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. 11,033 posts (11,762 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 6 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,777 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

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.
That's essentially what women did. Over generations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:
thejeff wrote:
And your mind is open to change?

If presented with rational thought and discourse, yes. That isn't the case with this thread. Discussing anything in this thread is a "sky-is-yellow/sky-is-blue" style of debate - with you being part of the yellow sky crowd.

thejeff wrote:
Of course, I can't really figure out what you object to. Since you flail back and forth between ranting about controversy and agendas and claiming those aren't the problem at all.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
You should invest in a mirror, or go back and read some of your posts.

Such as? I'll admit I've been a bit acerbic the last couple of posts before this one. Condescension does that to me.

Aside from that, I'd be pleased to listen to which precisely of my posts you felt were condescending, and to who. That certainly wasn't my intent.

On more than one occasion you deflected any issue, concern or problem away from the AP (and pushing NPCs) on to the DM. AKA - blame the victim (which is the DM and players, if they don't have a good session).

------

"Deadmanwalking wrote:
This is pretty much just not the way WotR is written. Like at all. There's some built-in babysitting early on...but none of the other things you list are remotely appropriate or suggested by the AP. So...bad GMing, not an AP issue per se.

------

"Deadmanwalking wrote:
APs all involve at least a little railroading...but the NPCs in WotR aren't a particularly big part of it, for the most part. That was your GM's doing, not the AP's.

------

"Deadmanwalking wrote:
That's...a sign of bad GMing, not bad adventure design. If a GM doesn't know that, definitionally, the PCs are the most important characters in the game, things aren't gonna go well no matter how much or little there is in the way of character descriptions and backgrounds.

------

"Deadmanwalking wrote:
That's clearly not what he meant. His intent was to note that other GMs do not behave like yours does (and from your description his behavior sounds like bullying)...thus making generalizing your experience based on said GM's playstyle a bit less than useful for people with GMs who don't do that kind of thing.

------

Does that cover it?
I may have missed a few quips back there (you're doing it all wrong, can't read, running the module wrong, etc).

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

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.

I don't know if you noticed by now, but both your style of play and the style of your GM (as you described them) are very different from those of many others. Most GMs don't use NPCs to bully the PCs around, for one.

So maybe the player isn't interested in a long talk about the NPCs background. Maybe the fact that Bob the Smith was raised as a salve in a far off land will never actually be discussed. BUT - the GM knows that Bob used to be a slave, and that helps the GM act out Bob in a more interesting way. Perhaps the burly smith will have a surprising soft spot for abused children, for example. Perhaps he will refuse to make chains for the PCs even if they are his friends.
The background is there because in some groups (most of the groups I heard of in this forum for example), both the players and the GM care about such things. Those 2 - 4 page writeups are not only interesting, they provide unique gaming moments that another

Thank you for the insult.

What in the heck is different about my style of play? Are you insinuating that we deserve to be bullied!? WTH!? I find that incredibly...I don't know what to say...

Let me express my outrage that you would say such comments.

However, let me elaborate in a more calm manner, despite your lash out.

As far as playing, unless the GM forces the issue, I have very little interest in an NPC suddenly telling me their lifestory (or equivalent of 2 pages of text) for absolutely no reason...especially if we didn't ask.

In your example above, if they guy won't make chains...say he won't make chains...but if he's not going to share his life story with us as to why he won't...why is it pertinent. If he breaks down and tells me two pages of text as to why he won't without us even asking about something that in depth...eventually if all the major NPC's feel they have to vent to us...someone's going to go chaotic evil on them most likely.

Since you mentioned GM...as a GM I find the NPC's incredibly interesting to read about and one of the drivers for reading an AP. I find it is a big reason to read the AP and gives it characterization on a read through that most modules and adventures not by PAIZO do not. As a player, their back histories and motivations many times don't even come into play.

IF I had to guess, in my opinion, the NPC backstories are there more for the GM's enjoyment rather than the players...but even though the GM drives the game, the players normally are the majority.

1) He didn't say anything about how you GM. He said
Quote:
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.
In that example, it's not just "Won't make chains" with no explanation. IF that's all the GM was given, then then GM a) wouldn't have an explanation if the players asked b) might well agree to have him make/do other things for slavers. Knowing why rather than just what, lets the NPCs be more like real people.

Edit: You edited?
As for your "Style of play", I thought that part was obvious. No you don'd deserve to be bullied. I don't know where that came from.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

I remember a brilliant Captain America/Conan crossover!

Conan got shunted into Cap's reality (modern day 616) and survived he best he could. He became a pimp! Dressed the part, even had a cheetah on a leash!

When he fought Cap, he was surprised by a shield being thrown! Still, he wounded Cap enough that if they continued Cap would die, so Conan spared the brave and skilful Cap.

Is was better than I make it sound. :

I remember that one. It was one of the better What Ifs.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tirisfal wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
I wouldn't mind a list of glossed over npcs - one or two lines of info (to be expanded by the DM), but when these write-ups are fighting for the same space as the adventure it's a let down on all levels.

This is where the GM-juggling comes in; the GM always needs to season the adventure to taste.

For every person who states this view (and I think that your opinion here is a perfectly reasonable view, Auxy), there're three other people who complain that "the AP should hold their hands the entire way, because the point of the adventure path is to do all the work for the GM".

I'm not saying that either opinion is wrong, but the latter does tend to show up on the boards quite a bit more often, from what I've seen.

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.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

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.
But then I'm not much on the evil party thing anyway. Certainly not an
evil party + paladin.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
I'm not asking for Chaotic Neutral Paladins just yet, just that Neutral Good, Chaotic Good and Lawful Neutral Paladins be opened up as options

I understand your perspective.

I'm hoping even more determinedly that it never happens. In my opinion, the class should retain its strictures and simply be made far more powerful.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thenovalord wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:

Oh noes! You mean the Mary Sue PCs aren't the sole heroes to save the day but actually WORK with others?!? Noes, don't tell me it's so!

It sounds to me like it's an issue of GMs still learning the ropes rather than the NPCs themselves. It may be that the GM wanted to play the game instead of run it, but no one else wanted to run it. Or it may be an inexperienced GM. Have you sat down with the GM and politely expressed your concerns and feelings? And your belief that it's detracting from the game?

If it's still a problem, find a new GM. Or run the game yourself and learn from the mistakes of other GMs when it comes to NPCs.

Hmm. Can't decide how insulting your post is

Think ditching the AP is the answer rather than ditching friends.

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.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rosgakori wrote:
Abyssal Lord wrote:

Sigh...same old, same old: Spider-Man, Batman, Cap....so many people just run with the pack. I personally cannot stand any super-heroes that are overexposed and so overly popular.

Can't help it. Spider-Man is first comic book about superheroes that I read as a child. It has stuck with me all the years, and I have grown reading Spider-man. I started to like cap during Civil War, and after reading that storyline, I started to hoard other Cap stories. And Bats is just Bats. I can't help it :D

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.


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

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.

I love this middle of the road, gray ambiguous argument: "I'm not certain to the degree of where the responsibility lies" mentality.

When do you start to hold people accountable? At what point are people responsible for their actions vs. conspiratorial "manipulators and instigators"?

People are exposed to crime, drugs, gangs, racism and violent ideologies every day - at what point does it become their responsibility to reject those things? This wasn't a 12 year old kid being told to kill for the Klan, this was a 73 year old, grown-ass man. He owns it and he owns it all alone. Just like the inner city kid who joins a gang - own it. There are several kids in those communities who don't join (somehow) - yet we are supposed to provide cover for the people who fall sway to bad influences? Blaming the gun for being fired, the drug for being ingested or the cash for being stolen.

A clown sitting on his porch spouting racist beliefs is just that, a clown. If you listen to that clown then the world will hand you (with full force) whatever you have coming to you. You can't (nor should you) ban the clowns - the exist to serve as a reminder as an example of how "not to" live your...

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
And, just this week, a man in Kansas apparently failed his Will save and gunned down three people while shouting "Heil Hitler!" One could try to argue -- I'm sure his defense attorney, for one, will try -- that there's no relationship between his Nazi ideology and the fact that he tried to shoot people outside a Jewish center. But based only on what I've read so far, I think that will be a difficult argument to present.
So what you are saying is that the words/ideology manipulated his mind so much that he is not personally accountable? Got it.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
scrmwrtr42 wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


Yeah, it's worse than that. He's saying that when governments do anything unexpected -- not just unpopular -- they become tyrannical. A natural disaster strikes, against the expectations of the many, and only a "tyrannical" government is allowed even to notice and respond, because otherwise it's doing something the masses didn't expect.

I don't know. I expect the government to respond to natural disasters. I think many other people do as well.

That's because you're not yellowdingo, and therefore are presumptively not crazier than a rhinocerous on bad acid.

I'm not going to follow the rest of this thread, so this may have already been brought up and if that's the case, I apologize.

I'm not familiar with YellowDingo, or anyone involved in this debate, so I don't know the background. What I can say I've observed, though, is that Orfamay Quest, you are an extremely condescending and insulting jackass to YD, and at least to this point YD has not responded to the bile you've been raining down on him. I'm not saying I agree with his views, at all, but you, in this thread at least, continually mix fairly strong attacks on YD's character, mental state, and who knows what else with your otherwise rational and logical counter-arguments to his position.

As I said, I don't know your history with this guy, but frankly, you could have been Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and I would have shifted my support from you simply based on the perception that you're an offensive a-hole. I thought the forums were supposed to be free of this type of rancor. If you want to disagree with the guy, by all means, go ahead, but is it really necessary to call him names while you do it?

Grow up.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:

The group needs a decision-making process. The GM needs to facilitate that process.

Also, try to avoid giving them decisions with nothing much between them.
"Do you want to fight ogres or undead? Of course, you have no way of knowing which is more dangerous or more rewarding and you'll probably wind up doing both anyway."
More meaningful choices:
"Do you want a quest that pays lots of money but which will make you unpopular, or do you want to rescue some kidnapped peasant children?"
"Do you want to do a quest for the favor of the priestess, or to serve the king?"
"Do you want to fight the dangerous drow, or the less dangerous goblin tribe?"

This.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:

Well that sorts itself out very easily.

If everyone goes their own way, they all die.

Whether it is a trap, a monster, a group of monsters, brigands or assassins, going solo is a very bad idea in a sandbox with plenty of dungeons, plots and antagonists. Lol, imagine trying to solo a den of trolls plaguing a region at really low level. Free delicious adventurer.

Sandbox does not mean there is no teamwork or that everyone splits up. Whatever gave you that idea Aranna?

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
It makes it science that is capable of the scientifically impossible, aka magic.
That doesn't work for me. The gods should not have powers that can be codified and explained

They aren't gods.

It also has nothing to do with Clarke, their technology is based in magic. Human technology is based in the laws of the physical world.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doug's Workshop wrote:
thejeff wrote:


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."

$2600 vs $2601

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.
And the poor man isn't going to be able to give $2600 either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Andrew R wrote:


When tyrant rise to power, opposing them is breaching the peace. if tyrants rise as they have and will, you will be a slave. You give up liberty for an illusion of safety and thus deserve neither
Out of curiosity, do you have any thoughts in your head? Or did the slogans take up all the space?

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.

Ummm... what if our laws as written allow someone more leeway than they should have in the tyrancy department? Exceedingly rare is the government that will NOT use whatever laws they have available to push its will, because of something as flimsy as principles.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doug's Workshop wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Divide and conquer. It's the only way sucha a small minority can ever keep control.

And yet I'm the one who wants to treat everyone with the same First Amendment rights.

Divide and conquer, certainly. It's what the left does with every interest group they court. Poor vs rich. Black vs white. Men vs women. Straight vs gay.

The "haves" vs the "have nots."

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."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Andrew R wrote:


When tyrant rise to power, opposing them is breaching the peace. if tyrants rise as they have and will, you will be a slave. You give up liberty for an illusion of safety and thus deserve neither
Out of curiosity, do you have any thoughts in your head? Or did the slogans take up all the space?

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Doug's Workshop wrote:
thejeff wrote:

So when were we a free society, by that standard?

The threat of the majority trampling over the rights of the minority has been recognized since before the Constitution was ratified.

If you want to say "our society was never perfect, and therefore it is perfectly reasonable to inflict further wrongs against those we disagree with" you are no better than those who came before you.

Expect strong resistance from those who would not be serfs.

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.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Drock11 wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

Pretty much the same as the US, in fact. You can have an opinion, but if you express it in a way that is likely to result in a breach of the peace, you can be arrested and punished for it.

I can't think of any jurisdiction that does not have penalties against breach of the peace.

Saying something like this is a "breach of the peace" seems to be stretching things to a ridiculous degree though, and seems like a pretty slippery and dangerous path to go down in my opinion. It's a pretty shaky line of thought to me.

Just because somebody wants to be a complete idiot, ignore reality, or have a very unpopular opinion doesn't constitute comparing that to things that create a purposeful and imminent harm to other people like screaming fire in a crowded public place when there is none or whipping up a mob into a frenzy and then ordering them to hurt somebody.

As well meaning as this is I have a hard time seeing it as anything other than simply rationalizing a government banning an opinion one doesn't like. Once that road is gone down one has to wonder in the future what else could be someday added to the list of banned subjects or added to the list of things that must be said because others find them "right". After all one thing is banned why not others?

As bad as it is I think it's better to allow people the freedom to have opinions and thought that involve hate, ignorance, and stupidity than to face the future repercussions of trying to eliminate that freedom because most feel those things are wrong.

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.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


Yeah, it's worse than that. He's saying that when governments do anything unexpected -- not just unpopular -- they become tyrannical. A natural disaster strikes, against the expectations of the many, and only a "tyrannical" government is allowed even to notice and respond, because otherwise it's doing something the masses didn't expect.
I don't know. I expect the government to respond to natural disasters. I think many other people do as well.
That's because you're not yellowdingo, and therefore are presumptively not crazier than a rhinocerous on bad acid.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Though actually, even without more XP for lower level, he'd come close catching up in levels.
If they were at 6th level and got a 4 level bump, he'd reach 12th while they were 12th. They'd still hit 13 before him, but the gap would be less and less of a full level.

Even mechanically, if you really wouldn't benefit from caster levels, it might be worth not taking them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

There's no "now" about it. Holocaust denial's been a crime in Germany for a long time.
They're a little sensitive about, for obvious reasons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:

I've been watching this thread for some time and have been meaning to post. What I am going to post is going to ruffle most if not all the feathers here, but as a FORMER AP (and game, modules, campaign) subscriber I felt the need to chime in.....

For me personally I think it's too much.
All of it.

The LGTBQHetero romance angle and NPC showboating is part of what has driven me away from their AP line.

I don't want the focus on potential romantic NPCs or modern sensibilities in a fantasy game via the AP line, I want a good fantasy game (and content).
The fact that there is any kind of controversy over what goes on the cover/who is the featured NPC in the AP just tells me that this is all either a very poor distraction, a gimmick or misplaced focus (or all of the above).

I don't want modules that espouse a conservative agendas, LGBTQ or H agendas, liberal or progressive agendas, capitalist or communist agendas, vegan agendas or any other agenda than the agenda to be incredibly brilliant. I want adventures that my players are going to remember because they were challenging and unique. Not because there is some great new Beefcake/cheesecake potential story lines for players to explore or because Paizo bravely featured a Trans NPC hero on the cover. Sorry, that isn't me and I believe that isn't a majority of the people who subscribe to the AP line - the majority just puts up with this because "that's just the way it is".

I don't want APs that serve as a soap box for a cause - I get that from my right an left wing media sources every day, force fed to me even when I am trying to avoid it. I want good, challenging adventures with quality writing/plot hook or story.

I think the AP line is pretty much a lost cause and has been lost for some time. I may jump in on Iron Gods, but if I get one whiff of a Mary Sue pet NPC project from the creative staff then I will bail on that also.

It seems like the big focus from the (vocal fringe) fan base (which Paizo seems to encourage) is...

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.
And considering that judging by some of the posts in the other thread romance options include pretty much every friendly non-paired off NPC (and those aren't strict limits), I'm not sure how you'd keep them out.

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.
Do you think they've gotten worse? In terms of challenge or uniqueness?
I'd say that RoW and Iron Gods at least had uniqueness, though it may not be the kind of uniqueness you're looking for.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Davick wrote:
Doug's Workshop wrote:


Finally, you said you wanted all parties to have an equal chance to speak. So, you want the Pansexual Peace Party to share the stage with the Knights Party, while also sharing time with the Communist Party USA, at the same time having "equal time" with Republicans and Democrats?

Not all ideas are equal. Poor ideas (like the first three political parties I mentioned) don't get airplay not because they don't have money, but because no amount of money will attract people to those parties.

My stance is very simple, Davick. "Congress shall make no law respecting the freedom of speech" is pretty unequivocal. Are you so proud of your own position that the words of the people who lived through tyranny mean nothing? Political speech, even though you don't like the message, should not be restrained in any way by government, or you have a bureaucratic inquisition set up for those who wish to exercise their right to speak freely.

I know you don't believe in that concept, and you'll just have to live with the fact that, luckily, the Constitution was written by people who had lived through far more than you'll ever experience.

Wow, the irony, the internal contradiction. You're putting your words in my mouth and then saying you disagree with me. I'm beginning to think you're pulling a Poe or something. This is crazy.

YES! Yes I want the Pansexual Peace Party to have equal time with republicans. Because at the point that you appoint yourself dictator of good and bad speech, you open the door to any form of censorship. I just don't understand the premises you're coming from or what you're trying to argue anymore. It's like saying "2+carburator-Uruguay*-4^penguin=free speech." You keep making arguments that hinge on money=speech and you're forgetting that you're the only one here who thinks that. We demonstrate not only why speech as money is a horrible idea but also an incorrect one, but you keep lobbing arguments that presuppose it and then you just veer right off the...

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TanithT wrote:
Haladir wrote:

And in slightly-depressing news, South Carolina legislature pressures USC-Upstate to cancel humorous show "How To Be A Lesbian by Butchy McDyke."

Apparantly, the legislators assumed that this was an acutal "recruitment" event, and could not be persuaded that it was a comedic performance.

*sigh*

Because it totally works that way. Them eeeevil lesbians can turn completely heterosexual people gay with just a comedic stand-up performance.

It sort of begs the question of why LGBT people haven't all turned completely straight from watching heterosexually oriented media. Because seeing a show can clearly do that. The South Carolina legislature says so.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why are we shipping bulk goods at all?

This is Tippyverse. Fabricate. Create Food traps.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Disk Elemental wrote:

GM - "Alright, you open the door, and see another door to the east. This room is--"

Player 1: I cast open/close on the door

Player 2: take 10 for a 15

Player 3: take 10 for an 18

This is roughly the speech I give.

"You are semi professional quasi trained barely housebroken murder ho.. gentleman explorers. I assume that, by virtue of your characters not being dead, they are not idiots. Unless circumstances dictate that you're running down the hallway without time to look, i assume you ARE looking."

Its absolutely amazing how much time that frees up.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

Did not mean to derail the conversation into a religious discussion.

I was showing that it's only a small group on either side that seem to get the majority of the media attention, while there are many who are more moderate. I was also showing that Christians can also be part of the LGBT movement and vice versa.

More to point out, discussing and trying to say something is a flaw of someone's religion does no good.

Saying someone believes in certain laws, when in fact they probably don't...won't win any court cases, won't win any public opinion, and has never really brought any success to the LGBT movement or equal rights.

More often, finding a common ground which speaks of respect and equality for everyone is where the advances come from, not some argument over our bibles.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:
thejeff wrote:
... the right drums up the same kind of backlash ...
Hardly a ringing endorsement to such behavior. Also, I'd suggest claims of "the right" is about as meaningful as the "Gay mafia". Neither is a monolithic group of people.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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!"
The intent appears to be pushback against making/keeping such things socially unacceptable. Which goes a long way towards keeping such attitudes around.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, this is a horrible situation for Ukraine. They can't win militarily, obviously.
But they also can't survive as a sovereign nation if they let Russia take actual Ukrainian territory based on the actions of a few hundred (maybe a few thousand) protestors. If they kick them out of the buildings they're occupying, Russia can claim that as an excuse to protect ethnic Russians. Once Russian troops are in, they won't leave.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
apparently not so badass as to risk a battle against anything that might stand a remote chance. :P

There is a difference between only engaging in combats with 'a reasonable chance of victory' and 'unwilling to risk a battle against anything that might stand a remote chance.'

I'd say personally speaking I don't want to get into a fight I have less than an 80% chance of winning. Fall below that and sooner or later someone will die. Not that there's anything wrong with death, but it's certainly something the vast majority of my characters actively seek to avoid (though it's not always avoidable for numerous reasons ranging from 'heroics' to 'greed' to a multitude of things.)

The bigger the risk, the bigger the win!

Seriously though, 20% chance of death and you don't want your hero to fight? 20% is not high. Not the most heroic stance.

Because I like my characters lasting longer than 5 fights? Even 5 climactic fights?

20% is ridiculously high for making a career of adventuring.


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

if that first is true, it raises a whole lot of questions.

Is this guy a born again? That might account for some of the extremism and politics. If not, and he always felt this way, why are we finding out in 2012 at the earliest? Why not sooner?

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
thejeff wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Yes, well I just had to bow out of a conversation because the player was excitedly talking about how op they would be, what feats and templates and class combinations they would use to make something really game breaking. That is DULL, but very common now.
It is no more or less common than it was 5, 10, 20, 30, or 40 years ago.

I really liked the potent feat mixes and wicked templates that you could stack in AD&D to make a totally baller character.

Except they didn't exist...

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.
Back in the day, you boasted about your actual accomplishments. Given how cowardly modern PCs tend to be, the boasting has had to shift over to how badass their build is. But apparently not so badass as to risk a battle against anything that might stand a remote chance. :P

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.:)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Yes, well I just had to bow out of a conversation because the player was excitedly talking about how op they would be, what feats and templates and class combinations they would use to make something really game breaking. That is DULL, but very common now.
It is no more or less common than it was 5, 10, 20, 30, or 40 years ago.

I really liked the potent feat mixes and wicked templates that you could stack in AD&D to make a totally baller character.

Except they didn't exist...

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:

I'd still love to know who these "extremists" are. It's a very vague description and easily abused to demonize "them" - whoever they are.

Is anyone who has voiced any kind of opposition to Eich's position as CEO part of this "extremists" group?

Nope. many of those are those who jump on the bandwagon that the media makes. They are informed by the media prior to even following the story or knowing anything about it (aka...all their information comes from the media that has taken the extremist side of the bandwagon already). When Gay rights leaders are being demonized by saying...hey...this isn't exactly what we wanted...this might not be the best idea or best thing...

It's a pretty good sign that it's not a collective thing from the Gay rights movement and probably something a few of the extremists came up with, the media latched onto, and then a whole bunch of people jumped onto that bandwagon instead of looking at the picture themselves and seeing what exactly they were doing as opposed to what they wanted to actually succeed in doing.

The main moderate leaders who are not extremists do NOT advocate the lynching of anyone, and are for equality for all. Just because someone does not agree with you, does not mean that you try to restrict their own rights. It's far better to try to show them a better way.

The Gay rights movement did NOT get where it is today by isolating and ham fisting it's way there, it was done by talk, negotiation, recognition, and standing up for their own rights...

The approval it's gotten in the polls today are more because of education rather than discrimination.

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Odraude wrote:
Quote:
When murder and suicide rates among those who oppose LGBT rights reach the levels of LGBT members due to discrimination, then let's talk again.

Actually I want to post to this directly. I always hate it when bigots act the victim because people call them out on their s&!&. They seem to always forget that freedom of speech works both ways. They can say hurtful things about people in the name of religion and we can tell those c~$~s to get f$#%ed. But what I love most is that they seem to equate the grief they get as strife, as if they have to deal with the same laws and violence that people who are actually being discriminated against deal with. Which honestly disgusts me that they treat themselves as a martyr and their intolerance as something that should be tolerated.

I remember someone on these boards comparing the strife anti same-sex marriage people had with the strife Martin Luther King Jr. faced. I'd laugh at the irony of that if I wasn't so absolutely revolted.

Reverse racism. Men's Rights. The War on Christians. It's all the same.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

And boycotting him since 2012 would make more sense than the outcry that suddenly came out. The thing is, the law says one is free to practice their religion and practice politics without a business being able to discriminate (aka...fire or dismiss you) because of your religion or politics (free speech).

Just as much as one treasures the rights for equality under the law to be able to be of any orientation they desire and not have to worry about being fired for it...the same holds true for race, religion, or free speech.

Even if I am against these people that try to promote this entire one man and one woman stuff...I am also a very large fan of the US Constitution and the freedoms it has for everyone...whether you like them or not.

A counterpoint...JC Penny had a Gay friendly CEO, and it was one of the stores that LGBT couples were encouraged to shop at. The anti-Gay movement called for his removal constantly...not because of his actions (which albeit were worse for JC Penny's and SHOULD have been the real reason) but also due to discrimination against his own personal beliefs.

I see them both as the as the same light...its not the company...but their beliefs which are causing it, and hence the discrimination.

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.

1 to 50 of 1,777 << 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.