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. 12,769 posts (13,540 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 6 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 12,769 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
taldanrebel2187 wrote:

It doesn't really matter that I am a troll... the facts are on my side. Drow are a demon-worshiping society. The vast majority are evil, as are the vast majority of red dragons or kobolds. The ones that are not chaotic evil are neutral evil. The ones that are not NE are LE.

BUT BUT BUT DRIZZT. But statistics. But lore. Most towns guardsmen would incarcerate or kill a drow on sight, gentlemen. The lore doesn't lie. Second Darkness details the specifics of Drow society. This is not 4th edition, and the vast majority of drow live underground and worship demons, and are virulently racist and enslave other races

Most town's guardsmen, unless they're actually elves or somehow involved in the events of Second Darkness (which may or may not have happened yet in your version of Golarion), will welcome the strange looking elves into the village with no qualms.

Because Drow were, and mostly still are, unknown to the surface world.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
taldanrebel2187 wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:
Jeven wrote:
Is it practical to attempt to parlay with every monster you meet, on the 1/1000 that it might be good?

No, but it's "Good".

No, it isn't. Good is not stupid. Good heroes would not sit there and look at a Red Dragon flying above their town. They would shoot it down and kill it.

BUT WAIT GUYS IT MIGHT BE GOOD. JUST WAIT. LETS TALK TO IT. Sorry, don't make me laugh.

Actually, what Good heroes do is nothing to attract it's attention while it's flying above their town. If it attacks, kill it. If it flies by, track it and get a force ready to deal with it, outside of town, away from civilians and property damage. Send for help, if you can. If it's willing to talk, talk, unless you're sure it's a threat (even to others) and sure you can handle it.

That's because Good isn't stupid.


Legion Janus wrote:

Two even more silly things are the idea that trans women can't be feminists or that lesbians can't be feminists. And I wish I was making either of those up.

I'm waiting for someone to connect what I said about different realities and which one I deal with most often with what I've said on here. It should put what I've said in an entirely different light.

Oh, I'm sorry. Should have realized from the "political reality" talk. I really need to look at aliases and realize who I'm talking to. It all makes sense now.


Mystic_Snowfang wrote:
Necromancer wrote:
At the end of the day, I see no difference between a choral angel and a ceustodaemon other than that they're X alignment, they took different courses at the Outsider Academy, and they're appearance was shaped by their training.

You mean aside from size, flying ability, weaknesses, abilities, immunities, origins, ecology, behavior...

They're two outsiders who happen to both be CR 6.

Aside from their very nature.

Choral Angels wrote:
They manifest from the souls of the pious dead who possessed exceptional musical talent and pure spirits in life.
ceustodaemon wrote:
Some claim the Four Horsemen created these creatures to serve as summoning fodder. Others believe that they form from neutral evil souls who commit suicide.

They weren't trained. They didn't take courses at the Outsider academy. There isn't an Outsider Academy, for that matter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
it isn't evil to kill Drow on sight..... if its Drizzt Do'Urden that guy's time has gotta be up right?

That's the best argument yet. Actually, Drizzt's alright, but it's worth killing any other ones just on the off chance they're Drizzt clones.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Better_with_Bacon wrote:


When hobgoblins come into a town to loot and pillage, that's 'evil'
But when humans go into an hobgoblin village to loot and pillage, that's 'heroic'

I'm sure the hobgoblins might disagree with that philosophical outlook.

When humans go into an hobgoblin village to loot and pillage, that's 'evil'.

When humans go into an hobgoblin village to stop the hobgoblins who've attacked the human village , that's 'heroic'. If they loot and pillage while they're there, that's part of the game.

I can't remember the last time I played a game that involved sacking humanoid villages for the fun of it. Probably something like Keep on the Borderlands, back in middle school. The vast majority of modules I see today make sure there's a suitably heroic motivation to back up the desire for loot and xp.

Hell, I even played one homebrew game awhile back where we rescued the lizardman village from the evil elven slavers.


Lord Snow wrote:

@Anklebiter - I think most of what you said in your replay to me is reasonable. I did misread a couple of things in that article (honestly, once I saw that line that quoted the Hamas twitter claims, I just shook my head and, perhaps prematurely, decided not to take it seriously because it didn't seem to take reality seriously).

However, I do think you cheat once in your replay -

Quote:
As to your hypothetical question, I have no answer, because as a lifelong opponent of imperialist militarism, I would never voluntarily serve in an occupation army. If drafted, I'd either follow the precedent of the refuseniks and refuse to serve, or the Bolsheviks and organize for international proletarian socialist revolution within the army.

We are discussing military ethics. The whole context of the discussion is an attempt to discern which bastard is doing what horrible thing currently. The line I'm holding is that I feel that the IDF is being treated unfairly - that it is blamed for it's actions, when often there simply is no better way to accomplish it's objectives, and no army would really fare much better in there situations. By the way - while I am not as anti military as you are, I would have never agreed to fight or kill anyone, especially not in the kind of circumstances as in the current war.

So dodging a truly difficult question (the kind of question that unsophisticated, normal, frightened kids in uniform - that is, IDF soldiers - face now every hour of every day) with a noncommittal "can't answer because I'll never be in that situation" is not a serious response. The entire point I was trying to make is that things are not as clear cut as that article made them out to be in the question of civilians purposefully grouping around Hamas operatives to protect them.

Of course much of the worst of this isn't done by "unsophisticated, normal, frightened kids in uniform", especially ones in imminent danger from Hamas operatives being shielded by civilians, it's being done by airstrikes and missiles and artillery, generally from a nice safe distance. The kids on the ground aren't so much the problem. Though there were some nasty incidents in previous operations and I'm sure more will come to light in the aftermath of this one.

Nonetheless, it's not the soldiers I blame, it's the leaders - political and military. They set the objectives. They know how the operation will go. They know that any military operation in this kind of urban setting will have a high civilian toll, even without human shields. They also know that it's futile, militarily. Mowing the lawn, as it's been called. Even assuming this was about the rockets, peace deals slow the rockets to a trickle, offensives bring far more. Of course, that's not the point, just an excuse.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Because Hamas has absolutely no reason to lie about committing war crimes, amIright?

"Look, I am not a fan of Hamas. You can look through my post record in this thread and the one Lord Snow started last time.It wouldn't surprise me if they did use human shields; at the same time, I'm not just going to accept the word of you, Lord Snow or, particularly, Doug's Workshop."

Hmm, I wonder what that might mean.

Especially since the video was submitted as evidence that Hamas had admitted to using its people as human shields. It's hardly reasonable to make that claim for the video, then claim the person in the video is lying when when he doesn't admit to doing so.

He may be lying. They may be using people as human shields. This video is not evidence of them committing war crimes.

Personally, I'm going with the UN, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty Int.


Ascalaphus wrote:

The cute thing is that a spell costs level^2)*10gp to scribe, and its level in pages.

Meaning that a level 1 spell takes up 10gp per page, while a level 9 spell takes 81gp per page. I imagine at some point it becomes an exercise in just completely coloring in pages in your spell book.

The higher level spells probably require rarer and more expensive inks and other ingredients, not more ink.


Irontruth wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Hmm, well, I'm nowhere near looking through all of the links yet, so it is quite possible that I am falling victim to Islamist propaganda, but I'll link them anyway:

Five Misconceptions About the Israel-Palestine Conflict by Hessam Akhlaghpour

In particular, I was interested in the assertions in Point 4:

Misconception 4. Hamas uses human shields.

** spoiler omitted **...

The Palestinian Interior Minister disagrees.Last week, a vacant UN school was found to be storing rockets. It was directly in between two other schools that were being used as shelters for 3000 civilians.

Putting civilians in danger is a matter of inevitability though, whether Hamas puts rockets near them or not... because there's no where else to put them. So then it comes down to the simple fact that the very act of resistance means that civilians are endangered.

Of course the misconceptions article describes the weapons in that school as "the first of its kind", despite the IDF claiming this kind of thing and using it as justification in previous operations.

The article also points out that the IDF has used Palestinians as human shields, in the most direct and egregious fashion, and the soldiers involved have suffered only minor punishments.


Anonymous Visitor 163 576 wrote:

And you've proved my point. Monsters that are just there for you to kill aren't very interesting.

If you run into soldiers from an opposing nation, you can bribe them, insult them, cooperate against a common foe, or challenge them to a tug of war. There are options there.

Yes, you can still interact with other players and with NPC's. You're right. But see how that works? You're interacting with the non-automatically evil parts of the game....

Hell, you can do the same with the automatically evil ones too. Maybe not the tug of war, but you probably can't do that with a patrol from a nation you're at war with either.

You may be justified in automatically killing them because they're evil, that doesn't mean it's always the best strategic or tactical choice. Maybe you want to question them. Maybe you want to disguise yourselves and infiltrate. Maybe you want to follow them back. Maybe they can be bribed - evil certainly isn't immune to corruption. Maybe they can be tricked into fighting another group.
And of course all that is the same whether they're evil because they're racially evil or evil because these particular ones are evil.

If you think the only thing possible to do with evil monsters is just kill them on sight, you're sorely limited.


Drejk wrote:
Duh. B~@!~ing on my country degrading social politics continues. I just read an article about Polish Ministry Of Foreign Affairs removing from their guide for Poles going abroad list of countries where being non-hetero might lead to imprisonment or execution... Reason? "Ministry cannot favor any social group or be suspected of aiding any worldview option"... WTF?! Warning people that they might get murdered by barbarians violating basic human rights is favoring someone's worldview? Seriously?

Of course it is. It's favoring the worldview that LGTBQ people shouldn't be imprisoned or killed. That's a controversial worldview in many places.


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

An interesting thing about demon: "demon" comes from "dæmon" which from "δαίμων" (daímōn). The term demon has, over the years, been vilified thanks to Christian influence (whether intentionally or not) in English.

Demons were never "always evil" entities. That's a bone I've had to pick RPGs for years...

And by "never" you mean "always in the English language", just not in the root languages it comes from.
I mean the word encompasses a group of entities too large and variable to lump together into an always-evil category. It should have been used in place of "outsider" in my opinion.

But not in English usage, correct? Certainly not in modern English common use.

Besides, demons were in the game long before the category "outsider" was invented.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Necromancer wrote:

An interesting thing about demon: "demon" comes from "dæmon" which from "δαίμων" (daímōn). The term demon has, over the years, been vilified thanks to Christian influence (whether intentionally or not) in English.

Demons were never "always evil" entities. That's a bone I've had to pick RPGs for years...

And by "never" you mean "always in the English language", just not in the root languages it comes from.


Anonymous Visitor 163 576 wrote:

More to the point, it's stupid. Not a stupid action per se, but a stupid way to play the game.

Whenever we have EVIL races, then there's no thought or choice involved. Since we're the good guys, we can attack them, and we don't have any pesky morality or conflicts to deal with.

There's also no story.

You've successfully turned a role-playing game into a dull button-mashing affair. Instead of pressing X fifty times to win, you instead say "I full attack" fifty times to win.

Is that fun? Not for me.

Look at Game of Thrones. You know why it's so good? Because you can relate to every side. That gives us drama, and great characters.

And a shout out to Quinn Murphy for showing me this problem so clearly.
www.thoughtcrimegames.net/new-rules-of-fantasy-1-evil-is-a-choice/

Meh. You can tell good stories either way. They're just different stories.

A war with a true innate evil race or force can still have interesting, even moral choices. Obviously, tactics and strategy, but how far are you willing to go to stop them? What are you willing to sacrifice?

Sure, if it's just an encounter with a bunch of orcs for you to kill, there's not much there. But the same thing is true, if it's just a bunch of human bandits. If they're still just there for you to kill, what does it matter whether they're innately evil or not?

But then, I'm not really fond of Game of Thrones.


Mine all mine...don't touch wrote:
As someone who routinely says the wrong thing at the wrong time I found both jokes amusing and posted with no malice, since when is it wrong to laugh? I don't think anyone here intended to be insensitive just to make somebody laugh. Mission accomplished.

I have to say I chuckled at it too.

It reminded me of a blurb for an old S. Gross cartoon book

Quote:
The kind of thing where you laugh hysterically for five minutes then say "That's not funny!"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Set wrote:
bob_the_monster wrote:
Drow seem to be pretty much universally reviled in lore.

In Golarion, 99 out of 100 people don't even know that Drow exist, let alone that they are evil demon-worshippers who probably eat babies and kick puppies and grind up and snort rainbows. (And the 1 in 100 who do are high ranking elven leaders, are part of a secret society like the Lantern Bearers, or have just completed Second Darkness, and are 15th level or so.)

The elves have kept the existence of the Drow secret from all other surface races, and there are entire elven communities that don't even know that they exist (the forsaken elves in the Mwangi Expanse, for instance, are a continent away from the nearest Drow community, which is almost 1000 miles to the north, and across an ocean).

So, yeah, anyone who has their character freak at the sight of a Drow and goes to kill it is either playing someone who psychotically attacks *any* elf (or humanoid, or living creature, or whatever) on sight, and is probably playing an evil and / or insane character, or is a meta-gamer, and should be shunned with great shunning.

If you're not playing in Golarion, or in a version of Golarion in which Drow have invaded the surface world or something, and are widely known as bad mofos, then it's at least not meta-gaming any more, although it's still a bit squiffy to murder folk because other folk of that skin color once did something bad, under the assumption that some people, color-coded for your convenience, are only for killing.

It might be a good *idea* to kill them on sight. But it probably won't be a good *act.*

Morality and pragmatism aren't always comfortable bedfellows, which is one of the many reason that doing the good thing is rarely the same as doing the easiest thing or the safest thing.

Some courage may be required, to walk the moral road.

Yeah, pretty much this: "Why are you killing the funny looking elf?"

OTOH, if you are aware of what Drow are and don't want to take any chances: Attack first, kill if you can't take them alive. Then use Speak with Dead to find out what's going on and then Raise them and apologize if you made a mistake.
Magic makes ethics more complicated. Or simpler. I'm not sure which.


It's funny, because the same exact things have been said about feminists since the days of the suffragettes. The words change, some bits of the rhetoric, but the general theme of "feminists are man-haters" runs straight and true for 100 years.
Who knows, maybe it's finally true.

I don't buy it.


Given the new crop of Palestinians with friends and relatives killed by Israel, I wouldn't hold my breath either. Lots of new recruits is more likely.


taldanrebel2187 wrote:

It's the element of realism. If you're a guy in full plate walking down a narrow hall, people on the other side of a thin wooden door are going to know you are coming. Because CLANK CLANK CLANK.

If the party has reason to suspect danger ahead, then they can gamble and send the Rogue ahead. The rogue can sneak up and listen at the door, pick the lock, disable traps and so forth. Or send the BSF crashing through.

And then the Clanky fighter still has to walk up to the door, so unless you're gonna have the rogue open the door and attack solo, they're still gonna know. A round or so less warning.

And that's assuming there's a door.


memorax wrote:

Well said LazarX I completely agree.

thejeff wrote:

Obviously, as I said before, they need to bring in enough to pay the bills, but that's very different than being focused only on the quarterly profit statements.

They are still in it to make a profit. Big or small. Privatly or publically owned. It does not matter. a person or group start a company to make a profit It should at least be one of the goals imo. Bills, staff, priting costs etc it all needs to be paid. No difference between a big or small company imo.

There's a difference between "Bills, staff, priting costs etc it all needs to be paid." and making a profit. In fact all of those things are expenses and come out before any profit.

As I said in every post I've made on this topic, "they need to bring in enough to pay the bills".
Beyond that though, smaller private companies are free to have concerns other than "maximising shareholder return". If the people running the private company are in the business because of their love of the hobby, they can make decisions based on that. Based on what they'd want to play and how they want to treat their customers, rather than on what the bottom line on the spreadsheet they have to show to the corporate headquarters at the quarterly meeting.
As long as they make enough to stay in business, of course. There's always that bottom line.


daimaru wrote:
thejeff wrote:


I've really never been able to see how to run the standard "Invading the orc tribes lair" without either slaughtering the party as they face the entire tribe at once, probably from several sides, or ignoring any realistic reactions from the bad guys.

That can certainly happen, but there -are- ways to deal with it. If you're the DM have the lair set up so the orcs are spread out and can't all pile on at once. If you're the adventurers, once you're aware that you're in trouble, fall back to a defensible spot and set up a defense in depth.

If you and the DM are -both- trying to make this survivable (and you should be, if the adventurers aren't being fools) the DM should design the lair so there -is- a defensible spot. That's the ideal adventure after all. The DM shouldn't be -trying- to kill off the adventurers and they -should- be thinking, not just fools rushing in.

Granted, again, accidents happen. :)

Personally, I tend to avoid such scenarios in my design. They're a staple of published adventures though and I never can tell how they're supposed to work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Wizards is in this game to make money. So is Paizo. You don't run a company any other way because rent needs to be paid, and people have to eat. Even Paizo answers to people who hold stock in the company and expect a return on investment. That's the American way. it's also been the way since we stopped expecting hunter gatherers to feed only themselves, and we entered into a goods and services exchange.

Paizo's privately held, isn't it? Is it venture capital or actually owned by Lisa (and the other founders?).

If it's just them, it's a very different setup with different responsibilities than WtoC.

Obviously, as I said before, they need to bring in enough to pay the bills, but that's very different than being focused only on the quarterly profit statements.


ShadowcatX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Note "complaints about civilian deaths" by CNN as if both sides were equally killing civilians. This is the "anti isreali" american media.

BBC Gaza death toll over 1,000 - Israeli toll up to 42 The palastinians have killed TWO civilians in this flare up.

Look at that bomb crater that used to be a house and tell me with a strait face they're trying to minimize casualties.

Whose fault do you think the civilian deaths are, the ones pulling the trigger, or the targets who are hiding behind the civilians and hiding weapons in civilian targets?

Also, for what it is worth, the IDF has said that some of the Palestinian casualties aren't actually from their fighting, (the UN school for example, they claim their mortar caused 0 casualties) implying that HAMAS might be purposefully killing their own just to be able to blame it on Israel.

Considering that requires the UN personel on the scene to be shills for Hamas, I'm with BNW on this one.


daimaru wrote:
taldanrebel2187 wrote:


Intelligent foes should attempt to get the ambush if the party is stupid. I've had players rage at me over it, but the reality is that if you go clanking around a dungeon, comically kicking doors down... Well, that crap has consequences. An intelligent enemy is going to hide, flank and try to take your butt down. Not just sit there like a lump on a log.
Yup, really. They deserve it. OTOH, that wastes a huge amount of prep work (usually the whole first session) so as DM you can give them some sort of do over or maybe just not have quite so lethal a monster on the other side of the doors until they smarten up a bit.

I'm always curious exactly how this is supposed to work.

I mean, I get the "not kicking doors down" thing. Use someone with open locks or magic, fine.
But are we really supposed to not bring anyone in heavy armor (clanking) or without a high stealth skill? And in any relatively close quarters organized dungeon isn't the first fight likely to make enough noise to alert the whole place anyway? If there's a chance of hearing you clank around, they're definitely going to hear swords clashing and their friends screaming as they die.

I've really never been able to see how to run the standard "Invading the orc tribes lair" without either slaughtering the party as they face the entire tribe at once, probably from several sides, or ignoring any realistic reactions from the bad guys.


daimaru wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Ambushes aren't necessarily from the front. And the stealthy type tend to be vulnerable if they're spotted.

Sure, but then they weren't (usually) taking the terrain and situation into consideration. The stealth character usually works best out front in a dungeon checking for doors and traps. Out in the open where your party can't really hide, hold him back and let the tanks lead.

And an ambush from behind gives -everyone- a chance to spot them as they go by.

Not all areas are straight single corridors with doors conveniently sealing off the rooms. Anytime you pass an intersection, a clever enemy who knows the layout could be circling back behind you. Think Tucker's kobolds. :) Though it doesn't have to be that nasty.

If all the enemies aren't carefully secured behind doors, the scout can easily be spotted, especially if there's nothing to hide him in the hall except darkness and the enemy is under cover and has darkvision. And there very often isn't anything in the average hallway - which might just mean, don't scout.


daimaru wrote:
Axe Haggart wrote:


There is a handful of reasons for this. Players HATE being caught constantly in ambushes. Also the look of disgust I have seen on peoples faces when their character dies before they can act in combat. I have seen people quit games over it.
ks.
What were such fragile characters doing out front anyway? Someone stealthy if you have them, one or two tanks to protect the wizards and range specialists, then the ones likely to get hurt when surprised. If they were shoving ahead then they kind of deserved what they got.

Ambushes aren't necessarily from the front. And the stealthy type tend to be vulnerable if they're spotted.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Craig Bonham 141 wrote:
Trust? I don't trust any company. Companies (with very few exceptions) exist for one singular reason, to make a profit. Any ethics they exhibit usually exist only due to limitations of law.

That's more and more true the farther up the corporate food chain you go. All businesses need to make enough revenue to stay afloat, pay their workers and the owners, that's certainly true.

But for many small businesses, especially in what's esentially a niche hobby market, profit is far from the only driver. Even many brick and mortar mom & pop businesses are more in it for the love of doing what they're doing rather than to drag every last possible penny out of it. As long as they make enough to keep doing it, that's enough.
Paizo is still a private company. They're not responsible to shareholders and driven by quarterly earnings reports. Obviously, they want to make money, but they're still at a scale where it's possible to have ethics, rather than just business decisions. Their treatment of LGBTQ issues in the game is an example of this. I don't believe that's a cold money motivated business decision (though they might well have backed off if the initial tentative moves had obviously hurt them), but a reflection of the personal beliefs of the owner and management.

WotC is not in that position. They're owned by a large corporate company who can't care beyond the profit numbers. That's the way it is.


Headfirst wrote:
thejeff wrote:
It depends on how many times you have to roll those rolls.
Have you ever played Classic Battletech? You roll hit locations for every attack. Yes, it takes a little time to do that, but I think the results are worth it. It's more fun to imagine my war machine stomping around the battleground with a kink in its knee and one missing arm than it is to imagine my ranger standing on the battlefield with 42 of 65 hit points.

I wasn't really talking about rolling for the hit locations, but about my concern that it will be common to only fail the fort save on a Nat 1. Going back and forth waiting for someone to roll a Nat 1 enough to be sufficiently crippled to lose is not going to be fun. Even if you do get to imagine a crippled arm at the end of it.


Freehold DM wrote:
Legion Janus wrote:

I've been gone for awhile for personal reasons. But, as part of being gone, I've been made aware of something important... and I need to bring it up on here because it is related.

A story about what charges of inappropriate conduct are common to modern feminism that anti-feminism gets right. Please give it a read; it's not misogynist in the least. If anything, it's utterly fair in its examination of the item at hand (and, it does call the anti-feminists out on some B.S. they spout).

Now, how does the above relate to this topic?

There is this article from Jezebel that discusses trans women and issues of socialization in relation to feminism. I would suggest giving it a read; it's an interesting article and the author makes some interesting comments. The accuracy of what the author has to say about the experiences of trans women does not matter; what matters is this article presents two ways that trans women are viewed within feminism. What matters even more is what this article does: It presents two ways trans women are involved in the Gender War. One in which they are the enemy, and one in which they are a weapon against the enemy.

It is unfortunate this situation exists. But it does not change that some people are trying to decide what position trans women have in the Gender War without even consulting them. Even going as far as to lump them in with men in quite a few cases.

I am shaking my head at this. And, unfortunately, this means that trans women may have to be very aware what the extremist feminists are saying about men because some of those extremists are applying the same to trans women.

I really enjoyed the first article linked, it really does a good job of pointing out why feminism and I don't get along in some places. At this point in the movement, I wonder if they(yes, I'm making a sweeping generalization here, deal with...

Well, in the real world women don't usually have the natural physical ability to rip the head off the nearest man, so the more common reaction to someone who offends you is to be offended and possibly to express that verbally - or in writing if the whole thing is online. It's pretty rare to hear of men being actually physically assaulted for offending women. (At least by the women - in more traditional cultures it was and is common for the man responsible for the woman to do so on her behalf.)

And really, I wouldn't take the Black Furies as anything like a fair introduction to feminist ideals. An extremist parody, if anything.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
williamoak wrote:

And to be honest, I'm unsure who would win. The west has strong militaries & the best tech. BUT they have almost no manufacturing left.

The east has excellent manufacturing, a well-develloped resources sector (and the willingness to pollute) and massive numbers.

There is a pretty good chance that WWIII would not be a war of production like WWII, however, because it takes a massive amount of worker expertise and time to construct an F-16 compared to a P-51. F-35 is even worse. It's also much, much, much harder to retool factories now compared to WWII. We couldn't even have that done by the end of the first year. Do to the massive number of SAMs possessed by both NATO and Russia, air forces are not believed to have a particularly long life span. It will most likely hit the stage where production can't even keep up with a small fraction of losses rapidly. Tanks are in a similar situation. It also takes a LOT longer to train competent pilots and tankers than it used to. Chances are, this would be a war fought with whatever vehicles you brought on day one and dug out of your reserves. Ammunition and small arms will comprise most of production, which the US is as capable of manufacturing as Russia, if not more so. The war itself either ends quickly as air forces and tank divisions get depleted and can't be replaced, causing one side to fold or press the button, or it grinds down into trench warfare because there aren't sufficient vehicular assets for a mobile fight.

You're right about air forces having a short lifespan, but I suspect that WWIII will be as different from both WWI and WWII as they were from each other, and for roughly the same reason -- the current crop of generals don't really know how to use new technology on a large scale and so are overinvesting in new iterations of fundamentally old technology.

WWI, for example, literally opened with a cavalry charge. (Aug 22, 1914, 4th Dragoon Guards). Of course, between the...

Einstein had a theory on that.


Freehold DM wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:

How did I know you would go in this direction?

Sam in his costume is all well and good, but ensures he will remain a side-kick with no title of his own beyond a limited series. An eternal second banana getting a pat on the back every now and again. Which seems to be how you like it.

I'm surprised to see you admit that Sam can't support his own book.

I'm just arguing for the same diversity we're seeing in yet another 'not Steve as Cap' storyline and 'Not Thor as Thor.' What's wrong with diversity?

I maintain that you're still encouraging a second banana/sidekick treatment of black characters with an eye towards replacing them with white characters at the earliest opportunity- this isn't the first time you've made the White Panther "joke" if it is indeed a joke.

Of course Sam can't hold down his own book- he's never been on his own as a superhero beyond a token black character- has he even been given his own limited series? This has been quietly encouraged by the mostly white fanbase of Captain America. Are they all bigots who want Sam out of the uniform for the color of his skin alone? No, but I doubt they would buy a Falcon comic book if it came out, and will loudly clamor for Sam to not be Captain America, as you are now. It's not bigotry as much as a stubborn ignorant segregation to keep a black character in their place- far, far beneath that of the great white hero. That you maintain this attitude- perhaps out of ignorance- and then clamor for diversity is worrysome. To paraphrase a movie I hate, I don't think that word...

In fairness, most characters can't hold down their own books. Black, white, male, female, former sidekick or original hero. It's hard to get a new superhero enough traction for a long term book.

I doubt Steve Rogers could hold his own book, if it didn't have the Captain America label splashed all over it.

That said, I probably wouldn't buy Falcon book regularly. I'm also not buying the Cap book now and probably won't pick it up when Sam takes over as Cap. For me it depends almost entirely on the writer and there aren't a lot I'm willing to follow.


Headfirst wrote:
As for slowing down combat, I think it's worth it to add some really visceral moments. Taking an arrow to the arm, hitting a troll square in the head, knowing that a spike trap disabled one of your legs... those help put you in the moment. If the time it takes to roll on hit location charts can be "paid for" by removing other boring parts of combat, all the better!

It depends on how many times you have to roll those rolls. I'm worried that some fights will just be waiting for someone to roll a Nat 1 on their Fort save, because neither side has enough damage to hurt the other.

I'd still love to see a combat example.


Freehold DM wrote:
thejeff wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:

And Israel is willing to call a cease-fire in order to allow Humanitarian aid into Palestine, if Hamas, and the rest of Palestine is.

Quote:
"We are now maintaining an unlimited humanitarian cease-fire," Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor told CNN on Monday. "Our troops will only fire if they come under direct attack."

Are they allowing Gazans to come back into the areas they control? To search for survivors, or bodies or belongings. They weren't in the previous ceasefire.

Are they continuing to seek out and destroy tunnels, possibly with people inside (or in the buildings above)? They were in the previous ceasefire.
There seems to be an issue on both sides, where "cease fire" really means "reload".

That's always true. No military, under a potentially temporary ceasefire, isn't going to do what it can to prepare for the next phase of fighting. At best it's "Reload and negotiate".

This was more like "Reload and continue." Normally with a ceasefire you not only cease actually shooting, but you try to separate the two parties so they don't clash. The IDF continued operations in Palestinian territory, in an urban environment, searching for Hamas tunnels. I'm amazed that ceasefire held as long as it did. I suspect the IDF mostly "reserved the right" to blow up tunnels, but mostly waited until after it expired to actually do so.


ShadowcatX wrote:

And Israel is willing to call a cease-fire in order to allow Humanitarian aid into Palestine, if Hamas, and the rest of Palestine is.

Quote:
"We are now maintaining an unlimited humanitarian cease-fire," Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor told CNN on Monday. "Our troops will only fire if they come under direct attack."

Are they allowing Gazans to come back into the areas they control? To search for survivors, or bodies or belongings. They weren't in the previous ceasefire.

Are they continuing to seek out and destroy tunnels, possibly with people inside (or in the buildings above)? They were in the previous ceasefire.


NobodysHome wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

"No" what?

Falsely prosecuting day care workers for using killer robots to sodomize toddlers is pretty bizarre.

thejeff clarified; when I first looked at your post it looked like you were saying there was no Satanism scare of the 1970's. I was contradicting that. But you were saying that the Satanism scare wasn't as bad as McCarthyism.

I wasn't around for McCarthy, but as far as I know you and thejeff are correct, it was far worse.

Which is scary, because I still remember the strong vibe that every family had at least one teenage daughter who'd joined a brainwashing cult and needed rescue. McCarthyism had to be out-and-out terrifying to beat that.

And the false accusation of teachers goes on to this day -- you have policies where you MUST keep your door open whenever meeting with students, or have a second adult present. Because one kid who decides to yell "Child molester" because he or she got a B instead of an A is enough to end your career even now.

a) I really don't remember the Satanism scare as being that big a deal on a personal/local level. But my parents are sane and I was probably our of the country for part of it. I remember news stories about it, but no real effect on anyone I knew.

b) While I'm sure false accusation of teachers goes on today, so does actual child molestation and statutory rape. On a much greater scale than false accusations. Though without any Satanic conspiracies or any such.


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


And when a business screws me over, even if it's in a perfectly legal fashion, I reserve the right to be upset about and not give them my business anymore. That, even more than the letter of the law, is how you get businesses to behave well.
True but good luck trying to get them to behave unless one has the money to do so. Boycotts only work if a majority participate. Not to mention does that mean that because Drivethru made the mistake of selling Wotc pdfs without their permission. That you will no longer give them your money either. Wotc pulled the pdfs yet Drivethru where the ones that started the entire mess in the first place.

As I understand it, Drivethru had permission to sell the PDFs. If they did not, that would be an entirely different story. WotC pulled with less than a full day's notice permission to sell PDFs from all it's online resellers along with their right to distribute even to those who had already purchased them. There was no mess other than the standard panic about people sharing/pirating digital content.

But you're right, I don't have any real expectations of getting them to behave. All I can do is patronize companies that treat me better.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
remember, though, is that the whole country was caught up in a massive Satanism scare at the time, and it made the Red Scare in the 50s seem normal.
Not sure I'd go that far, but, yeah, it was pretty bizarre.

I wouldn't go that far either. We're still dealing with the consequences of that.

Though the Satanism thing might have been more bizarre, it certainly wasn't as pervasive.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:

While I don't agree with Scott on everything. I do think unlike many posters on the boards he tends to be more rational and logical than most. Like it or not he is correct. Legally Wotc were in the right. Drivethru had no business selling the PDFs if they were not allowed. Morally not that much. Except morals don't pay the bills at the end of the day. Nor a accepted form of currency at any bank.

Business is not FAIR. That's why we have the 995 vs the 1%. Do I wish it were different yes. I don't think it's ever going to change. I would have done the same thing with the PDFs. I would have given a week at most three days. Then pulled the pdfs.

And when a business screws me over, even if it's in a perfectly legal fashion, I reserve the right to be upset about and not give them my business anymore. That, even more than the letter of the law, is how you get businesses to behave well.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:

I think a lot of people will go over to 5E for simplicity reasons, but not for the "simplicity" reasons Werebat cites. 5E, within the core rules, simplifies a lot of things like magic and and number tracking. From what I can gather, a lot of people who really like 2E/1E find 5E closer to what they want than Pathfinder.

I really doubt people who like the complexity of Pathfinder, but dislike the number of books, are going to be all that happy transitioning over to 5E. Mainly because 5E will almost certainly start cranking out more player options, and within 2 or 3 years will have just as "bloated" rule set as Pathfinder. It would really seem to me that the most obvious solution if you don't like all the rules is to reduce the number of books at one's table.

There's certainly a temptation to shift because of the current lack of "bloat", but it will be a shortlived change.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Taperat wrote:
You keep talking about 'rules bloat', but what about that is so off-putting to you? Why specifically is it more advantageous in your opinion to have less options? And as far as OP combos are concerned, what is your definition of OP? Outside of the Summoner, all of the additional rules Paizo has released feel solidly balanced (at least to me). In fact, it has kind of been disappointing to me overall that Paizo hasn't released MORE unique base classes and useful prestige classes, but I understand it's in the interest of maintaining balance and staving off power creep. And the fact that Paizo devs prefer archetypes to prestige classes.
Personally I think the bloat and power creep in PF isn't really in classes, but in feats and spells and even equipment. An example would be all the ways for a sorcerer to get more spells (favored class bonuses, pages of spell knowledge, Paragon Surge (even the nerfed version)).

And even these are not really all that bad. Some of the spells are a bit out there, though I personally haven't had any problems with them. I'm not sure what feats or equipment seem broken, but I admit my tolerance threshold for such things is much higher than some - for example, I never understood what the big fuss about 3.5's Shock Trooper feat was, but apparently it caused a lot of serious freakouts at some people's tables.

I kind of agree on the Sorcerer bit, though being as big a fan of spont casters as I am I really like the favored class bonus for extra spells (other than my usual gripe of "yay more nice things for humans, just what this game needs", neatly solved for my group by opening up favored class bonuses regardless of race); since I always houseruled to let pearls of power be used by spont casters anyway, the addition of the pages of spell knowledge didn't change my game at all.

I'm not even saying that it's that bad, just that looking at classes isn't where the bloat/power creep is in PF. It's almost unavoidable, not because new options are more powerful, but because just adding more options and more combinations of options makes for more powerful characters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Taperat wrote:
You keep talking about 'rules bloat', but what about that is so off-putting to you? Why specifically is it more advantageous in your opinion to have less options? And as far as OP combos are concerned, what is your definition of OP? Outside of the Summoner, all of the additional rules Paizo has released feel solidly balanced (at least to me). In fact, it has kind of been disappointing to me overall that Paizo hasn't released MORE unique base classes and useful prestige classes, but I understand it's in the interest of maintaining balance and staving off power creep. And the fact that Paizo devs prefer archetypes to prestige classes.

Personally I think the bloat and power creep in PF isn't really in classes, but in feats and spells and even equipment. An example would be all the ways for a sorcerer to get more spells (favored class bonuses, pages of spell knowledge, Paragon Surge (even the nerfed version)).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let's say I thought the original goals were a little bit loftier and I wouldn't count that towards filling them.


Atarlost wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
You can add realism, but what you're really doing is slowing down the game.
Just because you don't value associated mechanics doesn't mean people who do are wrong.

There are plenty of systems that handle wounds/health completely differently than D&D/PF. It might be better to look into one of them, than to juryrig something onto a system built with very different assumptions/design goals.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh good lord. If you're counting alternate ability score generation , that's been a feature since AD&D. That's not modularity.


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

We're not talking about keeping things for decades. We're talking about something you could have bought yesterday not being in the companies download library tomorrow.

Hope you got the warning email.
So, I bought the product and had a chance to download it. How was I wronged? Just because it wasn't up the next day? That's immaterial. Unless there was a binding agreement (read: in a legal agreement and not some marketing slogan on the site) that you had with DTRPG then there's zero guarantee. That's a universal truth in business. If there were a binding agreement, then you'd have grounds to sue.

As I said before, it was perfectly within WotC's legal rights.

It was still a jerk move and it's understandable that people were (and still are) upset about it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Buri wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

That's extremely disingenuous of you. There's a big difference between "decide who distributes their products" and "make unavailable something that has already been paid for."

Furthermore, this is precisely the sort of argumentation for which you're constantly taking others to task.

It is technically, financially, and practically untenable to expect a resource to exist forever. Paizo and/or Pathfinder won't always be around, and neither will the PRD. I guarantee it.

Anyway, for some comparison here's a timeline of editions:

d&d: 1974 (3 years)
ad&d: 1977 (12 years)
d&d2e: 1989 (11 years)
d&d3e: 2000 (3 years)
d&d3.5e: 2003 (4 years)
d&d4e: 2007 (7 years)
d&d5e: 2014

pf: 2009 (5 years)

If the time that a company keeps a product available and supports it determines how much trust that company has, then Wizards is still way above Paizo with an average product lifespan of 6.7 years and two whole editions for lasting over a decade. Since 3.5 worked with 3 that shifts their average produce lifespan to 8 years counting them together. The actual problem is a perception and entitlement one.

The PDF thing sucks, but, and this has become acutely important of late, no company is going out of their way to ensure your individual, personal best interest. Not even Paizo does that. You bought the product and got your copy. To keep that copy in the same place and expect nothing to happen ever is, as I said, untenable. The folks who bought them were responsible for their upkeep. Get a thumb drive, keep a zip file locally, and since I'm doing timelines, Dropbox became a thing in 2008: use it.

We're not talking about keeping things for decades. We're talking about something you could have bought yesterday not being in the companies download library tomorrow.

Hope you got the warning email.


Buri wrote:
thejeff wrote:
As far as I can tell, the whole "adjustable dials"/modularity thing isn't part of the game. Isn't even really being talked about any more. The only vestige I see is the "Use feats or just get stat increases" thing.
It's implemented. New things are being talked about. There are a lot of sidebars in the basic rules talking about optional variants and the DMG will contain many more. If the feats things is all you know about then you're going based on word of mouth rather than looking into the product yourself.

I've read through the Basic pdf. I don't have the Starter Set yet.


sunshadow21 wrote:

This change doesn't bother as much as the changes to Thor for a few reasons. First, whether or not you like the story, it's hard to deny that the seeds of if have been there a long, long time, unlike with Thor, where they just seem to randomly hand the hammer off to anybody they can think of with no real clear justification of it in the story itself, which works once or twice, but is really starting to get really dry and old. Second, they are actually replacing Steve Rogers and clearly staying within the existing Captain America storyline, whereas with Thor, it feels more like a dry run at launching a new character without actually taking the effort to launch the new character in a way that would secure that character it's own spot in the Marvel universe, all the while writing about the old Thor at the same time.

In the end, the changes to Thor just feel more forced than the changes to Captain America. That isn't to say that the Captain America story will end up being better, just that it feels like a far better buildup to the change than the comparatively cheap cop out they keep using with Thor. With Captain America, they seem to understand how far they can go before causing permanent damage; with Thor, they seem to have kept going beyond the point where story could cover all the holes they are creating.

Aren't you really just basing this on the press release telling us it's Falcon and not telling us who the female Thor is?

I mean, we don't know yet how either change will be set up, do we?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
The funny thing about the 3.5 gaming crowd, which makes up the vast majority of Pathfinder player base, is that they, for the most part, embraced the vast sea of options. Pathfinder isn't the only RPG out there, it even isn't the only iteration of D&D out there, and I can pretty much bet that all those people who prefer lite gaming hardly ever touched 3.5, let alone Pathfinder, and are out there happily playing OSR retroclones or whatanot.

A lot may have dropped 3.5 then picked up again when PF started and didn't have a vast sea of options. And then got turned off again as it expanded. That's essentially what I've done.

Lack of splat bloat and "lite gaming" aren't really the same thing. I doubt anyone who really prefers lite systems goes for the retroclones. D&D's always been a rules heavy system. Older versions just had some rules gaps and didn't have the character building mini-game. In many ways AD&D was a more complex, rules heavy game than PF, when it came to actually playing the game.

1 to 50 of 12,769 << 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.