|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Because women fought for decades for that to be accepted. Men haven't done that yet.
If you want to change it, go out in public wearing women's clothing. Not because you're transitioning or for sexual thrills or to pass as a woman. Just as a bloke in a dress.
You'll be harassed. You might be fired or kicked out of school or beaten up. But you might make it a little easier for the next one.
More later, but for now: Thank you for clarifying. As I said, I really couldn't figure out what you were objecting to. From my perspective it seemed to be all over the place and changing with every post.I see where you're coming from better now, though I still don't agree about the APs.
When lots of people are playing the module and not having these problems and others read it and don't see the problem there, but one (or possibly a few) person has the problem, isn't it just possible that the problem isn't with the AP, but with the GM running it?
Is it not possible for a GM to "Mary Sue" NPCs that weren't written that way and use them to railroad players when the AP doesn't require it?
1) He didn't say anything about how you GM. He said
the style of your GM (as you described them)
Without looking back, weren't you complaining earlier about the NPCs being used as GMPCs and ordering the PCs around? That's a problem with the GM running them, not so much with the AP itself, as many people have said.
2) It doesn't matter whether the NPC tells you his lifestory or not. The GM knows it and uses it to determine how the NPC acts and responds to the PCs. If the PCs pursue it, it may come out. Otherwise it remains in the background. That doesn't mean it doesn't affect the game. That's what background information is for.
Edit: You edited?
I'd say that's more to do with your apparent lack of interest in the NPCs. That's different from, for example, my style of play. I like to get to know NPCs. To learn more about them. You apparently don't. Different styles of play. Not better, not worse. One is better served by more NPC background than the other.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
I remember that one. It was one of the better What Ifs.
You can have tons of plot and mystery (and in many cases more) if you devote more to plot options and puzzles rather than a two to four page write up on an NPC and their history which most PC's won't ever see or use anyways unless it becomes a GMPC.
Except more background info on the NPC gives the GM more to base his characterization on and more knowledge of how they fit into what's going on. I'd guess roughly half the 2-page write ups are the villains anyway.
Even if the players never actually learn all the history, that doesn't mean the background doesn't affect the game. That's what background is for.
Or perhaps some who want more plot and more NPCs and less space devoted to encounter write-ups since they're going to tweak those for their group anyway?It's not necessarily about "holding their hands" or "doing all the work for the GM", it's about what parts you want detailed and emphasized. As I understand it Aux wants more challenge and more space for encounters. I'd rather have less space devoted to combat and encounters and more for roleplaying stuff:NPCs, plot, mystery, etc.
While I agree that the behavioral restrictions aren't a good way to balance the class, I like the concept of the class as it is and don't think it needs drastic changes.
If a group wants to travel with a paladin, but don't want to deal with a paladin's restrictions then they don't actually want to travel with a paladin. Much like someone who wants to play a paladin but doesn't want to be lawful good - they don't actually want to play a paladin.
And frankly, while I'm not fond of the "trapping a paladin into falling" thing, a paladin who willingly went along with the "go stand over there while we torture the prisoners" game wouldn't last long.
Work out a group that can actually work together. Whether that means don't play the paladin or don't play the torturers, either way works.
I also hope it never happens, but see no need for the paladin to be made more powerful. If you like playing paladins with the restrictions, play them. No need to make them more powerful to tempt people who don't like the restrictions to play them.
I don't think ditching friends was suggested. "Find a new GM" doesn't mean kick out the guy who was GMing. He can play too. "GM yourself" as well. "Talk to him" certainly does.
And since the APs can be run without this problem, it's quite possible that if your GM ditches the APs he'd still bring in GMPCs. Especially if you've carefully kept quiet what you don't like about the AP and the way he's running it.
It's also possible that some characters are popular and long-lasting because they're just good character concepts. Iconic, archetypal, deep rooted appeal to all of those characters.
The hipster "I don't like that because it's too popular" thing is just as bad as jumping on the bandwagon and liking it because it's popular.
Thank you for providing such a good demonstration.
How is it "running cover"? Throw the book at him. I'm all for it. Same with the inner city gang kid. Punish him for his crimes.
Of course it's their responsibility to reject those things. I never said otherwise. I never said "I'm not certain to the degree of where the responsibility lies."
But don't ignore the influences. Try to shut down those preaching hate and violence, not just those acting on them. Try to help the inner city kids make different choices, give them opportunities and better influences.
I love this argument: It's always either/or. Either the individual is completely wholly responsible and no influences matter at all or only the influence is to blame and the individual is completely innocent.
No chance of it being more complicated than that. No understanding that sometimes the manipulators and instigators are to blame as well as the one who does the deed. Obviously this guy is personally accountable. But so are those that fed him the line of bull over the years that taught him to hate Jews and revere Hitler. So is the ideology.
It's the same issue that comes up with urban crime, gangs and the like. Any time you start to talk about root causes and patterns, people jump up saying "You're just making excuses. You're saying those thugs aren't responsible." When that's not the point at all.
As TOZ says, you obviously haven't been following yellowdingo. Go read a bunch of his petitions and get back to us.
That said, I took Orfamy to task a bit earlier in the thread for lashing out at YD. Mostly for reacting to him as if YD's petitions and posts should be taken seriously as some kind of evil coherent political philosophy. I don't know YD beyond what he's posted here and the petitions he's linked, but "crazier than a rhinocerous on bad acid" isn't a bad description of the ideas he presents. Personally, I assume he's doing it mostly for amusement value so that doesn't mean he's crazy, but that's definitely how he's presenting himself.
Mind you, I like the persona. The ideas are amusing and some of them provoke interesting debate. Even if most of them require breaking basic economics or the laws of physics.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Not so much the leader, but the meaningful choices. If they can be engaged by the more RP choices of money vs good deeds or which patrons to impress, great. If it's just high risk/high reward vs low risk/low reward, at least it's something meaningful.
And sometimes you have to be blatantly obvious about it. Far more obvious than you think, looking at it from the GM's perspective.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
What's the difference?
In a proper sandbox, the characters make sure they learn what they're going to be up against before they actually fight it. They have to or they can't make the decision to only deal with risks of their own choosing, which is the essence of the style. Why can't each character just look for problems that he can handle alone?
Maybe that means the 4th level character goes after problems that would be appropriate for a 1st level party, but he's solo, so it's reasonable.
What's the difference between "imagine trying to solo a den of trolls plaguing a region at really low level" and "imagine trying to fight the dragon that's plaguing the region at really low level"? The answer of course is that you don't do either. You seek out a lesser problem.
As I suggested awhile back, it's only a problem if you want it to be one. For most games and most groups it's only a metagame problem. If you're the GM and it bothers you, come up with a reason. If it bothers your players, tell them their characters don't know why, let them ask around and get stonewalled. When their high enough level to experiment themselves maybe they can find out, if they don't have more important things to do.
After all, teleport trade is such the obvious thing to do, there must be reason it isn't done, right?
And really, if you're nit-picky enough that the lack of teleport trade networks bothers you, but the rest of the rules and setting doesn't, well I just don't know what to say.
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
I'm not sure it's been made entirely clear in the movieverse, but in the standard Marvelverse, they are gods. Or at least, they have often been written that way. Given a 50 year history, there's been plenty of contradiction.
Doug's Workshop wrote:
Any limit imposed is going to be arbitrary in that sense. One dollar more is never going to be so much worse it's clearly horrible, while one dollar less was fine.Following that chain of logic leads inexorably to either banning all campaign donations or having no limits whatsoever.
This also applies to all other laws involving points on a continuum. Whether it's speed limits, age limits, blood alchohol limits for driving, whatever.
And of course, we're talking about a decision that does allow hundreds of thousands of dollars to be given, just not all directly to one candidate.
Exceedingly rare? Like all the European governments that have used the example of these anti-Holocaust denial laws to criminalize all dissent or any speech they dislike?
The check on government abuse of power is its populace, not its laws. That's always been true. That will always be true.
Doug's Workshop wrote:
As opposed to the right, which does the same with the interest groups it courts. See, I can make broad unfounded generalities too.
Of course, the right just happens to be on the side of those who historically had the power and mostly still do. I prefer to be on the side of the oppressed.
Keep fighting the good fight. Keep us from oppressing the rich and powerful. I'm sure they'll reward you.
And keep telling yourself you're standing up for everyone. To bastadize Anatole France, "The poor as well as the rich, must be legally free to donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to political campaigns."
Orfamay Quest wrote:
I'm also amused by the idea that a tyrant, having risen to power, will just look at the existing laws and say "Oh, it's legal for them to criticize me and oppose me, so I guess I'll have to let them."
If he's a tyrant, he'll change the laws as he wants anyway.
Doug's Workshop wrote:
You want to make sure that those already on top of the heap have even more ability to influence the laws to help them stay there.
Won't someone think about the poor oppressed downtrodden millionaires? What will become of them if they aren't allowed to buy politicians outright?
Reminds me of the whining of the robber barons when the income tax was first passed. Or the slaveholder's fears of their property being taken away.
Our society has never been close to perfect. For the majority of our history minority groups (and women) have been denied legal rights or the rights they theoretically had were ignored. Even working class white males had little rights compared to owners of property. The class of owners you're so concerned about have fought those legal rights every step of the way. And they still are. They've still got more legal rights than you or I, because they've got the lawyers to insist on them.
They're not going to be serfs. But they've got a lot of people fooled into thinking they should be on their side. Divide and conquer. It's the only way sucha a small minority can ever keep control.
Isn't this an almost textbook refutation of this kind of "slippery slope", "if the government can ban this, why not others"?Germany has had laws banning Holocaust denial for around 30 years and yet still has a robust political debate. Going down that road hasn't led to widespread bans. In some ways the acceptable limits on political discourse are broader than in the US.
The US has in the past, despite our strict "Freedom of Speech", banned plenty of political speech.
There's no slippery slope here. It's quite possible to ban one thing and not go on to ban others. It's quite possible to have many things banned and then have those bans lifted. It's quite possible to have nothing banned and then move quickly to ban many thing.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
If you realize that then don't take him so seriously. He's not advocating any kind of serious political philosophy. He's advocating random weird crap and you're taking it seriously.It's like analyzing the Monster Raving Loony Party's platform.
Yeah, I've had this happen with weapons/artifacts even when the GM tried to give out something appropriate for everyone. This was back in 2E days and I was playing the cleric, but I was playing him as a dwarven warpriest. Healing, certainly, because it was 2E, but trying to focus more on fighting & self buffing than just on being the healer.
Everyone got cool, far too powerful items. I got a staff that made me the ultimate healbot. I could still fight, but it would almost always be far more effective just to heal. Balanced with the others, but not at all appropriate for what I wanted to play.
Even without the balance issues, handing someone who wanted to play a thug 4 levels of a caster class is a pretty serious twist on what they wanted to play.
Though actually, even without more XP for lower level, he'd come close catching up in levels.
Even mechanically, if you really wouldn't benefit from caster levels, it might be worth not taking them.
Just a thought: what about having the scrolls provide Mythic tiers, rather than regular caster levels?
That way they don't interfere with regular level gain and could provide a significant boost even if they only gave the arcane (Archmage?) version.
The arcane casters are still better off though, which suggests to me that it would be better not to restrict it.
Because as we all know, relationships, romance and even message have nothing to do with story. Are in fact all best avoided if you want good stories.
That was my first reaction. More seriously:
I appreciate that you want less focus on controversial issues (Not that LGBTQ issues should be controversial, but it's true that in reality they are), but the idea that you could avoid any kind of controversy is ridiculous. No matter what they do and how hard they tried to stay with safe non-controversial topics, someone would carp. This is the Internet after all. Take the controversial BGLTQ characters out and there will be complaints about that. Put them in and there are obviously complaints about that. Cheesecake on the covers - Complaints. No cheesecake - complaints. Etc. Romance options - complaints. No romance options - complaints.
More importantly, if you don't find the adventures challenging, unique and memorable, isn't that the problem? Not the presence of controversial issues or interesting NPCs. Making them harder, which you seem to want, isn't for everyone. Some find them challenging enough already.
John Woodford wrote:
Besides, you have to postulate a set of defense mechanism signals common to an octopus native to the seas around Australia/NZ (I think), a spider from SAmerica, an Asian snake, and a bunch of other critters, whose most recent common ancestor is probably Precambrian, or you have to postulate that those organisms--from a whole lot of places around the world--somehow drove human selection. No, I think this is like the vast majority of EvoPsych--faintly plausible excrement that falls apart when you look at it closely. (That is, when it's not being used to justify racism and sexism.)
This is probably too specific, but there is a real trend of unrelated creatures using bright colors and odd patterns to signal "I'm poisonous! Don't eat me!" Many, but not all, of which are actually poisonous.
I'm not sure about "All parties should get equal time."I don't really care about the parties. All people should have equal say. But the party's voice should be based on the people it can attract, not the money.
Not that the government should ban or limit any of the parties directly, but neither should money be the only driver. Allowing candidates or parties to use limited donations from individuals is a fairly good proxy for their overall support. Allowing government financing based on a threshold of small donations, as some states have done, is also a good proxy. Allowing billionaires to fund campaigns by themselves means the candidates presence has no relation to his popular support.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
I recall a dm wanted to be politically correct once after we had finished a quest. So, kobolds had been attacking caravans, eating people, damaging trade in the region. After we exterminated almost all of them, the dm started trying to play up the we should feel guilty about killing them. It was very weird, but a mark of political correctness and notions of victimhood encroaching on a game with typical quests that were older than the pc ideas. Don't kill the murdering kobolds, their young and wives might feel bad and then you should feel bad now that they are victims. Urgh.
Yeah, that's the mark of a bad politically correct GM. Set up a situation where it's necessary to kill the humanoids and then guilt the players over doing so.
Now, if he'd been dropping hints all along that there was a more diplomatic approach to the situation and the PCs went all exterminate-mode anyway, then go ahead and guilt away. Might want to make sure that the hints weren't just too subtle for the players though.
Averting the standard tropes by making possible to deal with the monsters other than by killing them can make for a good game, but you've got to make it clear that's what's going on. Punishing the players for dealing with the situation you created in the time-honored way is not a good game.
Because as near as I can tell from the propaganda, being gay is so overwhelmingly attractive that constant vigilance, prayer and intervention are required to keep everyone from turning. Without the harsh social stigma (not to mention beatings and murders) everyone would be gay and the human race would have died out long ago.
Makes me wonder about some of these people.
Yeah. I expect the annoying list of checks for every step through the dungeon is a result of playing with GMs who'd kill them if they didn't explicitly say they were checking every time.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I think what they are trying to ask, Mr. Workshop, is: does free speech give you the right to drown out someone else's free speech? If you are trying to exercise your right to free speech, do I have the right to stand next to you and yell so loud that no one else can hear what you are saying? And if so, do you still have free speech then?
Or perhaps for a better analogy, if I pull up a truck with speakers and amps turned up to 11 so no one can hear what you're saying.
2 people yelling may not be a good use of free speech, but it is a relatively even playing field.
If that was your intent, you've done a very lousy job of it.
You started off attacking LGBT "extremists" for double standards. Defended bigotry as religous belief. Said that "Christians who follow the Bible" must see homosexual acts as sin.
You continue to push false equivalency between extremists on both sides, when the extremes on one side call for boycotts and for people to resign and/or apologize, while those on the other talk about murder.
pres man wrote:
Except for the part where there is a right and there isn't a Gay Mafia.
And by "same kind of backlash", I didn't mean the same as the response to the offensive words/actions, but that it's the same backlash every time.
Kind of agreed. I do see this particular case as a relatively minor sideshow, not worth the amount of time and energy that's getting spent on it.
OTOH, the right drums up the same kind of backlash everytime anyone suffers any public relations consequences for some offensive remarks or actions. Whether it's racism, sexism or homophobia, only the details of response vary. "Freedom of speech!", "Freedom of Religion!", "Liberal facism!", "Gay mafia!"
Yeah, this is a horrible situation for Ukraine. They can't win militarily, obviously.
Crimea was somewhat different. It already had some autonomy and it was not historically part of Ukraine, being attached to it during the Soviet days. Ukraine can survive that, if they can stop this.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Because I like my characters lasting longer than 5 fights? Even 5 climactic fights?
20% is ridiculously high for making a career of adventuring.
Freehold DM wrote:
I haven't found any info on his religion. He seems to have kept it private.
This donation is a matter of public record and I believe it's been known since relatively soon after it was made. Though some fuss was made earlier, it didn't become a big deal and go viral until he became CEO. Which is, like it or not, a much more public position than he was in before. The CEO is the face of the company and for many that makes a difference.
Yes and some people boast about their PCs accomplishments today. And a different subset boasted about their uber-powerful characters and loot back then.
Besides I thought the usual complaint was that gamers today were so used to the CR system they just assumed they could win every fight and weren't properly cautious like real gamers back in the old school days when you could start with 1 hp and it was a real challenge to be sneaky and careful enough to reach 2nd level.
I lose track of which stereotypes we're supposed to be bashing who for today.:)
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Yeah, back in the day you could only boast about your stats and the awesome magic items you had.The mechanics are different and I think 3.x does encourage the focus, but the mentality's been around from the start.
Freehold DM wrote:
Not defending this guy per se, but what bothers me here is that he didn't step out of the ether when he became ceo - he was already an officer of the company and one of the founders. Why not move to force him out from before? I know stuff about him had been known since 2012, and some had problems with him from then, but he still had a job with the company. Did he do or say anything before then? Mozilla has been around for a while. Did anyone in the company have a sit down with him to discuss what his beliefs are doing? did any employees feel discrimated against? I want to know more.
A) CEO is far more the public face of a company than other positions.B) Some people had been raising a fuss about him, but who can predict when something will take off on the internet.
So who are these LGBT extremists who advocate lynching of anyone? If you're just talking about boycotts, can you please reserve the word for those actually advocating http://www.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/07/28/disgusting-anti-gay-marriage-g roups-activist-sign-suggests-lynching-same-sex-couples]lynching[/url].And lose the false equivalency.
Reverse racism. Men's Rights. The War on Christians. It's all the same.
Yes. And the anti-gay movement has the right to do that. They're not bigots for boycotting people that don't share their beliefs. They're bigots for those beliefs in the first place.
You have freedom of speech. You can say whatever you want. You won't be arrested or punished for it. Once you've said the hateful things, I get to decide whether I want to associate with you anymore. That's my freedom. I can even suggest to others that maybe they don't want to associate with you anymore, given what you've said. Then it's their freedom to do so or not.
You do not however have the freedom to make your hateful views known and not have people react to them.