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. 22,132 posts (23,053 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 8 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 22,132 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Are those rules in the 3.0 DMG? I didn't see them and don't have the 3.5 one.

Per PF's settlement rules, you can get 3rd level spellcasting services in the average village (61-200 people). That gets you your Remove Disease. I'm not sure how that lines up with 0.1% being able use it.
Of course, it's never been quite clear what 3rd level spells those spellcasting rules get you access to.


It used to be Arcane Strike, got using the gnome SLAs. With that gone, there's definitely a gap there.

Could work with the bloodrager though. Not special to gnomes there though.


Grey Lensman wrote:
Greylurker wrote:

Yeah for all their claims of "No Mind Control, Clones or alternate reality Caps" it turns out to be Mind Control.

I'm guessing the backlash requiered a very quick response to clear the air.

Well, by a mere technicality it isn't mind control - it's a mental history re-write. Mere semantics, but that's enough for the hype machine I guess.

Given that the actual twist was pretty much called by ShinHakkaider in the 9th post in this thread, I find it really hard to get upset about the technicality or the semantics. Or imagine it was a reaction to the backlash.

It's a plot. A storyline.


Lazlo.Arcadia wrote:

Feel free to take a look at d20 canon demographics, which is what all this was based on. Admittedly I adjusted some of it to fit my own campaign, but the numbers are surprisingly not that far off.

Has anyone else done a similar write up for what they are using in other campaigns? How was it similar / different from the one here?

Where are these "d20 canon demographics"?

How do they match up to the various settlement and casting services rules that put at least some casting in every tiny hamlet?
Often those will be NPC classed adepts in the smallest towns, but still.

I'm unaware of any official Pathfinder "Percentage of casters" or "Percentage of NPC classes" for that matter.


Smarnil le couard wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Well, that's certainly stronger than I'd found, but it's still not quite: "The referendum requires me to activate Article 50".

Based strictly on that, I would expect him to begin the process of pushing it through Parliament and dealing with any potential hurdles, like the Scottish veto.
If you read a little more of the context around it, it's more aimed at...

I don't see how to read "shouldn't ignore the vote" in "no governement can ignore (such a democratic decision)", without a huge dose of spin doctoring...

Anyway, everyone and his dog, in EU and in UK, had been said and understood before the vote that a Leave vote would lead HMG to launch the process at once/right away (doom and gloom, my hands would be tied, etc.). As far as I know, talk about a preliminary vote by Parliament only appeared afterwards (I can't prove a negative, though).

I'm happy with that, it's probably better that way. I'm just pointing out the fact that HMG/Cameron refused at the last moment to burn that bridge and left to the next PM the burden of the activation of article 50.

Well, if you read the whole quote, he's saying the government shouldn't then renegotiate and have another referendum, not that the referendum itself is legally binding. Which it isn't. For it to be legally binding, the act setting it up would have to spell out what happens in the case of a Leave vote. It doesn't.

The government can't ignore it. The government should act on it. Which means Parliament should vote and given the public opinion, should vote to leave.


Smarnil le couard wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Smarnil le couard wrote:

Because, in absence of written rules, he (Cameron) laid them off himself while calling for the whole bloody referendum.

Before the vote, it was supposed to be binding. After, not so. I'm not complaining, but if it's not moving the posts, what is ?

All the doom and gloom campaign of the PM was all about the fact that a Leave vote would lead ineluctably to UK exiting EU, and that he would himself activate article 50, immediately. I'm willing to forget that, but I guess some people are bound to remember ! Including the ones who voted for Brexit and still want to get it, even if their voices are currently drowned by the Stay uproar.

Do you have a source for him saying that beforehand? I poked around some, but it's now hard to find anything from before the vote.

He did apparently say a Leave vote would be "irrevocable", but that's a little different.

Here it is. House of commons, 22 februry 2016 : "If the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger article 50 of the treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away."

Complete text here. It also went into a nice, manual setting the process for UK withdrawal. Directly from the horse's mouth.

It can't get more official than that...

Well, that's certainly stronger than I'd found, but it's still not quite: "The referendum requires me to activate Article 50".

Based strictly on that, I would expect him to begin the process of pushing it through Parliament and dealing with any potential hurdles, like the Scottish veto.
If you read a little more of the context around it, it's more aimed at countering the idea that the referendum would be a negotiation tool.
Quote:
This is a straight democratic decision—staying in or leaving—and no Government can ignore that. Having a second renegotiation followed by a second referendum is not on the ballot paper. For a Prime Minister to ignore the express will of the British people to leave the EU would be not just wrong, but undemocratic.

Not, you'll note, that he couldn't ignore the vote, but that he shouldn't.

Not that he would trigger Article 50 that moment, but that the next step would be triggering Article 50, not going back for more negotiations to get a better deal.


Smarnil le couard wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Smarnil le couard wrote:
We are all aware that UK has no written constitution, no clear rules regarding to referendums and few precedents. It's why it's widely assumed that PM Cameron would do what he had said he would do before the vote, that is consider the referendum as binding and activate article 50 ASAP.

I'm still not at all sure why you or anyone else assumed that the lack of written constitution meant that Cameron could activate Article 50 on his own.

I saw nothing that indicated the referendum was actually binding and never imagined that with or without a nonbinding referendum the PM could unilaterally withdraw the UK from the EU. Do you think he could do so without the referendum?

Now I could understand if you expected him to start the process at once. To call for an immediate vote in Parliament.

Because, in absence of written rules, he (Cameron) laid them off himself while calling for the whole bloody referendum.

Before the vote, it was supposed to be binding. After, not so. I'm not complaining, but if it's not moving the posts, what is ?

All the doom and gloom campaign of the PM was all about the fact that a Leave vote would lead ineluctably to UK exiting EU, and that he would himself activate article 50, immediately. I'm willing to forget that, but I guess some people are bound to remember ! Including the ones who voted for Brexit and still want to get it, even if their voices are currently drowned by the Stay uproar.

Do you have a source for him saying that beforehand? I poked around some, but it's now hard to find anything from before the vote.

He did apparently say a Leave vote would be "irrevocable", but that's a little different.

As for the referendum being binding, no such provision appears to be made in the legislation authorizing the referendum. It spells out all the specifics of how to hold the vote, in excruciating detail, but doesn't actually say anything about what to do with the results, as near as I can tell. Certainly not anything as clear as "On certification of a Leave result, the Prime Minister shall activate Article 50 within x days."
Without that, he can't. If he said he was going to, he was out of line then.


Tyrant Lizard King wrote:


More sticks and stones style... Barbarian.

Seriously, if you want to murder in melee, these are your guys. Being a berserking Halfling is also comical... until youre soaked in the blood of your enemies! Look into Brutal Pugilist and be a grappler. Pin your opponents and throttle the life outta them. Build up to the Neckbreaker feat and you're causing serious damage!

Straight up strength based melee barbarian. Risky Striker brings your damage pretty much up to par with larger front liners.

And no one expects it from a halfling. :)


Nefreet wrote:

If you've been doing Darkness wrong, then you've probably been handling the "counters and dispels" aspect incorrectly, too.

Namely, that, in order to "counter or dispel" Deeper Darkness with a Heightened Continual Flame, you actually need to touch the rock that was initially targeted.

Good luck finding it for dispels; hope you're adjacent to the caster for counters.

While you can't "counter or dispel", the heightened Continual Flame will still raise the light level in the area of Darkness. Which is often all that you need.


Smarnil le couard wrote:
We are all aware that UK has no written constitution, no clear rules regarding to referendums and few precedents. It's why it's widely assumed that PM Cameron would do what he had said he would do before the vote, that is consider the referendum as binding and activate article 50 ASAP.

I'm still not at all sure why you or anyone else assumed that the lack of written constitution meant that Cameron could activate Article 50 on his own.

I saw nothing that indicated the referendum was actually binding and never imagined that with or without a nonbinding referendum the PM could unilaterally withdraw the UK from the EU. Do you think he could do so without the referendum?

Now I could understand if you expected him to start the process at once. To call for an immediate vote in Parliament.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Greylurker wrote:

Yeah for all their claims of "No Mind Control, Clones or alternate reality Caps" it turns out to be Mind Control.

I'm guessing the backlash requiered a very quick response to clear the air.

The revelation is actually printed in the second issue. Unless lead times in the publishing world have drastically changed, there is absolutely no way they changed that in response to the backlash. That issue was already finished and in the can when the first one hit the shelves. This was the plan all along.

And it's technically not mind control, so not a lie, just misleading. Like we all knew all along.


Joana wrote:
thejeff wrote:

But as he said, that makes it a two action spell. Action economy goes to hell.

And your own area is dark until you throw it.

It only "goes to hell" if you're used to doing it the wrong way. Every time I've seen darkness used by NPCs in published adventures, it's been by characters or monsters with darkvision.

It's not an ideal tactic for (most) PCs, granted.

By "Goes to hell", I mean "generally makes it not worthwhile". Two action to get Darkness up, blinding yourself for a round and warning your enemies what you're about to do. Rarely going to be worthwhile.

Except for groups with Darkvision of course.


But as he said, that makes it a two action spell. Action economy goes to hell.
And your own area is dark until you throw it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

Need to add I have heard of some actual impacts due to fears now. There are business that were going to Britain that have stated that they will not be doing so...for example Virgin (as per Branson)has cancelled.

It appears that as of right now the biggest fallout (beyond the damage to currency) has been the loss of an increase of several thousand jobs due to some deciding they will not employ in Britain.

I find it ironic, Branson is now saying we all should push for a second vote as he's called off his deal...but he has no leverage. He's already cancelled the deal...a second vote won't save it.

If he had said he was considering cancelling the deal or maybe taking it out if Brexit actually happens, that would be one thing...but as he has no deal now...what leverage does he really have.

It might be a loss for Britain, but I'd say...reacting when no action except for a vote has actually occurred, shouldn't be something they expect a positive reaction to.

So, he's cancelled 3000 jobs he was going to bring to the UK...BEFORE Brexit has actually happened.

What's next...he's going to remove Virgin from the US because Bernie Sanders isn't going to be the Democrat Nominee?

Well, when should businesses begin to consider the consequences of such votes? Should they continue on as if nothing could possibly change until after the formal invocation of Article 50? Throughout the 2 years process of negotiation, before the actual exit? After all, no rules or regulations are likely to change until then, so why not keep moving your business somewhere they might not be able to work, as long as they can right now?

Businesses do such things all time. React to proposed or in progress treaties and legislation. Even based on which politicians get elected and what they're expected to do. How drastically business plans change depends on how likely they think it is to actually be enacted and how big a change it is.
This ranks pretty high on both counts. It's politically very hard to just ignore a huge referendum like this.


Interesting thought. Color me intrigued.

I'll have to see what the rules changes and all are, but I'm definitely interested.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Well, even without a plan, pushing through the formal invocation of Article 50 would reduce uncertainty.

Actually, it wouldn't. No one would be sure if it "took," or whether anyone right now actually has the authority to do so.

Cameron is the Prime Minister, but he doesn't speak for Parliament-as-a-whole; right now, Parliament is controlled (by a substantial majority) by MPs who have gone on record as favoring Stay. If Cameron tried to invoke Article 50 and then was overruled by Parliament, what's the legal status of the declaration? Uncertainty.

Even if Parliament voted to support an invocation of Article 50, legal experts in the UK are unclear about whether it requires the consent of the devolved regional assemblies. In other words, Scotland may have veto power [Uncertainty] until and unless [Uncertainty] Westminster overrides. (If I were a Welsh MP, I'd certainly not vote for an override, because that essentially neuters the Welsh assembly as well.)

And, while I have tremendous respect for the collected wisdom of this forum, the legal question of what would happen if the UK tried to walk back an Article 50 declaration is not at all clear-cut, especially if it appears that the declaration itself was not made with proper authority. (I mean, yes, I personally could write a declaration to the EU that the UK is withdrawing, but no one would blink if the PM told the appropriate European authorities to disregard that letter. But what happens if the PM makes that statement, and then a later Parliament tells the authorities to disregard the now ex-PM?) Uncertainty.

That's why I said "pushed through", rather than "said by himself".

If he actually gets it through the legal hurdles, then it's much more certain. That'll take some time, but will be faster than waiting months before starting exactly the same process.
If he tries and fails, then things are again, much clearer than they are now.

If it does get through Parliament and either isn't vetoed by Scotland (or NI/Wales) or said veto is overruled in turn, then it's pretty clear it couldn't be walked back by a later government, at least not without negotiation with the EU.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Smarnil le couard wrote:


That said, you are right pointing out that BoJo wouldn't feel constrained by a simple statement made by Cameron ; he would have to take stronger action to derail Brexit (such as asking for a Parliament vote, maybe ?). For the rest, we seem to talk past each other. For the record, FO secretary seem to go BoJo and Brexit way.

Ultimately, the issue is that the UK, as a whole, was unprepared for a Leave vote. I'd like to expand on a quote alluded to above, when Faisal Islam asked one of the pro-Leave MPs what the plan was:

Quote:


“I said to him, so where’s the plan? Can we see the Brexit plan now?” Islam told Botting, without naming the MP specifically.

He said the pro-Leave Tory replied: “There is no plan. The Leave campaign don’t have a post-Brexit plan.”

According to Islam, the MP then pointed toward the Houses of Parliament and said: “Number 10 should have had a plan”.

“It sounds like I’m making that up. That literally happened two hours ago,” Islam said, pausing in apparent disbelief.

“So - and I’ve said this before - the person with the most thought through plan, as evidenced by the past 48 hours, is, astonishingly, Nicola Sturgeon, the first minister of Scotland”.

After another pause, presenter Botting replied: “I don’t know what to say to that.”

So, the pro-Leave camp didn't have a plan, Number 10 didn't have a plan, and the EU (obviously) didn't have a plan. Great.

Further to that, no one wants to be the person responsible for, literally, the biggest cock-up in the entire history of the United Kingdom, the one responsible for breaking it up. Cameron certainly isn't going to touch that one with a hay fork, and there's no need for him to. And, frankly, every reason for him not to, because there is no plan...

So step one, then, is to Get A F---ing Plan. Because until and unless there's a plan (and just as importantly, a...

Well, even without a plan, pushing through the formal invocation of Article 50 would reduce uncertainty.

Even if the succeeding PM/Parliament wants to back down, they apparently can't revoke that, at least not with agreement from the EU.
But, as I suggested before it's not quite as simple as Cameron deciding to do so.


Askdal Aleheart wrote:
Roy Lewis wrote:
Heck if I could build real life traps to make the rogue disable them I would (just kidding or am I).

I totally did that. Back in 2nd ed days. I had a buzzer from some board game that went off when the pressure was removed from the button on it. Put that in an index card box and gave it to a couple kids that wanted an introduction to RPGs. They didn't have a trap disarmer so the alarm trap was a lesson that being able to disarm traps is useful. Of course you can guess what happened. *shake box* *my character didn't do that* *yes you did*

------------------

Anyway, I guess this thread did serve its purpose. I wanted to learn what to expect if I started running scenarios. It just didn't turn out the way I was expecting.

I originally was going to post in the how to bring RP back to PFS thread but thought it might better be its own thread.

I was thinking I'd come home from work and find either light-hearted stuff like that character with Craft:Chocolatier who passed out candy IRL and made a mess. Or the creepy stuff like the barbarian who smears the blood of fallen foes on his face.

Instead I found more than a few people said leave the RP for home, don't act how you think a 150 year old elf does, we need to get this done fast and it is a "good" thing if we finish in only 2 hours.

You can't see them all now since at least a couple were the 80% Personal Flame then throw in a couple sentences at the end. They ended up being leave it at home.

In retrospect it did end up being a learning experience.

I'm not so sure I want to run scenarios for PFS anymore.

Give it a shot. See how it goes. Or play first to get a feel.

The vast majority seemed to be on the "Just don't be too disruptive" side. If the leave it at home crowd got deleted, that might suggest they were both the minority and possibly just trolling.

I suspect the actual speed run cases are from people who've played the evergreen scenario many times already, not a normal experience. There are certainly time constraints in PFS. You've got a relatively short time window and you really want to finish, so you don't get to dawdle over long drawnout roleplay bits like you sometimes get to in home games. You've got to find ways to bring character out in shorter spaces.

It might not be for you, but it's probably not as bad as a look through the thread might paint it.


Sharoth wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Sharoth wrote:

This quote is funny. "Yes. As Cameron walked back into Number 10 after announcing his resignation, he apparently said "Why should I do all the hard s**t?" "

You are the ass who wanted this and got on the band wagon. Be a man and face up to what you made. I so hope that he is ruined politically and never comes back. I feel sorry for the Brits, having to put up with people like this.

Well, he didn't actually want it. He (stupidly) wanted the referendum, but he was on the Remain side.
My guess is that he thought it would fail and he would gain something out of that. oops!!!

Everybody thought it would fail. At least the politicians and at least when it got started.

He thought the failure would be enough to shut up the EU-critics. The Leave campaigners thought it would be close enough to get them more influence, but didn't actually have a plan for it passing.


Sharoth wrote:

This quote is funny. "Yes. As Cameron walked back into Number 10 after announcing his resignation, he apparently said "Why should I do all the hard s**t?" "

You are the ass who wanted this and got on the band wagon. Be a man and face up to what you made. I so hope that he is ruined politically and never comes back. I feel sorry for the Brits, having to put up with people like this.

Well, he didn't actually want it. He (stupidly) wanted the referendum, but he was on the Remain side.


I'm not aware of specific collections, but for Elric there's a pretty clear distinction between the earlier (60s & early 70s) stories and the later post 90s stuff. The early ones mostly originally appeared as shorts in magazines and were later collected into book form as:
Elric of Melniboné, The Sailor on the Seas of Fate, The Weird of the White Wolf, The Vanishing Tower/The Sleeping Sorceress, The Bane of the Black Sword, Stormbringer

The later ones were more experimental and very different in tone. The Fortress of the Pearl, The Revenge of the Rose, The Dreamthief's Daughter, The Skrayling Tree and The White Wolf's Son.

As for John Carter, there are a lot of those and the quality isn't very consistent. The first few are good, but I wasn't as impressed once they moved away from focusing on John Carter himself.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Werthead wrote:
Quote:
Never say never ! It will all dépends on how things turns out in a few months time... The EU is nothing but pragmatic, and the last economical crisis led it to construct on the fly new mechanisms ; even the ECB chose to ignore its own rules to do what was needed. If UK goes out of its collective way to wreck other economies for selfish reasons, nobody will object to its forced exclusion : all in the name of democracy and of the collective will of the british people.

Any such move would require the EU to change its fundamental rules to allow it to kick a member state out. Britain itself - which remember is still a member until the process is completed - will simply veto it. I suspect others - maybe Greece or Poland - would be starkly tempted to as well as the precedent would be alarming.

Quote:
A third way of explaining Mr Cameron refusal to issue a formal declaration (despite having said before the vote that he would do so at once) could be that he refuses to personnally assume the responsability of the referendum he asked. Letting the next PM handle the matter could be a way of getting back at his Iago, BoJo. Of course, it can be argued that a continent-wide economical crisis is a harsh price to pay for personal revenge, but hey, politicians can be as insane, immature and mean as any other guy.

Yes. As Cameron walked back into Number 10 after announcing his resignation, he apparently said "Why should I do all the hard s**t?" He was also under the impression that the Leave camp had a plan all ready and waiting to roll.

Later that day Sky News political editor Faisal Islam asked a prominent Leave campaigner what the plan was for Brexit and they replied, "We haven't got one."

Quote:
All of this is like a train wreck, all in slow motion.
Yup. We live in interesting times.

Yeah, basically nobody thought it would win. Everyone was using it for political advantage. No one was actually considering the practical consequences.


Smarnil le couard wrote:
thejeff wrote:

It's not clear to me that Cameron can personally issue a formal declaration. That he can personally invoke Article 50. That needs a vote in Parliament, I believe. Which he could call for, of course.

In one way pushing it off onto the next PM looks like revenge, but in another it seems reasonable. Handing over the implementation to those who actually wanted it to happen. It's certainly good politics. Taking responsibility for the thing your political opponents want to do is rarely a good idea, especially if you think it's going to be painful.

True enough. As the current PM, he has authority to do so and had announced he would (before the vote).

UK has no constitution, and there is no written rule or precedent to handle such a referendum. So I guess he could do it by himself, solely on authority of the referendum itself, or ask for a Parliament vote, or whatever else he can think about.

It's just that the house is quite burning, and that he would be nice of him of doing something other than waiting for the conservative party pow-wow in october. All that is asked of him is proclaiming the intent of the country he is supposed to lead, to enable negociations (which he could then handle to the next PM). It's a yes/no question, in a time of urgent need.

I'm pretty sure that despite the lack of a constitution, the PM can't just unilaterally just do something like take the country out of the EU. The referendum isn't actually binding. It lacks any formal legal standing. It's not self-enacting.

If Cameron can invoke Article 50 now, he could have done so without a referendum.

Looking a little deeper, it's not actually clear that Parliament needs to vote, which is strange, but it is clear that the Scottish Parliament (or the Northern Irish or Welsh?) could vote to veto. Although the UK Parliament could override that or, I think more accurately, to change the law that allows them to veto.
I'm not sure what happens if Cameron formally invoked Article 50 and then the Scots vetoed it. As far as I can tell, you can't just take back using Article 50. Which makes me think there must be an actual process within the UK government for doing so, giving the chance for the veto and override to happen.


Maybe some Zelazny? Creatures of Light and Darkness is an interesting mix of science fiction with ancient gods and powerful mortals.

Maybe Lord of Light as well, but that kind of goes in the opposite direction. Using tech to fake magic powers and sf to emulate fantasy tropes rather than just adding magic to a high tech sf world.


Smarnil le couard wrote:
Quote:
This won't happen. There is no legal mechanism in the EU for forcing a country out against its will, and introducing one quickly and in a knee-jerk reaction to Brexit would ring alarm bells across Europe, not to mention being tremendously out of character for an organisation that prefers a more measured, careful response to issues. They will instead enact pressure through other means (perhaps a hint of a moderately better deal if we invoke Article 50 sooner). This morning, in fact, they seemed to be saying that they'd be - relatively - happy as long as Article 50 is enacted by the end of this year, two months after when it is being proposed.

Never say never ! It will all dépends on how things turns out in a few months time...

And who said that ?

As far as I know, Junkers asked for the exit declaration to come "at once", the European Parliament and its president wanted it "as soon as possible" (EDIT: and voted this morning a reolution asking for it "immediately"), and Merkel speaking for all 6 original members of EU saif they were agreed "that no formal or informal negociation about Brexit would take place" as long as HMG didn't declare its intent.

It's the exact opposite of HMG stance, who wanted to negociate first and declare itself later. Niet, said the continent.

A third way of explaining Mr Cameron refusal to issue a formal declaration (despite having said before the vote that he would do so at once) could be that he refuses to personnally assume the respondability of the referendum he asked. Letting the next PM handle the matter could be a way of getting back at his Iago, BoJo. Of course, it can be argued that a continent-wide economical crisi is a harsh price to pay for personal revenge, but hey, politicians can be as insane, immature and mean as any other guy.

The truth is probably a mix between this (a little sweet revenge) and a attempt to put pressure on EU to get a better deal. The bad thing is, the current uncertainty is as devastating to UK that to any other EU...

It's not clear to me that Cameron can personally issue a formal declaration. That he can personally invoke Article 50. That needs a vote in Parliament, I believe. Which he could call for, of course.

In one way pushing it off onto the next PM looks like revenge, but in another it seems reasonable. Handing over the implementation to those who actually wanted it to happen. It's certainly good politics. Taking responsibility for the thing your political opponents want to do is rarely a good idea, especially if you think it's going to be painful.


MMCJawa wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I'm still more curious what the folks at Paizo are thinking about as they work on this. What they're using as inspiration.

Most of the suggestions I've seen here are pretty much straight science fiction. There may be handwavy technobabble kinds of things that push it into science fantasy for some and the occasional cosmic powered alien, but very little in the way of the kind of PC casting magic + tech I'd expect from something kind of PF compatible & from what they've said about it.

Honestly aside from a few star wars novels when I was much younger and the occasional pulp story (or homage to a pulp story), I haven't read a whole lot of fiction that combines magic + standard science fiction tropes. Either it is very "magic lite" (e.g. The Force, telepaths from B5, etc) or it's largely a fantasy setting but set in a post apocalyptic setting with the science fiction elements consisting of ancient relics and the occasional aliens (Book of the New Sun, Dying Earth, etc).

I assume Starfinder is somewhere between those extremes, so I am kind of bereft of ideas for any specific settings that I have read that exist in that middle ground.

Exactly. I'm having trouble coming up with much either. That's why I'm far more curious what they're thinking than about basically random sf suggestions.


Del Rey put out a nice set of all the Howard Conan stories some years back.
The Coming of Conan the Cimmerian
The Conquering Sword of Conan
The Bloody Crown of Conan

Not sure about the others.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Quote:
What happens to wages and prices? If I'm making 10 Euros an hour, how many bindersnichi do I get?

That's independent of the exhange rate, actually. You're right; it's got to be less than 1000 bindersnitchi, but it's also not the government's problem unless the government wants to make it their problem. If you're a government employee, it's whatever the government wants your salary to be. If you're privately employed, it's whatever your employer wants it to be. And if you're self-employed, it's whatever you can afford to pay yourself.

I would expect the government to be able to estimate a suitable target based on their expectations of how much production costs need to drop. If production costs need to drop 10% to bring imports back in line with exports, then somewhere around 900 bindersnitchi per hour would be appropriate,... as an practical matter, I'd then cut further to 850 on the grounds that it's easier to grant raises later than to cut wages again later.

Technically it's independent of the exchange rate, sure. Practically, it's just an excuse to make drastic wage cuts.

Couldn't you really get exactly the same results just by mandating wage cuts?

If you tell me that you'll buy my Euro for 110 bindersnitchi a piece, but that I'm going to be paid in bindersnitchi, I'm going to demand from my employer the same wage - 10 Euros = 1100 bindersnitchi. Why would I accept 850, if I wouldn't just accept a wage cut to ~8 Euro?

Again, if I'm already being paid in bindersnitchi, then you can slowly inflate the currency so that I make less real money without ever forcing the issue, but with a new currency, it's obvious.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm still more curious what the folks at Paizo are thinking about as they work on this. What they're using as inspiration.

Most of the suggestions I've seen here are pretty much straight science fiction. There may be handwavy technobabble kinds of things that push it into science fantasy for some and the occasional cosmic powered alien, but very little in the way of the kind of PC casting magic + tech I'd expect from something kind of PF compatible & from what they've said about it.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

In mauritania there was a government manded 200 ougia's to the dollar

Of course, no one with dollars wanted to transfer that amount in. So people just exchanged it on the black market for 300 or so.

Exactly. That's the wrong way to do it. The right way would have been for the government to offer 350 ougias to the dollar -- set the official exchange rate below what the natural rate is. People who have dollars will be lining up to give them to the government, which allows the government to build up its dollar reserves and get lots of ougias into circulation quickly.

Of course, you don't need or want to do this for very long; once enough of the new currency is in circulation, the banks can handle currency exchange as normal.

Okay. So you are talking about fixing the currency to the Euro - at least for some period. Not letting the currency float.

I'm still not sure how anyone determines the "natural" rate of a new currency. Assume we're Ruritania and we've been using the Euro. Everyone's accounts and all wages and transactions are in Euros. Now we're going to switch to our new bindersnichi. We declare that the government will give 110 bindersnichi for a Euro, even though we think it'll really be worth 100 bindersnichi, just to encourage demand.
What happens to wages and prices? If I'm making 10 Euros an hour, how many bindersnichi do I get? It's got to be less than 1100, and less even than 1000, since we're trying to actually lower costs. Does the government set new wages and prices across the board.
What's the "natural rate" for a completely new currency with no baseline to work with?

It's one thing if we're already using the bindersnichi and we're just devaluing it, since then my wage in bindersnichi stays the same, but I can just buy less with it.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Except the economists and politicians don't set the value.

Initially, they do. The government sets the rates at which is buys and sells the new currency for however long they do it. And at the "right" rate, the inflow balances the outflow. By setting the rate "too low," they can arrange that more people want to buy the new drachmae than want to sell drachmae for Euros, resulting in a net inflow of hard currency.

Quote:


And in any drastic devaluation, the more you've been importing, the nastier it's going to be. Prices of imports are going to rise, just as the prices of your exports will drop. In the long run, that can be good, since it encourages the development of local industries, but until you get that going, there will be shortages and pain.

I don't think I suggested that there weren't. On the other hand, there aren't a lot of options floating around that don't involve shortages and pain, so this isn't really relevant. Similarly, the more your imports outweigh your exports, the more you will need to drop your imports and raise your exports, which means the more you'll need to artificially raise the price of imports and lower the price of exports.

In other words, the more unbalanced your economy is, the more you need to devalue. This is news?

Quote:


But the real question is how to stop that devaluation where you want it. How do you avoid further inflation?
By setting the new price point at or below the level at which your new level of imports is less than your new level of exports. And, no, you probably won't avoid further long-term inflation -- no one can, with the possible exception of Japan, and they're hurting for it -- but you'll get the currency crisis under control and retain solvency and sovereignty.

Regular, low level inflation is good. That's not what I'm talking about.


Except the economists and politicians don't set the value. You can aim for 12 drachmas to the euro, but you don't normally enforce that. If you do peg your currency to the euro, you're basically still using the euro.

If the currency is actually floating, then it's still easy enough to buy commodities on the market if they're cheaper, but harder to make long term investments, like building factories and the like. You're not going to want to invest money to do that unless the currency, the economy and the political situation are somewhat stable.

And in any drastic devaluation, the more you've been importing, the nastier it's going to be. Prices of imports are going to rise, just as the prices of your exports will drop. In the long run, that can be good, since it encourages the development of local industries, but until you get that going, there will be shortages and pain.

But the real question is how to stop that devaluation where you want it. How do you avoid further inflation?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Soilent wrote:

I'm not sure what to expect, it's quite a conflict of interest.

Seeing as Lovecraft is a heavy inspiration, yet this is a Paizo product.

Lovecraft was very racist, most noteably making a HUGE deal out of interracial marriage.

Meanwhile Paizo has always been deep into the progressive mindset.

I'm curious.

Though really, the lovecraft quote seen above "Never explain anything." explains a great deal about his concerns as a writer. He was considered a hack in his own time, because his primary concern was getting words onto pages, without actually saying anything.

I'm hoping Paizo can do better than him.

Nearly everyone who's used Lovecraft as inspiration in the modern age has avoided at least the more troublesome racist aspects. Paizo certainly has so far, to the best of my knowledge. I can't imagine that will change.

There may be some things that could be racist by analogy - if you take Deep Ones interbreeding with humans as an allegory for interracial marriage, then it's a problem. Of course, Paizo already has that in both Deep Ones and the Skum.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


The problem is the transition though. Regardless of what value was given to the new-drachma, it would surely plummet after that and continue plummeting for while.

Actually, no. One of the tricks that the economists figured out is that if you devalue enough, you essentially produce a fire sale on your local currency and it will actually go up after a devaluation.

Let's say that the "right" value (obtained by detailed economic analysis involving two tarot decks, three cups of tea, and the entrails of a pigeon) is ten drachmae per Euro. As in, that "right" value undercuts your competitors enough that you would see a dramatic (sufficient) uptake in the amount of your exports. (This isn't that hard a calculation; McDonalds does it all the time when they're trying to figure out how to win a price war against Wendy's.)

The trick, then, is that you devalue to twelve drachmae per Euro. At this point, everyone notices that Greek goods are not merely cheap but an outright bargain and all sorts of economic vultures swoop in to buy underpriced cucumbers.

This, in turn, produces a huge influx of foreign currency, creating a strong demand for drachmae and a strong supply of hard currency, which stabilizes your currency and will even raise it slightly.

That seems to suggest that hyperinflation isn't possible. There's definitely a point where what you're suggesting works, but aiming for it may not be as easy as it sounds. Especially if you have to keep spending while waiting for the economic miracle to occur.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:


This thread sure changes shape as fast as a protean

Well, we are trying (collectively) to understand the consequences and implications of a Brexit. It would help us understand them if we knew what they actually were. One of the major issues with the referendum itself is the huge amount of misinformation thrown around by both sides, added to the ordinary common or garden variety of ignorance about economics that seems to plague most countries. (Actually, I've probably reversed cause and effect there. Oh, well.)

For example, I understand very well why people who themselves feel economically threatened would want to preserve any economic advantage they have. But just because you feel economically threatened by something doesn't mean that it's actually an economic threat -- sometimes the evil shadowy thing with tentacles in the corner is just a plate of calamari in a bad light. And sometimes economics can counterintuitive and the most obvious way to protect what is yours will actually cost you more.

About xenophobia and racism, the factors in this election "that dare not speak their name," we can't do much. If the reason someone voted to leave is because they don't want Poles in their neighborhood drinking vodka instead of whisky and because the Italians eat garlic in bed,.... well, pointing out that the Poles actually drink more beer than vodka probably wouldn't help.

But they're tied very closely together. Xenophobia and racism are there and they're certainly factors, but they're tied closely to people's economic perceptions. It's not just that they don't want to live next to the filthy vodka drinking Poles, but that they're taking the jobs and making you poor. It's nonsense of course, but scapegoating is a very effective tactic. The economy is bad, you can't find a job and people are giving you an easy explanation that matches your prejudices.

When times are good, you may still be prejudiced, but it's a lot harder to get you riled up enough to do anything drastic.


The Raven Black wrote:

I now see some strong similarities between choosing to become a lich and voting for Brexit

Except in the former case you will have an eternity to wonder why it seemed like such a great idea when you made the fateful choice ;-)

Well, you can always die if you want to. Just destroy your phylactery and it's over.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Once upon a time, things worked like you imagine. You could default and get away with it. You just had to be self-sufficient enough not to need to deal in hard currency or at least not borrow any. The way the world is interconnected now and the way modern finance works, you need both. You need capital and you need trade.

If you just isolated yourself you could do it.

China did it back in the 40's. They owed a ton of $ (in gold) before they went communist. I think they actually paid back a few ounces on the pound (since we're talking gold) to British holders of the debt a few years ago actually as part of trade negotiations.

Though - in China's case it only screwed over the western nations and still sort of hung out with the soviets.

"Once upon a time".

And China back then was very isolated.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Argentina "defaulted", but has been dealing with court cases ever since and is, I believe, currently in an agreement to repay the whole debt. That's not quite telling the creditors to pound sand. To get that deal in 2005, they had to not only agree that those new loans would be governed by US courts, but to repay most of the old ones and that the old ones would be as well.

If those original loans had been denominated in Argentinian currency, there wouldn't be a legal case.

Again, you're missing something critical. There is/was only a legal case because Argentina accepted a legal case retroactively as part of the 2005 deal (and then effed up the negotiations big time).

From 2001 to 2005, Argentina was in the clear for the pre-2001 debt. A whole bunch of people held paper, but that paper was widely considered to be valueless. With the single notable exception that it might be used against Argentina as a bargaining chip.

Come 2005, Argentina decided it needed foreign capital, and the same people who it needed capital from were the same ones that held (some of) the paper. So those people basically said "well, we're not going to lend you any money UNLESS...."

Actually, this is a trick that collection agencies in the States use as well. They buy valueless, and in many case unenforceable, consumer debt and then try to "persuade" the people to pay the debt despite the fact that they have no obligation to.

Argentina may have been scammed. More charitably, they may have done their due diligence and figured that immediate access to the credit markets was worth the debt burden of the old and unenforceable debt. That doesn't change the legality of the original repudiation.

But that's the point. Argentina didn't arbitrarily decide on some whim that it needed foreign capital. Argentina needed foreign capital. It was trapped. It didn't negotiate badly, it was in an untenable place.

Once upon a time, things worked like you imagine. You could default and get away with it. You just had to be self-sufficient enough not to need to deal in hard currency or at least not borrow any. The way the world is interconnected now and the way modern finance works, you need both. You need capital and you need trade.
If you just isolated yourself you could do it.


CBDunkerson wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The problem for Greece, and a likely problem for anyone else in such a situation, is that had they left, devaluing the new drachma (or whatever they named their new currency) wouldn't help them one bit. Their debts were in Euros. Anything they owed externally would need to be paid back in Euros.

Well, it would still help. Consider tourism. With a devalued currency it becomes much cheaper for people to visit Greece. That, in turn, would result in increased tourism bringing money in to the economy. Similarly, goods manufactured in Greece and sold in 'new-drachmas' would be cheaper than similar goods manufactured and sold under more robust currencies... increasing exports.

So while a devalued currency wouldn't help with debts directly, the indirect effects could well be very significant.

There are certainly benefits. Assuming the devaluation doesn't simply lead to inflation. Which since they still need to import things like energy, isn't at all clear.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
What I've just described is actually one of the weaknesses of the EU (as is widely recognized); it's an economic union without political union, which means that the EU as a body has no real way of enforcing its rules other than economic sanction. Greece didn't want to leave the EU (for understandable reasons) and had therefore to accept the bailout terms offered, but an independent Greece could simply have devalued the drachma into newsprint and walked away. (Yes, this would have destabilized the Greek economy as well, but the EU didn't want to take that hit, which is why they eventually came up with a semi-reasonable deal.)
The problem for Greece, and a likely problem for anyone else in such a situation, is that had they left, devaluing the new drachma (or whatever they named their new currency) wouldn't help them one bit.

This is exactly wrong.

Quote:
Their debts were in Euros.

Greece -- that is, our hypothetical, independent Greece -- would be a sovereign country. As such, it can unilaterally restructure its debt to be in anything it likes, including nothing at all (that's called "repudiating debt," and it happens more that you think, especially in the pre-globalization world).

Anything they owed prior to independence would not have to be paid back in anything at all. That's how Argentina got out of the 2001 debt crisis -- they simply told the creditors to pound sand.

Now, you're right that any new imports or new loans would need to be paid for under different terms. Greece can arbitrarily rewrite the terms of existing loans or contracts, but people will notice and are likely to demand greater security in any new ones. Again, Argentina provides an instructive example -- after the 2001 default, they couldn't get back into the international credit market until 2005, and that was when they had to submit to the "these bonds will be governed under US law" terms.

You're correct. They could default. Hell, they could probably default in the EU, unless there's something in the treaty specifically forbidding it and maybe even then.

And honestly, it's not clear they can default. Argentina "defaulted", but has been dealing with court cases ever since and is, I believe, currently in an agreement to repay the whole debt. That's not quite telling the creditors to pound sand. To get that deal in 2005, they had to not only agree that those new loans would be governed by US courts, but to repay most of the old ones and that the old ones would be as well.

If those original loans had been denominated in Argentinian currency, there wouldn't be a legal case. The same would likely happen to the independent Greece, sovereign or not. It would need loans in hard currency and thus not be able to truly default.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
What I've just described is actually one of the weaknesses of the EU (as is widely recognized); it's an economic union without political union, which means that the EU as a body has no real way of enforcing its rules other than economic sanction. Greece didn't want to leave the EU (for understandable reasons) and had therefore to accept the bailout terms offered, but an independent Greece could simply have devalued the drachma into newsprint and walked away. (Yes, this would have destabilized the Greek economy as well, but the EU didn't want to take that hit, which is why they eventually came up with a semi-reasonable deal.)

The problem for Greece, and a likely problem for anyone else in such a situation, is that had they left, devaluing the new drachma (or whatever they named their new currency) wouldn't help them one bit. Their debts were in Euros. Anything they owed externally would need to be paid back in Euros. Anything they needed to import would likely need to be bought in Euros or dollars or some other hard currency, not the devalued drachma.

When it changes its currency, the country can control what happens internally, but not how external debt is handled. If you owe Euros, you owe Euros, not bindersnitchi.

That's part of why the US is different when it comes to debt. We borrow dollars and can pay it back in dollars. Which we can make, if we needed to.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Demi-Lich H. Ross Perot wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
Tammy's a bad apple.

Tammy's also a real peach. {waggles non-existent eyebrows}

Freehold DM wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Sharoth wrote:

Edit - I too am not completely trusting of law enforcement or the government. (Long story.) I respect most officers, but I do know there are more than a few bad apples in the bunch.

As none other than Dr. Philip Zimbardo said after the Abu Ghraib disgrace broke out, it's not "bad apples," it's the barrel itself that's making the apples bad.

Remember that the original saying is that "a few bad apples spoil the whole barrel".

The whole point is that corruption spreads, not that it's fine because there are just a few bad apples.

nominally,I would agree with you, but I would argue here that the saying has taken on the latter meaning nowadays.

Perhaps the saying has been drifted in meaning amongst folk nowadays, but that means those folk are wrong. They are the same folk who felt it was necessary to drift the meaning of words like decimate, to confuse words like accurate with precise, and to invent words like "pro-active." Wrong, wrong, wrong!

And get off my mausoleum lawn, you whipper-snapper!

Well, I'm a firm believer that language is descriptive, not perscriptive, but I think it's worth pushing back on this one. It's taken on the latter meaning, but the older analogy is actually more applicable to most of the cases it's used in.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
ericthecleric wrote:
As the UK doesn't have the Euro as it's currency, things should be relatively easier. If a member with the Euro voted to leave, such as Austraa, France, or the Netherlands, I imagine the issue would be much more complicated.

No more so than when a country unilaterally issues a new currency, which happens from time to time. The sky didn't fall, for example, when the UK abandoned the shilling and "decimalized" their currency, or when Turkey reevaluated the lira in 2005.

I think it would be fairly straightforward. "Effective April 31, 20XX, the official currency of the Ruritanian Republic will now be the Ruritanian bindersnitch, replacing the Euro. From April 31 to June 31, Euro notes will be accepted at all government agencies for payment of all debts and fees at a rate of one Euro to ten bindersnitchi. After that period, Euro notes will be continued to be accepted at market rates until November 31."

It's easier when you control both the old and new currencies. You can just set an exchange rate and stick to it. Anything instrument - debt or asset - denominated in the old just switches to the new.

The complexities of leaving a currency are much greater. Mechanically it's simple, as you suggest. It's easy to swap the cash out. But what happens to non-cash items. Do all deposits and loans get converted, so that if I owed Euros, that just changes to bindersnitches? How about contracts? Wages? And most importantly there's all the interstate commerce that used to easily be handled in Euros.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Kazuka wrote:
DM Wellard wrote:

Article 50 is the mechanism by which you actually start the process of leaving the EU

Europe is NOT a country and it was the habit of treating it as such adopted by so many EU lawmakers that actually started this sad sorry mess in the first place.

You're a collective group of individual governments that report to a much larger government which has been slowly gaining more and more power over time and slowly eroding the smaller governments into one cohesive nation. And it started out as a group of governments working together.

This should sound familiar.

Nope. Not like that at all

If it was so, the EU would be incredibly more powerful, less criticized and the legal possibility for Brexit would not exist

And we would not be having this discussion ;-)

Definitely sounds familiar, but perhaps more like this?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
For those of us who can't find your country on a map article 50 is...?

I'd hope you could find Europe on a map. :)

Article 50 is the section of the EU treaty that sets the conditions for a country leaving.


rknop wrote:

I was actually the GM at the scenario described. (At least, I'm 90% sure I was the GM. If not, we had exactly the same thing, with exactly the same player reaction, at my table.) I have to admit, I didn't even 100% understand what was going on as it happened; I thought the guy was making an in-character reaction, even though that didn't make sense. It was only later I figured out exactly what had happened, and the rest of the players handled it fine. It was fortunate that in this case it was just easy enough to dodge the issue altogether.

But, honestly, if a player says, "We can't have our characters hurt these pretend horses because I am triggered by hurting animals", then I believe that you've got a disability that means you should probably not be playing RPGs with random people. Harsh? Perhaps. But if there are things you can't handle imaginging that are reasonable possible for normal RPG groups to do (which obviously includes killing people, as that's constant, but could also very easily include swindling people, lying and cheating, and, yes, killing animals), then you should not be putting yourself into the situation of playing these RPGs, any more than you should watch a movie with an R rating if you're offended by any of nudity, extreme violence, or foul language. You should especially not be playing a game where the characters are Aspis agents, known to be evil, who are very likely going to make antisocial choices.

The player who refused to allow the other players to consider doing anything to the horses as part of their tactics later was playing an alien best that, upon seeing some prisoners tied up in a bed, immediately consumed them. If you can imagine that, but can't imagine hurting a horse, then, I repeat, you have problems that you should deal with before sitting down with strangers to play an RPG, especially one where the characters are evil.

Harsh? Perhaps. But, really, there are some things that should be reasonably expected when you play an RPG. If you absolutely can't handle them, then you're making a mistake playing RPGs. Our community standards indicate that we should not be creating a hostile environment for people based on their gender, sexual orientation, race, nationality, etc. BUT, our community standards do NOT include avoiding pretend violence. Much of the game is built on pretend violence. That's how it is. We need to admit and accept that.

Again, I think you're extrapolating. I haven't played that many PFS scenarios, but killing helpless animals hasn't come up. And in your case it was avoidable. It's not that reasonable an expectation.

You seem to have a problem with understanding that triggers are very specific. Being bothered by killing animals but not by other evil behaviors is exactly what one would expect of a trigger. Much like someone might be triggered by depiction of suicide, but not of murder or other violent death. Yes, it's a disability, I guess, but because it's such a specific circumstance, it's not enough to make you broadly unfit for normal society - even for RPGs.

It's not avoiding R-rated movies because you're offended by any of nudity, extreme violence, or foul language. You're suggesting avoiding R-Rated movies because you have panic attacks to depictions of suicide - despite the vast majority of R-rated movies not having any suicide, so you'd be fine with them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
TheJeff wrote:
Correct, though the proper response is often quite different between the cases. Someone being offensive through ignorance can be handled by fixing the ignorance, for example. Someone being deliberately offensive cannot. You can often tell the difference by their reaction to finding out you're hurt or offended.

I think you hit on this with your last sentence, but it interacts here...

Someone that has offended someone isn't automatically ignorant or boorish. It is possible that the offended party is being too sensitive. That possibility opens up a legitimate "chill out" response from the person being offensive on their opinion that the other person is being too sensitive.

In some cases. I was actually thinking there of looking for the barely concealed joy in those who'd intended the attack.


LazGrizzle wrote:

I understand the need for inclusivity and the broader appeal to allow everyone to enjoy a game, but if you are the type of individual that is "triggered" into anxiety or panic by *ANY* of the possible scenarios that may come up in a roleplaying game, I think it is your duty as a player to not limit the experience of the rest of the people at your table who may not have such a limitation, and in fact play the game looking forward to those type of situations that you are trying to avoid.

Perhaps we can have a labeling system, sort of like in TV shows and movies, that say on the cover: "warning, such-and-such content".

I have a minor seizure disorder akin to a much less severe form of epilepsy, and certain patterns of light can trigger it. So to prevent this from happening with my friends and ruining everyone's time, I choose not to participate when concerts or shows happen with huge light shows (looking at you, Disco Biscuits), instead of demanding the venue remove them so I can enjoy the show.

I hope I am not too dick-ish, as my wife has panic and anxiety disorder, as does my best friend, but they simply do not put themselves in situations where they may be triggered.

If someone is so prone to anxiety that imagining killing a horse can set them off, how is imagining killing a HUMAN any better?

Triggers aren't the same as prone to anxiety. They're specific. Imagining killing a human isn't BETTER, it's different and therefore not triggering.

You could have a warning system, but it's likely only to include the most common triggers - many of which aren't going to appear in PFS scenarios anyway. If you got down to "there are stabled horses in this scenario that players may suggest killing", you're pretty much at the list of all contents of the scenario.

If someone's triggered by things common in rpgs, I doubt they'd keep playing - at least not in public groups with strangers. Too much trauma. If they've got a problem with something rare and specific, like this case, they may well continue. And it'll probably come up once in a blue moon. Not a big enough problem to give up the hobby and lock yourself in a room for.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Curio wrote:
What we must ask ourselves is this: Is the intent of the player to hurt other players with their character? Has the player shown hurtful and offensive behavior to other players out of character, or before/after the scenario? Do they appear to be particularly malicious with any player? Have they been asked to tone it down/stop and chosen to continue? If it appears to be the case, then yes, you have a disruptive player that needs to be kicked off the table and reported.

There's a disconnect between two underlying philosophies here. Is something offensive only when someone intends to offend or whenever someone is offended? One gives leave for people to be pretty hurtful with an excuse of "just joking" and the other stifles spontaneity and free spirit because someone can be offended, bothered, or read a negative implication into anything.

This being the internet of course a nuanced position between the two isn't possible. Anyone more towards one side or the other than you is automatically all the way on the other side.

Quote:
What we must ask ourselves is this: Is the intent of the player to hurt other players with their character? Has the player shown hurtful and offensive behavior to other players out of character
Something can be hurtful or offensive without intent, and something can cause offense without being offensive.

Correct, though the proper response is often quite different between the cases. Someone being offensive through ignorance can be handled by fixing the ignorance, for example. Someone being deliberately offensive cannot. You can often tell the difference by their reaction to finding out you're hurt or offended.

Some are also offended or made uncomfortable by things that shouldn't be a problem - the mere existence of gay characters, for example. Being offended or made uncomfortable should not in itself be privileged. It shouldn't become a weapon.

Which is why it's hard to have hard and fast rules about what's a problem. Judgement and common sense need to be involved. "Don't be a jerk" is the rule, but it's not always the person complained about who is the jerk. And I think both Mitch and Jessica have made it clear they understand that.


I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Remember that the original saying is that "a few bad apples spoil the whole barrel".

The whole point is that corruption spreads, not that it's fine because there are just a few bad apples.

But what Dr. Zimbardo is saying is that it ISN'T "a few bad apples," i.e. individual people, but rather the barrel, i.e. the institution, environment, and reigning ideology, itself.

Granted, he was talking about a slightly different scenario at the time, but only slightly - and let's not overlook the increasingly blurred lines between our military and our police.

Fair enough.

Though that barrel is made up of people.

Still, both variations counter the common use of "few bad apples" to excuse problems.

1 to 50 of 22,132 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.