More recently, Japan decided to lock up every addict they could find for two years. So, the addicts went to jail. The distribution networks collapsed, pushers changed careers, drugs more or less disappeared for years afterward.
Japan turned their narcotic problem into a prescription drug abuse problem, more like. Substance abuse didn't go away in Japan, and now they're dealing with a serious amphetamine abuse problem.
And it may well be that self-medication started as a term in medical writings. That doesn't give it much validity today, considering that medicine moved on. The drug addicts love using it, however. Seriously, ask any of them and you'll hear it.
I don't know how I can make this clearer.
SELF-MEDICATION IS A VALID TERM FOR A REAL PHENOMENON. NOBODY HERE IS SAYING THAT IT IS A REASONABLE TREATMENT.
You are arguing against a position nobody here is advancing. Self-medication with addictive drugs at best trades short-term relief for long-term problems. Often as not, it just makes the problem worse immediately, as with depression and alcohol.
Andrew R wrote:
Addiction treatment in both physical and mental and can be seen as a medical process but that should never remove the burden of personal choice in so much of it.
What role do you feel the burden of personal choice plays? S$&$ting on people for making the wrong choices only makes things worse, almost always.
There's such a thing as involuntary commitment, especially if a person is ruled to be a threat to others or to refuse treatment that's in their own best interest. Of course that relies on a third party to neutrally arbitrate to a person what's in their own best interest.
It is carefully limited to someone who presents an immediate danger to themselves or others and still sees abuse. Nobody is proposing expanding it.
In our culture we (rightly, I think) do not regard homosexuality as a dangerous aberrant addiction that needs to be cured but the same is not true of certain other lifestyle choices and I think that's something that can be fruitfully questioned and examined. As happens in this thread ;)
The difference between homosexuality and drug addiction is that homosexuality won't kill you stone dead, through physiological causes or self-destructive behavior.
Nobody has talked about why addiction is treated as a disease, only whether addicts deserve to be treated or punished (or neglected).
Addiction is treated as a disease because it's the only practical way to improve the lives of people who are addicted and the only way to do anything about drug problems long-term. Punishing addicts doesn't work, because it simply alienates people who were already marginalized themselves and pushes drug abuse as an option for alienated people. Punishing dealers doesn't work, because there's always someone willing to take the risk, and it leads to constant police harassment of people who have nothing to lose in the first place (as well as law-abiding people who happen to look like them). Shouting at people to "be more responsible" doesn't do anything at all but make the shouter feel more pleased about themselves while looking like a smug a&~&~+@.
Poverty is to addiction what a lack of cleanliness is to infection. Yes, being more responsible helps on an individual level, but if you don't want people dying of pneumonia or sepsis, you treat the disease instead of yelling at them for not doing more to prevent getting infected.
Instead, by helping addicted people, both with addiction and with whatever cause drove them to drug abuse as an escape in the first place, you can actually reduce both drug use in general and the harm caused to people who are addicted. Unfortunately, the main reasons people turn to drug abuse in the first place is mental illness or poverty, and nobody seems to much give a s#+@ about fixing either of those!
Nathanael Love wrote:
Weren't you aware? All NPC fighters in all stories are level 1 Warriors, and since the heroes who fight them fight only level 1 Warriors they cannot be higher than 4th level. . . its a circular logic trap you can never beat-- if the enemy in the book has no name and backstory, he is automatically a 1st level warrior, and that is used as justification for underestimating the good guys levels.
It's curious that a nameless mook who is a level 1 warrior has an impact on the story which is indistinguishable from a level 15 fighter nameless mook.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Linkbait title aside, this isn't a feature of the ACA at all, and is instead an already-existing Medicaid rule from a 1993 law. It's not new, but it's the sort of thing you're unlikely to ever hear about before talking to a lawyer or accountant about your will or other end of life issues. Here's some more on it. It's a pretty terrible rule, but it doesn't have very much to do with the ACA at all.
No one is claiming Batman is high level.
Batman is weird. Nobody much minds Batman hanging out with Superman to fight cosmic threats and taking an occasional punch from Darkseid, along the lines of Morrison JLA or (sigh) Loeb Superman & Batman, but at the same time he's also supposed to be seriously threatened by Black Mask, whose superpower is about three dozen dudes with assault rifles.
Fiction does not map onto linear power scales very well sometimes!
Also, I've already made the sort of examples you're talking about, albeit without the adversarial "gotcha" setup you seem to be angling for, using one generic example and two examples from published adventures.
If the difference is neglible at level one, then that means tiers do not exist at level one.
Class balance is meaningless in a context where a large difference between stats is +/-3 on a 20-wide RNG. If your point is that tier lists have little to say that's useful about level 1 games, then, okay, you win that point. I'm not sure anyone but you really cares.
It makes sense, but it isn't satisfying to me. Characters are going to have magic items, it's just part of the game.
A better counterargument is how magic items lag far behind challenges. While a 13th-level fighter can have Boots of Flight, he's been facing flying enemies for eight or nine levels already, and still has no way of participating in a game where he has to Teleport across the world to accomplish things, or travel to the Cloud Kingdoms in the sky, or chase the villain to his lair on the Astral Plane.
Additionally, martial classes need to spend a lot more of their personal wealth just to keep from being Red Queened in combat. Not only do they need the same save cloak/stat booster/AC items that a caster will take, but they also need a whole set of gear to do their stabbing/shooting schtick. Rynjin makes this argument above (although I think he's c/ping JaronK's argument to the same effect).
So... Any wizard that summons a meat shield only shows how weak the wizard is? Using your resources to make up for your weaknesses is the wizard's specialty and a large part of what has made it stronger in 3.x/PF than in say 1st Ed. But we are to assume that no-one else can do that?
Your point is that the strongest feat in the game does a lot to level the playing field. This is true, but taking Leadership is in no way limited to martial classes.
It highlights the weakness of martials. Casters can use their class abilities to cover their inherent weaknesses. while martial classes are forced to cover those resources from their common pools (non-bonus feats and WBL), when they can do so at all. Casters can instead use their common pool resources to do everything better, with stat boosters, more flexible and reliable consumables, etc. If Leadership is better than all of those options, then, yeah, casters take it too, but they can just choose a cohort who is more powerful than a martial while also covering their weaknesses.
Anyone can take a feat and recruit a cohort. Casters can recruit someone to take hits in melee for them without making any permanent expenditure of resources save for a spell known. (Good thing there aren't any spellcasting classes that automatically know their entire spell list!)
Your argument is that the people you're attacking, the way you see it, are jerky jerks who are jerks who do jerky things and say jerky things because they are jerks.
Yeah okay whatever man.
Also, fighters can use their own resources to gain access to reduced cost crafting through the use of the Leadership feat. Which is a character resource like any other.
Again, the fact that a weak class can recruit a strong class to deal with challenges for them only highlights the former's weaknesses.
Guy Humual wrote:
Well I'm Canadian, so I tend to view the US Democratic party as being uncomfortably right wing, and our right wing "Conservative" party would be seen as wacko lefty pinko communist sympathizers by the American news media.
No, I'm pretty sure sucking up to the oil industry, slashing government funding on both social programs and scientific research, and straight up voter suppression is pretty familiar to any American.
"Voting with your wallet" doesn't have to be silently only. If you (general you) really want to change things, then send letters to the editor of the local paper. Contact local TV stations. Get together with like-minded people and form groups. Boycott any restaurant which doesn't pay a living wage and tell everyone (including the restaurants) that you're doing it and why.
While this is good advice and true to boot, it's exactly my point. Organizing, publicizing, and putting pressure on business owners and politicians is how you make change. This is voting with your vote, not your wallet.
Are you going to hit us with TAXATION IS SLAVERY and MEN WITH GUNS next?
But you know who has a huge bargaining power? You, the customer.
No, not really. Voting with your wallet is a fairly crude tool. Unless a restaurant is notoriously abusive of the employees and the management knows of this reputation, or you're a regular who the management takes seriously for whatever reason, then you not eating there just sends the message that you don't like the restaurant's food, service, ambiance, etc. At best, voting with your wallet sends the message that you don't like that restaurant for an unspecified reason. At worst, they don't even know that you stopped at all.
If you want to change the plight of restaurant workers, well, Anklebiter will be along to tell you how you can do that.
Peter Stewart wrote:
I won't clog up the thread, but I don't think having a few dissenting voices is a bad thing.
Dissenting voices who have nothing to say but "Everyone who disagrees with me is a big jerk from a board full of jerks and has no understanding of how the game is balanced" are a bad thing, though.
I rely on scientific papers, such as this one for my sources of energy efficiency.
You rely on papers you didn't even read past the introduction? Because that paper is talking about best practices in computer simulation modeling for automotive subsystems besides the engine. While it's an interesting topic, it's not really relevant to the question of "What sort of engine results in the production of the least carbon emissions per unit of distance traveled?"
I really do recommend carefully reading your links before linking them in the future.
There's more about the EPA, but that is not related to automobiles. But that more relates to why even some environmentalists I know are questioning if the organization is helpful, or if it is the next great stumbling block to actually helping the environment.
Hey look, it's a libertarian arguing that the best way to solve problems with a government agency is to abolish it. Tre surprise.
This is getting inane.
Yes, rogues are better than spellcasters at the specific act of using a skill to disarm a trap, even if the spellcasters have Abdul Alhazred's Focus. The point is that wizards, if pressed, can switch their ability to solve problems around to deal with a new situation. If a martial character is not a rogue, they will never, ever disarm a magic trap. If it's a spellcaster, however, they can use open-ended spells (summons, dispels, etc.) to try and solve it, or maybe trudge back to civilization and see if they can't find a cheap scroll of Ali Baba's Focus to deal with the problem. The rogue, on the other hand, is not allowed to do anything but stab people, disarm traps, and use whatever limited-by-realism things his choice of skills allows.
This also addresses Aelryinth's frequently-stated point that casters are somehow weak when ambushed. They are weakest when ambushed, because it offers them no opportunity to readjust their toolset on the fly. However, this is offset by the fact that they are being compared to classes which cannot readjust their toolsets at all, and tend not to have the open-ended powers of spellcasters.
Also, stop signing your posts, Aelryinth. Your name is right above every post, FFS.
Since wizards are supposed to be tier 1, no-one-else-can-compete, then every AP with a wizard BBEG ends in a TPK, right? Oh, wait...never mind, that usually doesn't happen. I guess all this "tier" thing is is people trying to justify why they don't like particular classes. Lame.
No, because the wizard is outnumbered four to one. Additionally, while every challenge for the BBEG is a combat challenge, not every single challenge for a PC is a combat challenge, and wizards and clerics have a significant advantage there. This isn't a fighting game tier list.
"Wizard" and "Fighter" can't do any of those things actually. They are exist only series of abilities on several sheets of paper. A character could do those things, based upon the arbitration of their GM and the situation that they and the entirety of the party are in. A combination of a lot of factors. To say one has an easier or harder time doing something based upon only part of those factors doesn't mean anything.
I mean, man, if you think about it, the whole damn game is imaginary! None of it is real, maaaaan. Like, what if we're actually the characters in God's D&D session, man?
Did I just blow your mind?
You could not possibly have been more snide or more wrong. In addition to all of the classes getting piddly little boring powers in 4e, they are absolutely not balanced at all.
That's because they're more likely to be rich if they went to private school.
Anyway, the topic is stupid, which isn't terribly surprising. Even if this was a thing you'd want to do in a free country (and it absolutely is not), how could you possibly do it?
That's a nonsensical distinction. The spells are part of the class's powers, even if they are printed in a different part of the book for organizational reasons. What's more, plenty of caster classes get fantastic schticks that more mundane characters aren't allowed because they are magic; bards and clerics come immediately to mind.
It's not my fault they screwed up casting in 3rd ed plus.
But you are defending maintaining that screw up, so, yeah, it is kind of your fault.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Personally, I'm okay with mockery. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions, after all.
Guns don't fit because they undermine the historical mindset that underlies heroic fantasy.
Heroic fantasy is based on the essential belief that heroism and victory in battle are somehow based in superior ability and a greater destiny. Aragorn is victorious over a hundred orcs because he's a noble hero of men, the son of generations of noble men, wielding a sword with its own noble lineage and history, and riding a horse of noble breeding. His skills are honed by personal victory over countless foes. Once he's victorious, he's crowned and rules in the most fantastic castle ever built.
Firearms, on the other hand, especially pre-industrial-revolution firearms, are the weapons of commoners. No particular nobility and very little skill or training is necessary to be part of a line of shooters filling the air with bullets. Dying to gunfire is less personal and more random-seeming than dying to the sword, with no heroic confrontation of your foe involved. Famous guns aren't noble exemplars, but rather mass produced in the thousands or tens of thousands. Cannon rendered castles obsolete as anything but architectural accomplishments.
Heroic fantasy is a story about the myths that powered feudalism, and gunpowder killed feudalism.
Ooooor, since both clerics and paladins have comparable capacity to be diplomatic, they could politely refuse to answer.
Clerics are not as militant as paladins. Paladins would be the ones who form the majority of the militant arm of a faith. Yes they both fight evil, but a paladin is more prone to do so with force. A cleric not so much.
According to what? They both have a huge pile of divine powers that are all directly applicable to fighting. What makes a paladin more likely to fight anyone than a cleric? How do you tell a peaceful ascetic paladin from a cleric of the same sect? How do you tell a militant crusader cleric from a paladin of the same sect?
This is a problem Pathfinder is running into, more and more, as they add more classes. But it was there from day 1.
This ties into paladins-of-all-alignments chat: paladins have very little to distinguish them from clerics, and always being LG is part of that. Take that away and you run smack into the problem that an any-alignment paladin is even more like the already-any-alignment cleric. Plus, you also run into the fact that lawful-chaotic is a complete f~~&ing mess of nonsensical garbage, so it makes it very difficult to get any thematic space between CG, NG, and LG paladins.
Vod Canockers wrote:
Go and ask the owner of your local stores and shops what will happen to their stores with any of the proposed minimum wage increases.
They're going to say that it'll raise prices or put them out of business, whether or not it's true.
See also: every single labor reform in history
Stephen Ede wrote:
Right, but it is designed to have a PC of level X fighting enemies of CR X, and dealing with challenges appropriate to level X characters. Unfortunately, martials are a lot worse at both of these things.
Raith Shadar wrote:
The second camp wants Launcelot, King Arthur, Aragorn, and Conan.
So where are the martial abilities to awe everyone you come in contact with, serve as the greatest leader of men of your age, or preternaturally defy sorcerous powers with pure force of will? PF Fighters are even less capable than the protagonists of stories where all of their peers are also mere mortal men.
All of these characters did more than just murder people. The problem is that martials don't get fantastic schticks other than applying sharp bits of metal directly to anyone they dislike. Fine, you don't like...actually I'm not clear on what you don't like, since you don't seem to get any more specific than "video game/anime"
Anyway, you really have a hate-on for how other genres keep characters in par with each other for affecting the plot. How do you propose martial characters affect the plot other than with axe murder?
"So, uh, I know you guys were wanting to fight, and I'm totally cool with it. Really, I am. But could we just go to my private dead magic demiplane first? No? You're sure? It'll be cool, I promise."
Raith Shadar wrote:
Martials in the game do what martials are supposed to do. This whole idea they should be able to take on a prepared wizard in straight up combat is not something I support or ever will. If a fighter shows up on the field against an equal or close to equal level wizard thinking to take him on in an open battle, he deserves to die or become enslaved. That is what would happen if some warrior without an artifact weapon helping him decided to take on a powerful wizard face to face in a book.
I agree. Conan the Barbarian has no business facing off against Thulsa Doom or Thoth-Amon.
Bailing out the periphery without some structural reforms (which are not necessarily austerity measures, which you both agree were counter productive at this time) presents a moral hazard because it provides an incentive to take unreasonable risk, since the EU will bail countries out. Not that those periphery countries were immoral. Reforms in banking, public and private spending, tax policy and financial regulations are needed in the long term, however.
And this is (somewhat) reasonable when talking about Greece. (The enforced consequences to somehow correct this moral hazard are not, however.) It's less reasonable when you get to countries like Italy and Portugal, and ridiculous when you're talking about Spain and Ireland. Not all of the countries in trouble mismanaged their economies; they merely did not benefit from free trade making the rich countries richer.
It is also a moral argument. It is the argument that those countries won't learn to...do whatever it is they're supposed to learn, I'm not even clear on that...unless sufficient hardship is inflicted upon them. It's a ridiculous moral argument, since the people who are suffering have only the most tenuous connection to acting on this lesson, but it is still a morality play.
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
No it isn't, or it only looks that way if you take the sentences out of context. I'm used to your dishonest posting style but that's lazy and obvious, even for you.
No, it still looks like it conflicts, even when you take the whole paragraphs. I just didn't quote all of them.
First, you are confusing the roles of the council of the national governments and the ECB in the bailouts. The ECB isn't bailing any countries out or requiring austerity - it can't. That comes through inter-governmental conferences and is conducted between countries. The ECB perates through lending to banks, as you might expect for a monetary authority. So your comments are garbled.
The ECB is buying government bonds and predicating its actions on the same conditions the EU and IMF are demanding of Greece for bailouts. "I'm not going to help you unless you meet these conditions" is a requirement.
But it needs to be on a hard-headed assessment of what is in the national interest of the donor countries.
Yeah, you still haven't said what this entails, and everyone else who is talking about "reassessment" and "confidence" and "responsibility" is demanding steep austerity cuts. You keep vaguely hinting at what the periphery countries should be doing differently, then changing the subject when I ask you what exactly that is. So, what exactly should Spain and Ireland be doing differently?
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
That's not discipline. And if you borrow too much, and then discover you can't afford the bill, it will likely impact on your lifestyle as you point out - but that's a necessary corrective, I would suggest.
And here we are, back at the moralistic handwaving. They deserve austerity and depression and hardship, because their economies are the result of a moral failing. Their failing, however, was Germany's gain. You even hint at it:
In other words, they were borrowing incontinently to buy stuff they couldn't afford from surplus countries like China and Germany due to low productivity at home.
Their moral failing was not having the industrial and economic base that Germany and France had when the EU was formed. So, then, the EU was fine when it was enriching the interior, but now that the interior is doing fine at the expense of the periphery, suddenly the EU is a failure and the periphery nations should leave, to deal with the damage done on their own.
What's more, you even point out that it's only the currency union causing the lasting harm, and that, despite the UK acting the same way, they were able to ride things out relatively unharmed because their currency wasn't beholden to an uninterested foreign power. You have conceded every fact of my argument, but the only reason you can come up with is that Spain deserves to fail to teach them a lesson. (And, admittedly, you weren't arguing for it, as far as I can tell.) It's very easy to wish misery on the Spanish people if you yourself happen not to be Spanish.
Not only is this monstrous, but it's also self-defeating. As I said before, depression is a communicable disease, and no economy is immune. If the interior nations let Spain's debts go septic, they're going to find that the collapse of the banking sector doesn't leave them untouched. Then, there won't be anyone to turn things around.
Also, you were half-right, before, about the overheated political rhetoric and Nazis and whatnot. It is going to teach the periphery nations to hate the interior for inflicting this situation on them. Because, regardless of the initial cause of the crisis, the ECB could have done a great deal to mitigate this but did not, chiefly because of interior interests. You cannot watch your neighbor's house burn down while they plead for help and expect them not to hate you! Honestly, you mentioned Nazis in the same breath that you justified inflicting economic hardship in order to teach a moral lesson to an entire nation. Think about that.
We both know this isn't true.