Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Be Honest


Gamer Talk

51 to 100 of 106 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Ciretose, the poster of that thread, the Jack B. Nimble thread, was looking for solutions, from what I recall. He was quite happy when the stealth playtest happened.

I'll agree with the overall sentiment, but I'm aware I've probably done some of the examples. Ok, definitely did the "Here's how you do this, but your engine will explode" one.

Andoran

But you never say your modifications are beyond question and clearly what the devs intended.

I seriously had someone swear the devs intended for players to be able to create genie simulacrums at mid levels.

That happened.

You always say "try this" rather that "this is the way!"


Klaus van der Kroft wrote:
I'm sure the Hrigoi must be some kind of horrible undead creature from somewhere in Eastern Europe that eats rules lawyers or something.

Fixed and bolded for emphasis. :)

EDIT: Someone needs to stat up one of these denizens.

Andoran

You can't. Rules lawyers either don't post builds or they post ones so ridiculous no rational person would allow them in game. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Evil Lincoln wrote:
The basic premise was that you need cover or concealment to get stealth, which makes sneaking "behind" someone impossible, since you auto-fail stealth the moment you leave concealment. So sneaking from pillar to pillar, for instance, was impossible. I think we can all agree that the rogue should have a chance to Tenchu up behind folks and stab them, especially if the target is really statistically oblivious.

I approve of this post, for:

- referencing Tenchu, and
- using it as a verb.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arnwyn wrote:
- using it as a verb.

"Verbing" it, you might say.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It all goes with the premise of the OP.

You can criticize a perceived problem of the system, as long as you make an 'honest' attempt to cite the problem and find solution to it.

The Jack B. Nimble not stealing the chicken was a good example of this. Many such treads lead to FAQs and reconsideration of the original rule.

'findel


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Games that follow the rules as written without any deviation whatsoever are rarely fun, in my experience.

This is one reason I'm not particularly active in PFS.


ciretose wrote:
You can't. Rules lawyers either don't post builds or they post ones so ridiculous no rational person would allow them in game. :)

I played in an old Champions game once (back in 3rd ed., c. 1985). One of our players was a min-maxer in the extreme, who justified every broken build he created with "it's my character concept".

He and the GM got into an escalation war, building bigger and bigger characters within the rules framework. It culminated in a character who could put out 100 dice in a single attack
--150 dice with a haymaker. Part of his build involved taking levels of density increase to pump up his strength and physical stats, then adding levels of growth on top of that to further increase the points, and finally using a few levels of shrinking to get his character's mass and size down to a manageable level.

On the face of it, you wouldn't think that using levels of growth and shrinking at the same time was kosher, but the rules allowed it (that is to say, they didn't state you couldn't), and the GM allowed it, and my mighty 72 dice super-brick felt like Hawkeye watching Thor battle a cosmic threat.

<sigh> Them was the days. :)


Rules are so strange, we want everyone to follow them, except when we don't

Qadira

Evil Lincoln wrote:


Except, that thread did more or less lead to a prospective change in the stealth rules.

In a roundabout way. His initial scenario was ludicrous, because he's talking about trying to Stealth his way past opponents in broad daylight without cover. Trying to say the rules are broken by placing them in a scenario where they're least likely to work doesn't seem very helpful. I'm still of the opinion that the argument should have been about the lack of facing rules and that by the rules, everyone with eyes has a 360 degree field of vision, hence the reason the Stealth skill is hampered.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Shadowborn wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:


Except, that thread did more or less lead to a prospective change in the stealth rules.
In a roundabout way. His initial scenario was ludicrous, because he's talking about trying to Stealth his way past opponents in broad daylight without cover. Trying to say the rules are broken by placing them in a scenario where they're least likely to work doesn't seem very helpful. I'm still of the opinion that the argument should have been about the lack of facing rules and that by the rules, everyone with eyes has a 360 degree field of vision, hence the reason the Stealth skill is hampered.

If only it were a ludicrously unrealistic scenario. I had so many things stolen in broad daylight with no 'concealed' or 'covered' area leading to the things I lost...

[edit] That being said, I do agree with you insofar as the tread could have take a whole different direction, such as 'facing' or codifying how someone could be busy or distracted enough not to be considered looking, even casually.

Every rule has its limit both in their interpretation and in the execution. I'm only vocal against them when something quintessential about the subject of the rule cannot be recreated with the rule itself. A bit like how stating that sneak attack can not be performed if your target has concealment. A sensible rule in most cases, but one that meant that adventurers where safer to lurk in dark alleys than on well-lit streets because darkness would grant them protection against rogues, thugs, cut-throats and other characters based on the sneak attack ability to deal significant amount of damage.

'findel


Laurefindel wrote:
If only it were a ludicrously unrealistic scenario. I had so many things stolen in broad daylight with no 'concealed' or 'covered' area leading to the things I lost...

That's because of that stupid houserules of facing and distraction that this RL-mod uses. Also, other creatures (passersby) provide cover to the would-be thief allowing him to make Stealth checks until it is too late.

Qadira

Laurefindel wrote:


If only it were a ludicrously unrealistic scenario. I had so many things stolen in broad daylight with no 'concealed' or 'covered' area leading to the things I lost...

Yes, but were you and your dog sitting with a full view of the thief's approach?

I do agree with you about the concealment rule, though. When I heard that, I basically said "Well, I'm never making a rogue without darkvision from here on out."


Not much point in refighting that fight here, though.


ciretose wrote:

Don't get me started on Vow of Poverty...adding an additional option is only a problem if the option is overpowered.

If you think something is underpowered, don't use that option and it will have literally no effect on your game. But if it is overpowered it can cause tons of issues.

unless is a trap option, then is a bad thing for the game.

Shadow Lodge

I keep seeing this 'trap option' term come up. Explain?


Orthos wrote:
I keep seeing this 'trap option' term come up. Explain?

Is when some option seem like a good option in paper/theory but is an awful one in a real play.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Orthos wrote:
I keep seeing this 'trap option' term come up. Explain?

Prone Shooter.

You look at it and say 'this feat will make me a better shooter when prone'. Then you go to use it, and it doesn't.

Shadow Lodge

Not familiar with Prone Shooter, any other examples?

Taldor

2 people marked this as a favorite.

“The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules.”
― Gary Gygax

I've rediscovered this secret recently. After playing Pathfinder RPG RAW for years, I find all the joy that made AD&D such a great game has returned to my table.

I cleared out the barracks rules lawyers from my group, even though we'd played for years. I brought in folks who appreciated roleplay, story, and who possessed some competency at dealing with ambiguity.

I still run RAW/RAI, but I'm back in the saddle, making whatever I want up on the spot, without hundreds of hours of planning and research.

Gary knew that the execution/facilitation of the game was especially exciting when the players are kept on their toes, meaning stradling the fine line between the known and the unknown. Enough verisimilitude and believability, along with a healthy dose of, "wow! what the hell is that?"

This isn't anything major, and most great GMs know exactly what's being described here. It's recognizing that there are rules, for the most part following them, but oweing ZERO justifications to your players. And this isn't an in-your-face kind of afront to them, rather it's a quiet, cool, mysterious, flowing pace of game where awesome encounters happen but don't take tons of discussion about rules. Keep your players in-the-moment, and you won't need to spend time diminishing the overall mood and feel of the game with rules discussions.

That said--- on these messageboards we have diversity. I'm actually glad that Pathfinder RPG has such a wide-appeal to all forms of gamers. In my old age (I have mellowed) and I try not to judge. I let the rules lawyers be themselves and don't try to change them. What I DID change is decide how absolutely important it is to 1) ask the kind of gamers you really enjoy to join your table; if things don't work out and if things get bogged down, ask some to leave and replace them with great players 2) Be clear to your players before you start the very first game, say, "the GM has no restrictions". This can help you identify who has the competency of dealing with ambiguity, and ultimately who's gonna go with the flow. In reality (behind the curtain), the GM self-restricts himself to run an awesome game that at least "appears" to be by-the-book. Its an ancient conceit and secret that many of us knew for years, but forgot somehow when we got older and still played.

If your mind is warped right now because you cannot understand how on the one hand folks can really care about the rules, and try to play Pathfinder RPG as written or as intended yet still say the GM has no restrictions... perhaps you haven't GM'd a lot.

Whether you as a GM break rules or not, and for the most part I don't, I've come to remember the value of ensuring the players know the gods run the world, but the GM runs the gods. As a GM, you must be free to create on the spot, describe situations from your imagination, and not be beholden to the rules. The rules serve the game, but the game does not serve the rules.

As a GM, serve your overall campaign first, the story second, and your players third. The secret of success in actual game play is the collective agreement and buy in to whatever the GM says in-the-moment. As for these messageboards, my guess is folks who obsess over rules either 1) are only players OR 2) are GM who truly want to master the ruleset. Because once you master the rules, just as in music, you can learn to break them with finesse.

-Pax


I always consider cleave a trap option.

Reading the rules early on, never playing an actual session, it seems like it would be really awesome!

Then watch how freaking rare the actual opportunity to cleave is... Plus the fact that the pre-req, power attack, actually makes a cleave less likely in PF. Suddenly weapon focus (which looks lame to new players but isn't!) is looking vastly better!

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Evil Lincoln wrote:
I only replied because that was one of the best examples of a complaint thread doing some good, despite its contentiousness and the obstinacy of the original poster.

Aw, I love you too, Evil Lincoln.

Broken rules don't produce the results that were intended or results that don't make for a fun game. There are lots of broken rules that don't matter because they aren't going to come up without going out of your way to show off their lack of functionality (e.g. the peasant railgun). The broken rules that matter are rules that do interfere when you're trying to actually play, like the idea that 3.0 ghouls are CR 1, or the idea that fighters and clerics are roughly the same power at the same level, or any use of the Diplomacy or Stealth rules as written. Those things do interfere in fun games, all the time.

A productive thread ideally identifies a problem like this and shows how it interferes in real games. It doesn't necessarily need to propose a solution: after all, most people on this forum are not game designers and aren't getting paid.


AMiB, you are obstinate. Don't ever change, man.

Andoran

Nicos wrote:
ciretose wrote:

Don't get me started on Vow of Poverty...adding an additional option is only a problem if the option is overpowered.

If you think something is underpowered, don't use that option and it will have literally no effect on your game. But if it is overpowered it can cause tons of issues.

unless is a trap option, then is a bad thing for the game.

It isn't a trap option. It is a better way to have a monk with no equipment.

Why would you want to do that? Who knows! Maybe you are in a low magic game, maybe you are a power gamer in a game with newbs and want to try something to balance, who knows.

But if you do, it is a way to do it that is better than nothing. As Sean said "Being poor sucks".

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So does being useless. :)

Andoran

A Man In Black wrote:

A productive thread ideally identifies a problem like this and shows how it interferes in real games. It doesn't necessarily need to propose a solution: after all, most people on this forum are not game designers and aren't getting paid.

Although some poster seem to think they are with all the "how to" stuff they link to.

If it is a problem, then the point of the thread should be discussion a solution.

Instead some posters prefer to try and prance about and show how clever they are, then quickly derail onto side topics if they aren't getting enough attention and praise.

Osirion

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Shadowborn wrote:
In a roundabout way. His initial scenario was ludicrous, because he's talking about trying to Stealth his way past opponents in broad daylight without cover. Trying to say the rules are broken by placing them in a scenario where they're least likely to work doesn't seem very helpful. I'm still of the opinion that the argument should have been about the lack of facing rules and that by the rules, everyone with eyes has a 360 degree field of vision, hence the reason the Stealth skill is hampered.

Lack of facing is certainly one reason for the failure of Stealth to work believably. But the fact remains that real people can, and do, successfully perform stealthy actions within an observer's field of vision.

If the farmer was reading the newspaper, playing the banjo, whittling a piece of scrimshaw, or throwing sticks for his dog, he should be considered distracted enough to allow an intruder to attempt Stealth, despite being in the farmer's front-facing sight arc.

As a GM, I routinely consider these potential distractions, to allow PCs to benefit from their Stealth skill; I will allow PC actions to count as distractions, keeping their mark busy while an ally sneaks past.

I am constantly aware that I am using a houserule, voluntarily crippling my NPCs, running them as less able than they should be, if I were to use a rigid application of RAW.
It is extremely irritating when a player, whose PC has benefitted from this several dozen times, refuses to meet me halfway, when it's time for them to be targetted by an assassin or pickpocket.
Ooooh no, then he wants to milk his non-blinking, 360-degree 'beholder vision' for all it's worth. He can hear a butterfly fart a mile away, but when targetted by a suggestion, he'll insist that the background noise prevented his understanding; he sees everything that happens with utter clarity, unless it's a gaze attack, in which case he wouldn't have been looking that direction.

And that is why the whole system needs a rewrite.


I think that no matter how much a system is play tested before it goes to print there are going to be flaws that the designers just didn't see.
and you will always have someone who finds these flaws and then shouts about them on forums like this one saying look this system is broken it lets you do this which makes your character in to superman
ok so there are always going to be flaws in games it happens but how about when you find this flaw you just go oh i can do this if i want but im not going to as that,s not in the spirt of the game and would be unfair
but no loads of them go look at me i'm so smart i found how to break the game well do us all a favour and just SHUT UP ABOUT IT i'm not interested i know that no system is perfect but i don't care i just want to play the game with a few mates and enjoy myself
so do us all a favour and the next time you spend 2 weeks working out how you can make your first level character slay a huge anichent red wyrm keep it to yourself as i for one an not interested
and by the way well done for the origanal post i liked it a lot and well said

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Although a bit rough and crass, the OPs post kind of asks, "what's the deal with some players?"

And taking a wide-angle lens, it just seems like they don't "get" the game.

It's really not about "breaking" anything. All the rules are a close approximation of ways to govern and adjudicate the milieu, which by the way is like another reality who's infinate possibilities are endless. And so, we have a great ruleset, which should be kept in the periphery, rather than the foreground.

The rules are "stuff" that help the game operate, yet an equally valid way to describe them is "all the stuff the GM already knows." The nature of the game has evolved a bit over the years, and for the better, yet "how" the GM arrives at his decisions/rulings/descriptions and general facilitation of the game isn't too important. Things like internal consistency, excitement, flare, story, flow, and facilitation of the session far outweigh whether the "rules" come from a book or not. The fact that modern games place all that information in front of players is both a blessing and a curse. But a good GM understands that the paradigm of the GM knowing the "secret rules" has changed to "hey, we're all using the Core Rule Book. That should handle "most" situations, and the GM will handle the rest along with modifying the rules as needed.

This is where I generally agree with the OP... that players who make the quantum leap from "lookie here, I can min/max/munchkin this rule until it feels absurd..." to "therefore the game engine is broken" just don't understand the game. They begin with a FALSE pretext and premise, and then boast the fallacious conclusion that they've 'outsmarted' or broke the system. On this point, I can only say, that it's a free messageboard, and like Voltaire suggested we may disagree wholly with what they say, but should still defend their right to say it. I try not to judge those who don't really get it. Let them have their say on the messageboards, or in the game stores... but if you want a fun roleplaying game... use discretion when inviting them to your personal campaign.

Pax

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

Although some poster seem to think they are with all the "how to" stuff they link to.

If it is a problem, then the point of the thread should be discussion a solution.

Instead some posters prefer to try and prance about and show how clever they are, then quickly derail onto side topics if they aren't getting enough attention and praise.

And some posters like to refer to "some posters" to make snide, passive-aggressive attacks on people they don't like or disagree with, in order to score points in some sort of ongoing game of one-ups-man-ship. And by "some posters" I am referring to you, and the sort of post I'm talking about is the one I quoted.

If you think people should propose solutions instead of simply posing problems, then just say that. Knock off this left-handed "Well, some people seem to" passive-agressive nonsense, it's just not productive.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
A Man In Black wrote:
some posters like to refer to "some posters" to make snide, passive-aggressive attacks on people they don't like or disagree with

Ouch! I could almost feel that nerve being pinched... ;-P

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Digitalelf wrote:
Ouch! I could almost feel that nerve being pinched... ;-P

Well, I was talking about ciretose's post right there, but if you feel like you're being passive-aggressive the same way, please stop because it's annoying and unproductive.


now now kids play nice

Osirion

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Snorter wrote:


It is extremely irritating when a player, whose PC has benefitted from this several dozen times, refuses to meet me halfway, when it's time for them to be targetted by an assassin or pickpocket.
Ooooh no, then he wants to milk his non-blinking, 360-degree 'beholder vision' for all it's worth. He can hear a butterfly fart a mile away, but when targetted by a suggestion, he'll insist that the background noise prevented his understanding; he sees everything that happens with utter clarity, unless it's a gaze attack, in which case he wouldn't have been looking that direction.

And that is why the whole system needs a rewrite.

I think you've made a very good case why the system needs a DM. The rules to cover such corner cases are so specific as to not be worth the time.


A Man In Black wrote:

And some posters like to refer to "some posters" to make snide, passive-aggressive attacks on people they don't like or disagree with, in order to score points in some sort of ongoing game of one-ups-man-ship. And by "some posters" I am referring to you, and the sort of post I'm talking about is the one I quoted.

If you think people should propose solutions instead of simply posing problems, then just say that. Knock off this left-handed "Well, some people seem to" passive-agressive nonsense, it's just not productive.

I'm not sure that even my clarifying post made it clear, but I had no intention of insulting you AMiB, take me at my word. I merely meant to say you are not easily dissuaded from your beliefs (which in this case, and many others, I thought were the correct ones). No insult intended.

That the thread was contentious no one can dispute!

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Evil Lincoln wrote:

I'm not sure that even my clarifying post made it clear, but I had no intention of insulting you AMiB, take me at my word. I merely meant to say you are not easily dissuaded from your beliefs (which in this case, and many others, I thought were the correct ones). No insult intended.

That the thread was contentious no one can dispute!

We're cool. I've never stinted from calling someone out by name if I was calling them out. (Or, at least, I try to; feel free to point out that I'm being a passive-agressive jerk if I ever am!)

And, well, my views on the value of contentious discussion and outright argument are probably pretty obvious.

Jal Dorak wrote:
I think you've made a very good case why the system needs a DM. The rules to cover such corner cases are so specific as to not be worth the time.

You mean the corner case where you want to sneak by someone without an opaque object between you and them for the entire distance? The corner case where you want to convince someone of anything ever using talking skills? The corner case where you use ghouls, swarms, big cats, dragons, or beholders in combat ever?

It's easy to wave off all sorts of terrible, non-functional rules as "corner cases" in the abstract, but if the game's rules for a common situation are "I dunno lol, make something up," why am I paying game designers my money when I can make s!%~ up for free?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, how about we don't re-fight the single fight on these boards that is relatively settled?

Or at least take it to one of the stealth redux threads if you have a dissenting opinion, since that is the stage at which the argument is.

Andoran

A Man In Black wrote:

And some posters like to refer to "some posters" to make snide, passive-aggressive attacks on people they don't like or disagree with, in order to score points in some sort of ongoing game of one-ups-man-ship. And by "some posters" I am referring to you, and the sort of post I'm talking about is the one I quoted.

If you think people should propose solutions instead of simply posing problems, then just say that. Knock off this left-handed "Well, some people seem to" passive-agressive nonsense, it's just not productive.

There are points?!?! I wasn't told there were point?!?! Can they be redeemed for prizes, because if this is snide comment version of skee-ball I am owed quite a few stuffed animals.

What irritates me is that the proposed "solutions" come from people who claim near infinite wisdom of how the game is broken in walls and walls of text that derail into side topics left and right, yet who when you actually get them pinned down on what actually happened in the examples they give, they don't actually follow the rules.

Which is what bothers me.

If you house rule heavily, just say "I house rule, here are the house rules I use, they work for me."

Instead, there is a lot of righteous indignation that you would dare question if they are following the rules in the examples they give or the games they play, until 1000 posts later you are able to pin them down on a point or get them to post a full build (instead of playing 20 questions with schrodingers whatever...) and either they refuse to explain how they did something or post a build and everyone realizes they were full of it, or they actually do post a build or explain it and they get exposed.

This isn't about any specific poster, this goes back for me to the CoDzilla days. Some posters are notorious for this, but with new message board people coming in all the time, they have to find out they are full of it in each new thread, because who has time to read everyone's post history.

I don't care if you think the rules are wrong and you put house rules in to fix it. I do care if an honest discussion of how to address rules issues is derailed by some jerk who wants to show how smart they are and get attention with ridiculous examples and/or rules manipulations that distract from addressing the actual topic while they get exposed.

It gets old, it chases the Devs who can answer questions off the board, and it prevents the Devs from wanting to make anything remotely ambiguous that people will manipulate while claiming "RAW".

If you are posting to show off your house rules, do it in the proper forum. If you are in a question thread, be honest about your game up front so the rest of us can take your suggestions in the context of your game.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
A Man In Black wrote:
if you feel like you're being passive-aggressive the same way, please stop because it's annoying and unproductive.

Tongue-in-cheek perhaps... ;-P

But it seemed from your post that ciretose hit some nerve or hit something a little to close to home with you because in over 80 posts, you were the only one that seemed to be bothered by anything said up to that point...

Qadira

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Evil Lincoln wrote:

Yeah, how about we don't re-fight the single fight on these boards that is relatively settled?

Or at least take it to one of the stealth redux threads if you have a dissenting opinion, since that is the stage at which the argument is.

Who's fighting? Some of us come to discussion boards to actually discuss things.

It's tangential, anyway. I was just pointing out the OP in that thread coming to the table with the type of attitude that was being discussed. The fact that it led to something constructive is beside the point. It could have easily devolved into another pointless flamefest.


Shadowborn wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:

Yeah, how about we don't re-fight the single fight on these boards that is relatively settled?

Or at least take it to one of the stealth redux threads if you have a dissenting opinion, since that is the stage at which the argument is.

Who's fighting? Some of us come to discussion boards to actually discuss things.

Hm. I strongly suspect someone deleted their post which I was scolding. Could be wrong. Sorry?

Qadira

Evil Lincoln wrote:
Hm. I strongly suspect someone deleted their post which I was scolding. Could be wrong. Sorry?

Evil should never apologize for anything.

Andoran

Shadowborn wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:
Hm. I strongly suspect someone deleted their post which I was scolding. Could be wrong. Sorry?
Evil should never apologize for anything.

Evil is good.


ciretose wrote:
Nicos wrote:
ciretose wrote:

Don't get me started on Vow of Poverty...adding an additional option is only a problem if the option is overpowered.

If you think something is underpowered, don't use that option and it will have literally no effect on your game. But if it is overpowered it can cause tons of issues.

unless is a trap option, then is a bad thing for the game.

It isn't a trap option. It is a better way to have a monk with no equipment.

I was not talking about "vow of poverty". I mean, to the statment "adding an additional option is only a problem if the option is overpowered" i would add " or is a trap option"


ciretose wrote:
Evil is good.

Logic is evil.

Andoran

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Evil is good.
Logic is evil.

There are times when all the worlds asleep, when questions run to deep, for such a simple man....


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Evil is good.
Logic is evil.

Vulcans would disagree.

Andoran

Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Evil is good.
Logic is evil.
Vulcans would disagree.

Vulcans have green blood. Your argument is invalid!


Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers - that smell BAD!

51 to 100 of 106 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gamer Life / Gamer Talk / Be Honest All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©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.