going on: The Turkmen rebels are supported by Turkey. Russia's attacking them because Russia's supporting Assad. Turkey seizes the excuse of the border violation to strike the Russian bomber, because it's been attacking their allies.
Any retaliation is likely to continue to fall on the Turkmen rebels, not directly on Turkey, since that would risk confrontation with NATO, which no one wants.
As opposed to the one they did capture and keep alive, but who was rescued by a Russian strike team?
And if the dude on the piece of land next to you doesn't recognize that is your piece of land, suddenly there are no laws?
I mean, practically speaking, you're essentially right, but that invalidates all the Geneva Convention/law of war kind of stuff.
I am unaware of any rebel group that has signed those conventions. Meaning anything goes and is legal.
I don't think that's quite how it works with rebel groups. There are provisions under the conventions for dealing with non-state groups, though I can't cite chapter and verse at the moment.They're expected to abide by at least a subset of the laws of war and the state parties are expected to treat them as such.
Strictly speaking the rebel groups can't sign the conventions, since it's a treaty between states.
It's not what it means at all. I mean, it refers to the same concept, so the actual meaning of the words is the same, but it's not at all what the word comes from. Being identified as "not-something" is very different from having your own term.
Rogar Valertis wrote:
Incidentally I also believe Turkey doesn't want Syria to stabilize unless under its terms. Call me a conspirationist theorist if you want.
Well, frankly, I agree that Turkey doesn't want Syria to stabilize unless under its terms. (No Kurdish State!)I also believe that Russia doesn't want Syria to stabilize unless under its terms. (Assad stays!)
And that the US doesn't want Syria to stabilize unless under our terms.
The same is likely true of the smaller players, including Iran and the Saudis among others.
It helps though if you've got a replacement for the supposedly offensive term. If you're telling trans people not to use the term "cis" because you don't like it, you really need to be able to say "We think X is preferable." Not "We don't need a special term because we're just regular folks" or even "Just call us normal".
2 pilots, at least one reported dead - shot by rebels on the ground. Unclear about the other, but there have been reports he was captured.
Ugly and dangerous, but I don't think quite Ferdinand levels. Everyone's pushing for their own goals and status, but none of the actual powers are interested in fighting each other.
The female Captain Marvel is from Marvel, unless DC's switched up something in the Shazam franchise I've missed.
Alzrius, when you ask someone "Why should X do Y?", there is very definitely an implication that you think they believe that X should do Y.
Rephrasing it, as you ultimately did to first ask "Do you think X should do Y? If so, why?" would be a far better place to start and we could eliminate a lot of unneeded back and forth.
Honestly, I wasn't happy with that thread lock either. There's a difference between sort of randomly "advocating for violence" against religious groups and debating mainstream public policy issues. We are in a situation where a broad expansion of the war in Syria & Iraq is possible and being called for by major political figures. That's worth talking about.
OTOH, this post and the attack on Liz and Paizo go way too far.
Depends on the party and the campaign.Essentially you need to be up to par with the rest of the team and with the opposition. What level that is, depends on the level the rest of the group is at. Some who's an effective high school quarterback isn't going to be an effective NFL quarterback. And if your team is expected to go up against other NFL teams, you'd better all be up at that level.
The flip side of course is that if the rest of the group are high school players, one guy bringing in Tom Brady isn't a good idea either.
I'm not really sure that: Extreme fundamentalist sect B pays better then extreme fundamentalist sect A really supports the assertion that economics have anything to do with it.
It suggests that the unemployed, poverty stricken young men of Afghanistan might not be strictly motivated by religious fervor.
OTOH, as I mentioned before, they're recruiting fighters in Afghanistan by paying better than either the Taliban or the government.It's possible the appeals to local fighters and to disaffected youth in the West are different?
Despite the prominence in the news of those from the West, the vast bulk of their forces are more local to the conflict areas.
It's a little more complicated than that. Define "not getting involved", for example.
We've been meddling in middle eastern politics since WWII. Before then the rest of the European powers were. Before then, the Ottomans.
Does "not getting involved" include not supporting their dictators or blocking other powers from influencing them? If we weren't meddling, then others would be.
In the short run, not invading Iraq would have prevented much of the disaster that area's become, but it still wouldn't be exactly thriving and vibrant. Suppression by dictators might be better than what we've come to, but it isn't exactly the best outcome either.
No I do not.I don't have any idea why you would ask me such a question, unless you thought I had said or implied that I did.
I vaguely suspect we might not be using the same frame of reference, since I doubt I'd ever use the term "morally corrupt", so I wonder if you might attach some special significance to it.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
As far as I know neither France nor the EU has an unchecked immigration policy. Accepting refugees from war zones isn't quite the same thing.
Nor would the whole population of Syria go just to France, even should the whole population of Syria flee the country. If you want to compare populations, you should compare relevant numbers. The EU as a whole has a population around 500 million - even more than the US, so it should be able to absorb at least as much as the US could, at least in terms of demographic changes.
None of which is to say that the US shouldn't take a far larger share of refugees from Syria, Iraq and other crisis zones.
Did I use the words "morally corrupt" or anything similar?
I'd rather not do it. I'd rather not have rules pushing bad stereotypes of mental illness.
Rogar Valertis wrote:
And yet we've been working with Saudi Arabia for decades.And while "these people" don't recognize borders and only accept a true Islamic Caliphate, "these people" get converts and support based on both popular discontent with the local secular dictators and outrage at various western interventions. Keep the populations happy and peaceful and you don't get the kind of recruitment and support movements like this need. It wouldn't satisfy the existing fanatics, but it guts their efforts to radicalize others.
Megan Robertson wrote:
That's why a lot of people have been using Daesh.
The term “Daesh” is strategically a better choice because it is still accurate in that it spells out the acronym of the group’s full Arabic name, al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi al-Iraq wa al-Sham. Yet, at the same time, “Daesh” can also be understood as a play on words — and an insult. Depending on how it is conjugated in Arabic, it can mean anything from “to trample down and crush” to “a bigot who imposes his view on others.” Already, the group has reportedly threatened to cut out the tongues of anyone who uses the term.
I'm not talking about blaming anyone. Though if we want to talk about victims, there's an awful lot more Muslims dead due to Daesh than Europeans.
I'm talking about actual reasons for what's happened over the last years and decades in that part of the world. And about what the likely consequences of relying on more military action to deal with it are.
What's your idea of blame then? They're just evil people with nothing beyond that? There's no reason people join up with Daesh other than they're evil?
That may be true of their ideology.It's not true of their growth or their power or their support. Whatever the details of their particular form of crazy, they still need recruits and arms and funding and if they want to hold territory, they need to deal with the geopolitical realities around them. They seem to be doing a good job of it, so I assume they're not completely blind to reality.
Their ideology may not care what the West has or has not done, but the current situation in Iraq & Syria is a result of both internal decisions and Great Power meddling dating back to the Ottaman Empire and beyond. It's those conditions that created the power vaccuum Daesh is exploiting. It's those conditions that radicalize their recruits.
I don't think Stebehil's saying we should make a peace treaty with them, but that even if we stomp them into the ground, if we don't change the conditions, we'll just see another, radical Islamist group take their place - maybe with a slightly different ideology, but feeding off the same problems.
Part of the problem in PF is that many of those non-combat challenges are best handled by the wizard (or other caster - bard maybe?) - who's also easy to optimize for combat without giving up the non-combat roles.
Boomerang Nebula wrote:
"Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
Yes and No.
Yeah, they're motivated by religious fervor and millennial beliefs.
That doesn't mean there aren't more rational motives behind their actions. How do their actions further their short term goals, or their long term ones for that matter?
If, for example, they're trying to provoke a wider conflict between Islam and the West based on their religious fervor and millennial beliefs, attacks such as this may be intended to spark such a conflict.
It's not true, but ...
There is something hidden in there. What you say is absolutely true. It's easy to come up with a roleplay justification for whatever mechanically sound build you've come up with. Many who talk roleplay and optimization being compatible stop there, with the Stormwind Fallacy. There is no conflict. If you start with optimized mechanics.
What that overlooks is that if you start building your character from the other end, there is a conflict. Not all interesting character concepts are mechanically sound. The farther you ramp up the power level/challenge for the game, the more you'll run into this.
Same for wizard. There's no rule I'm aware of saying that anyone can learn to do magic (assuming sufficient Int).Any player can choose to take a level in wizard (or Sorcerer or Witch or Magus or for that matter Cleric or Oracle), but PCs are special and that's still perfectly compatible with a setting where only certain people have the necessary spark for magic.
As for the larger topic, one difference is that you can't do cookbook magic in PF. You can't just follow the instructions, mouth the words, wiggle your fingers appropriately and have the spell happen. Or assembly line magic items. Casting a spell requires something more - whether it's innate power or special training.
That seems a difference between science and magic.
One of the real step forwards as far as pathfinder over 2nd edition is that all the rules in the books are available to everyone and, more importantly, the information is in some form of order. You know where the combat rules are, you know where the skills rules are, you know where the spells are. In 2nd edition it took you 10 minutes to find a spell.
Organization is definitely much improved.
OTOH, without the online versions, spells and feats and things are scattered over more books. At least than 1st edition.
And we always pretty much ignored the "Only the GM should read the rules" part. At least partly since most of us tried our hands at GMing.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
"A 1,000-year-old man seduces an underage girl and turns her into an undead monster. Please explain why he is an ideal boyfriend, in 3 volumes or less."
Of course, the problem with that framing is that he isn't presented as a monster."A 1,000-year-old man seduces an underage girl and gives her immortality and superpowers. Please explain why he is an ideal boyfriend, in 3 volumes or less."
Or more likely, goes into cover-up mode, denying any possibility of peanut allergens in their tomatoes, claiming their internal testing shows no such traces and blaming the deaths on contamination from other sources. This goes on for years until the evidence is overwhelming.
Because there's no evidence of such patterns from other corporations in other businesses.
Not really sure why this became about what the first vampire novel or lesbian romance story was rather than how horrible Stephenie Meyer and all her works (which we'll include 50 Shades as) are.
I'm not even sure why it became about that.
And if you understood WHY and WHO the Luddites actually were, you'll see that I don't count the name as the insult you intended it to be.
Yeah, basically the Luddites saw the problem correctly, but didn't have a good solution.
The Luddite's problems of course weren't related to the effects of the technology, but to the unemployment and resulting economic disruption.
The actual solutions to that problem took a long time to arrive, but included things like minimum wages and safety nets. And of course the unions that fought for them.
If Twilight created the vampire erotica/romance genre... then what was Anne Rice doing all these years, since Interview with the vampire in 1976? And of course, it certainly wasn't popularized by Tom Cruise in the 1994 movie, right?
I think the big difference is that while it might have been glamorized in the past, in Interview and elsewhere - even some takes on Dracula, it wasn't shifted over to an entirely positive, heroic romance in those works.
There were definitely erotic overtones in Rice's books, to say the least, but I don't recall any great mortal/vampire love affairs. Some in character's backstories, but they tended to end tragically.
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
I don't give a flying f$~~ about Greenpeace and discussion about one environmental group and what their various misdeeds may or may not be is a complete derail of the conversation.
Which is the whole point of course.
If we spend our time arguing over whether Greenpeace is bad, no one has to think about ExxonMobil's 3 decade organized attempt to publicly deny what they secretly knew all along. And we can ignore the position that puts all the climate skeptics in. You know the ones who totally weren't influenced by any propaganda, but just were fighting the government & environmentalist driven party line.
It's good to see a thread started as a discussion of 3 decades of proven deception on the part of ExxonMobil, with possible horrific consequences for humanity, has morphed into a discussion of exactly how evil Greenpeace is.
Mark Hoover wrote:
Younger dragons face real threats. Even from the puny two-legs. They'll likely be wary and cautious.The old ones haven't faced a real threat from "adventurers" in centuries. Not since they were much weaker. They've slaughtered would-be heroes with minimal effort. Why should they assume this next group is different?
Unless of course your world does have many mid to high teens level parties out hunting dragons. If so, the remaining dragons would be more wary - since they've been facing real threats from that source.
That's the standard approach. After a couple of games in which dragons were legendary creatures and the only remaining secluded ones were ancient unstoppable monstrosities (or manipulators), I decided that I'd have dragons be pretty common - mostly younger, weaker ones. Still only a few would live long enough to grow ancient and able to devastate whole kingdoms.
Most die as wyrmlings or juveniles. To nearly anyone that finds them and can. Dragons lay large clutches and don't care for their young after birth, so the older ones don't care about the potential rivals getting killed.
You'd think so, wouldn't you.One of the tricky things about rape, to choose the touchiest example, is that everyone agrees that rape is horrible. That just leads some people to decide that cases they're more sympathetic to weren't really rape. Classic example being marital rape. Not considered rape until relatively recently. Still not considered so by some. (I've heard "She gave consent when she said 'I do'" right on these boards.)
In this case, we didn't even get a unanimous agreement here that rape, extortion and assault were involved. I suspect the numbers who thought they were would shift with changing genders. No one would state that rape, extortion or assault were fine.
Sadly we've poisoned the well here. Revealed the trick, so we can't retest it. You'd have to do a statistically significant sample with the original genders and then with various genders changes to see how the results shifted.
...It's the same exercise, except with different characters doing the bad things.
Of course it's the same exercise. That's the point.
It's probably not effective done right after the first version. Done in isolation, I'd bet you'd get different results, precisely because of the gender changes. We react differently to men and women doing the same things.
Nothing is a very strong word.Plate tectonics wouldn't have removed everything by then. (Reminds me of Brin's Uplift series where aliens would deliberately build on the edges of subduction zones so that later species evolving on that planet wouldn't find traces. That's long term planning.)
Things covered up by sediment can be preserved by it, then uplifted and eroded and exposed.
But it would be more like finding fossils and scrap and things like that than finding ruins and working tech.
Freehold DM wrote:
They got Whedon to do them instead?
Mark Hoover wrote:
And honestly, even if it never gets communicated directly to the players, it still has an effect on the game. Done well, it guides your setting and adventure development and provides depth, even if only a few bits of it are actually seen by the players.
Any good sf/fantasy author (any good author really) will have tons of background setting and character detail that never makes it into print, but still contributes to how the setting fits together and why the characters behave as they do.
I keep seeing that theory everywhere and again I must ask why the (generally depicted as benevolent, or at least fairly business-like) anthropomorphic personification of Death would be dicking around with two random people in the middle of nowhere instead of doing her job?
Well, in the Marvel Universe and especially in the context of Titan, as Rosgakori suggests, the obvious connection is Thanos.