The Rake

Alitan's page

Organized Play Member. 1,178 posts (1,179 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.

1 to 50 of 131 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.


I hope that last instance taught you a very valuable lesson.

No Kender. Never. Not negotiable.

As for Sithiss... the reason you would care about that is that your corner of the gaming table is going to be a very lonely, boring place if you don't shape up and play nice. Srsly.

As a GM, I have -- before the game begins -- done everything in my power to set up a fun and engaging game. It is NOT the GM's job to spoon-feed interest into your special, snowflake, psychopathic-loner character's mouth.

[/rant... sorry, button pushed there]

Really, if someone refuses to engage in the game, I let them stew in the corner doing nothing, AND greet their complaints with "Sorry, running a game here, b+~~~ afterwards." Afterwards, I will listen to them complain for about five minutes, and then shut them up and point out that they could have been playing with everybody else...

If they pull up their big-adventurer pants and play nice the next session, I will go out of my way to give them some shiney moments as a reward.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Evocation is my immediate, don't-have-to-think-it-over, dump school.

Damage is why I have minions >ahem< I mean adventuring companions. :)

While I LIKE many Enchantment spells, it's usually the school I dump after Evocation: too many immune targets, etc., as mentioned above.

And it's a slightly-weighted toss-up (in favor of the former) between Conjuration and Necromancy for my specialty school. If I'm not going to multiclass (which is rare for me) Necromancy gets more attractive.

But the typical wizard is Conjuror, with Enchantment and Evocation as opposition schools.

YMMV, quite obviously...

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:

If the caster need a divine intervention to raise a dead he is constrained by the need to work with that divine patron.

Right, because having divine magic isn't a matter of divine intervention at all.

You're not getting the Mystery; no, it isn't confined to the scope of a single deity. It draws its power from all deities which share in its ineffable aspect.

Finally, even if a Mystery is entirely god-forsaken, the god/dess of Death is going to have to be dealt with in a raising/resurrection: it is a direct interference with his/her domain.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jhidurievdrioshka wrote:

I've always been a firm proponent of custom content going one level higher than anything it could be compared to... If this is doing fireball levels of damage but using a damage descriptor other than fire/lightning/cold/acid/sonic then it's something I'd put more at level 4.

If we're comparing it to acid arrow then level 3 bare minimum...

That's (imo) more than a little ridiculous.

If it balances against a 3rd level spell, it's a 3rd level spell. The ONLY reason to bump it is to punish people for being creative, which sucks.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey, Ciretose; I might have one...

So, this presumes that 20th level is, in fact, a hard cap.

Every time you get raised from the dead/resurrected, you lose the top level you can attain in a single class.

So, the first death loses you the capstone of your class (assuming you were planning a single-classed hero) and requires you to multiclass in order to reach 20th level.

Subsequent deaths continue shaving off the TOP of your single-class level limit, and eventually you do reach a point of diminishing returns, where you cannot usefully gain XP.

I'd say that you can keep the level you're at, if a death would bring your soft cap lower than current level, but no further advancement...

A Wish or a Miracle could lift this penalty...

Eh, I know nobody's gonna like this, but it occurred to me while (Gods alone know why) I continued browsing this thread.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Liz Courts wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Not convinced Gamer Talk is really the place for RPG Superstar discussion, but what do I know?
The overall topic seemed to need a bigger home than just the RPG Superstar forums.

Nevertheless, it's very confusing for those of us who weren't perusing the Superstar forums to come into a dislocated thread: several of the above posts make >no sense without the context.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starbuck_II wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:

If Joe Paladin walking down the street and sees that cleric buying a loaf of bread and goes "Pings evil! Slashy time!" and cleaves the cleric in twain, he's just committed murder, not to mention adding himself to the "List of Examples of Lawful Stupid Play".

No, murder is unlawful killing. There is nothing evil or unevil about it.

Paladins smiting aren't fallen unless they stop being lawful alignent because they broke a city's law.

Wow... just... wow.

First, HOW is the above situation NOT a case of unlawful killing?

Second (once more for the cheap seats), go read the alignment section in the CRB; you will find "murder" under the description of "evil" acts.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is a forum for media discussions, gentlemen; this thread isn't it.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Guys, this may be interesting, but the AD&D vs. Pathfinder argument is really not on topic.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So, I'm not going to bother to scroll back and quote...

Somebody mentioned it was "only GMs" supporting the idea of a GMPC, and no players.


I'm playing in a game right now (3.5 sadly... trying to convince GM a conversion to Pathfinder -- at LEAST importing the PF Skill system -- would be good move, but that's a different issue) in which 2 out of 4 players have serious attendance issues (like, not there half the time due to crappy work situations).

Further, my Rogue is the most martial character in the group (there's a PC Cleric, who COULD beat me out, but is run by a noob who isn't there half the time; PC Wizard not there half the time, and PC Sorcerer).

The GM is running in a homebrew world -- a fun place so far while we race to thwart the plans of some hideous abberational threat.

He's ALSO running a Fighter that I expect most here would qualify as a GMPC, in that he's active/combat capable/makes a lot of suggestions during planning, etc. The guy (the GMPC) is a blacksmith's son, from the cruddy little village we're all [EDIT: half of us are] from, a member of the militia, and JUST as crazy to GET THE HELL OUT OF THIS MISERABLE HOLE as the PCs.

He fills a vital role in the group, since none of the PCs can tank. He's not "stealing the spotlight" from any of us, and provides a handy way for the GM to inform us of bits of lore about the world.

I guess I should mention that the two who can't show up every session are BOTH noobs; the Sorcerer's player and I are veteran gamers, as is the GM. None of the three of us want to discourage the new guys, even with their schedule issues; they aren't jerks or anything, their jobs just suck at regular schedules. So we have this on-again-off-again Cleric and Wizard. But the Fighter we (my Rogue and the Sorcerer) can rely on to not have faded out on any given session.

So I don't know, maybe y'all would just classify him as a "friendly NPC." But I think of him as a GMPC, with no onus about that classification: he's a character run by the GM to shore up our party composition and let the two regular players keep on adventuring.

Working for us; YMMV. If we get another player (we're looking), the Fighter may (a) die heroically, (b) end up staying in the village to protect our friends, or (c) ride off into the world to seek his own fortune, returning with much-needed reinforcements in the nick of time...

It hasn't hurt our game, having him.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think my main objection to mixing science and magic is that it has rarely been done at all well.

Typically, one theme/force/discipline/whatever (magic or science) is the dominant one in a setting and the other is poorly-crunched fluff.

And the interaction between magic and science is rarely handled in a believable manner.

It breaks my immersion to keep bumping up against these design issues, so I tend to prefer an EITHER science fiction OR fantasy game.

YMMV, and if you have fun with fusion campaigns, go for it! If I'm given my druthers, I'druther not deal with admixture of these elements, that's all...

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ross Byers wrote:
I removed some forum drama.

Hey! NOW whaddo I do with this POPCORN?!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've had the most success with a low-magic campaign that is ALSO a "low-monster" campaign, i.e., your opposition is made up of classed PC races, not critters. For the most part.

So, rather than fighting tons of undead, or dragons, or oozes, you're fighting humans, half-orcs, dwarves, elves, etc.

It can work, though it seems best-used in a high-intrigue/low-combat style, or at least an urban setting where combat is often policed (and interrupted by the police...)

Eh, YMMV, but dropping the monsters solves several of the inherent difficulties with a low-magic environment.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And to address the issue of who's fun is more important (which seems to be at the heart of this debate) I'm gonna side with >gasp< the GM.

There is a LOT more work involved in running the game than playing it -- even if you're running an AP rather than a homebrew setting/adventure.

And, as I enjoy playing a hell of a lot more than I do running, it seems to me that letting the GM set the rules and style -- letting the GM DO THE GM's JOB -- without b$%*~ing and moaning is a more than fair exchange.

There ARE some instances wherein I will choose not to play, rather than play in a style/setting/rules set which I dislike.

But I don't waste the time of the GM, the other players, and myself with arguing that "that isn't how it should work."

On the occasions when I GM, I expect the same courtesy. "This is the game I'm running, these are the houserules, you can expect (x) to be the general tone." I ask if there are questions about the game as I envision it. I think I do a decent job of letting players know what kind of ride they're in for when they climb into my game. (Haven't had much in the way of alarm and surprise when things play out, anyway.)

But, well, no; these decisions are not up for negotiation, second-guessing, or more than a few grumbles of complaint. There are plenty of GMs, despite the GM/Player Ratio Myth. If the players don't like the game I want to run, they are more than welcome to find a different game.

I've had very little complaint from those players who decide to play it and see how it runs. Maybe I'm so intimidating (hah) that they just swallow it. But generally speaking, I SEEM to have a satisfied player-base, despite my "my way or the highway" stance on How The Game Will Operate.

YMMV -- but it's my experience that a happy GM leads to happy Players, once the dust settles and things start moving.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just wanted to chime in; there are very few house rules to which I can't/won't adapt.


*They are consistent and consistently-applied
*They are laid out prior to use

On Rules Lawyering:

I'm "that guy" in most of my groups -- the one the GM pokes when he wants to know a rule. I don't usually speak up unless asked, though I have pointed out the occasional, "Oh, hey wait, there's another step/option/problem with that, it works this way until we get the GM to change it" thing when I know a player isn't as caught up on the shift from 3rd ed to PF.

I'm comfortable with my GMs these days; I won't argue a rule in play, and I trust them that whatever happens is going to be fun. If it's a rule that I feel needs to work AW, I will bring it to their attention after things wind down.

So far it's working, and god knows I spend a lot of time looking things up myself (because despite my group's belief, I DON'T know all the rules).

TL;DR: Trust your GM, time your comments; waiting to be asked usually helps. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This isn't a pacifist stance: this is an empirically-observable fact. Violence is bad for you. It erodes the soul. Some ARE more durable in their resistance, but it remains corrosive.

Is it possible to avoid violence entirely? Probably not, irl or in game. The world isn't perfect in either place.

Given the circumstantial influence of murder-for-cause, etc., that have been argued, yeah, you can maintain a non-evil alignment while pursuing your course of killing.

But you cannot, RAW, justify killing as a good ACT.

Your motives may be good; the side-effects of your murder-spree may well be good for the people whom you defend.

The ACT of killing, and the HABIT of killing repeatedly, are bad for you and cannot be handwaved into being good.

Once again, this is a Lawful/Doesn'tMatter interpretation of the alignment rules. YMMV.

It is just as easy to commit evil in the service of good as it is to commit evil while maintaining a facade of heroism. No, it's easier, since maintaining a facade takes a bit of work.

Say rather, you can do evil while trying to do good as easily as you can do evil in the service of evil.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:

...and when did anyone mention anything about immunity to Sunder or houserules / backstory doing something ridiculous like that?

So far the only houserules I use are making Mysterious Stranger + Pistolero a legal combo, and critical failures needing a confirmation roll.

Sigh. Maybe go back and read the thread in which you're posting? Just a suggestion.

2 people marked this as a favorite.


I've actually found myself in agreement with Shallowsoul across large sections of this thread.

"What the gods have brought together, let no mortal put a-SUNDER."

Whoo-hoo, sorry about the pun.

OK, no I'm not.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

I'm sorry but your backstory is not a tool that is used to protect your character and his resources.
Perfectly reasonable. Only don't expect players to make any backstory for the game. If I have to waste the time and effort to be told "to hell with your backstory it means nothing and subject to however the dice rolls" than your not getting a backstory from me. Or at least anyone that involves a item. I'm not going to distrup the game. I'm also not going to waste time on a backstory just so the DM can ignore it. Same way I won't take any crafting skills or feats if I have no access to crafting. Waste of time and skill points imo

Having an item broken=/=your backstory meaning nothing.

shallowsoul wrote:

I'm sorry but your backstory is not a tool that is used to protect your character and his resources.

2 people marked this as a favorite.


See, from an ecological perspective, MOST adventuring parties are the PRACTICAL equal of a plague of locusts: their moral or not-so-moral imperatives DON'T MATTER. The RESULTS of their presence are the extermination of the local ecosystem of apex predators and the siphoning off of valuta.

In a less-flattering mode, most adventurers behave like a band of roaming Kender.

"Kender will take anything that's not nailed down, and Kender with claw hammers will get those, too." [Or words to that effect... been a while.]

Watching a Pathfinder/D&D game in progress is like watching Knights of the Old Republic over somebody's shoulder: everything of value, or potential value (via salvage) is stripped out of the location, the critters that live there are slaughtered, and the "heroes" wander off calling themselves Jedi.

So, yeah. The very nature of the game is organised, sanctioned banditry.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lumiere said:

"once you have drank a potion or burned out a wand, it shouldn't count towards WBL anymore because it is no longer useable. WBL is a measure of immediately usable adventuring wealth. in other words, permanent bonus providing equipment.

at the same time, diamonds wasted on a Resurrection are no longer usable wealth either. and thus should no longer count."

* * * *

Uh, no. WBL is a guideline about how much wealth an adventuring character ought to have accumulated in the course of their career, allowing higher-than-1st-level PCs to be built.

If someone spent their wealth on a tower and walled estate, rather than adventuring gear, they have just as much wealth as a character who went down to the magic mart and geared out for dragon-hunting.

It is not "a measure of immediately-usable adventuring wealth." I promise you you misread that.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:

Alitan, you're pretty much the only one here arguing for Evil characters in D&D / Pathfinder, a game where the assumed norm is a group consisting mostly of Good characters. You can like your villains all you want, but you cannot shove them down our faces or distrupt games with your villainous characters. If you do, you'll probably get kicked out from the table you're in (or if I'm a PC at the same table, get your character killed quite quickly) if nobody agrees with your views on the issue.

I agree with you about "normal" being something non-existent, but that's where the agreements end.

And I'm sure there are other good RPG systems that far better support Evil and generally unpleasant characters out there too.

Icy, I'm not "shoving [my villains] down your face(s)," nor "(I assume you meant)disrupt(ing) games with my villainous characters." I'm DISCUSSING THE THREAD'S CENTRAL ISSUE, "why people don't want to play heroic characters."

And nobody has ever kicked me out of a game for playing an evil character yet, in nigh on to 31 years of gaming.

I love how your (presumptively) "heroic" character's recourse is murder. You DO see the irony here, right?

I may be the only proponent of allowing evil PCs more space at the table who keeps coming BACK to expose the ridiculous hidden assumptions of the good apologists, but I'm not the only person who has expressed a preference for villains and/or antiheroes.

Finally, if you can't keep a civil tongue in your head, do those of us a favor trying to have a serious discussion and shut up. Really. If you're incapable of civilized behavior on a messageboard, I shudder to think of your behavior at a gaming table, no matter WHAT you have written in on your character sheet about alignment.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:

People seem to forget the absolute most important rule of the entire game, which is to have fun.

If sundering a PC's weapon ruins the fun for him/her (and the other players), then you are failing as a DM.

This is not a rule. It's a goal.

They aren't the same thing, and sloppy syntax causes all sorts of difficulties.

As for the second part of your statement... I think I've mentioned that if some player's fun is ENTIRELY dependent on a particular piece of gear, they REALLY need to re-think their gaming style.

Furthermore, the reactions described by the OP delineate a childish, unwarrantedly-entitled, bad-at-gaming player. Were I in that GM's shoes, my response to a tantrum of that ilk would be "fine, don't show up next time, have a nice night."

EVEN IF you, as a player, are upset/disappointed by the events that happen in game, that REALLY doesn't make it OK to screw everyone else's enjoyment of the game.

The root of this problem is NOT (imo) with the GM, but with the maturity level of the players with which s/he is saddled.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Funky Badger wrote:
Alitan wrote:

The "no evil characters" rule in PFSOP was the most egregious of several that convinced me not to play...

Organised play with evil characters allowed would be dreadful... whole conventions turning into versions of this thread.


No, because this thread is a purely hypothetical discussion about the lack of drive to play heroic characters, not a bunch of games going on with a variety of alignments.

And nice impugning of my maturity there in the post previous to the one I'm quoting now.

And @ Hama: Have you not paid attention to people IRL? Assigning "good=normal" is contra the observable evidence... just sayin'.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

OK, none of my nonvirtual friends are up at this hour and I gotta tell SOMEBODY... so you guys get the gossip.

A friend of several years, to whom I've had fell designs to sell for all those years, suddenly, FINALLY, came to the realization that we might be a good couple.

We were texting back and forth, and I was indulging in my all-in-seriousness-half-in-jest innuendo-flinging. When out of nowhere (i.e., years of failure to convince him) he picks it up and starts flinging it back.

"Don't try to tempt me with a good time, it might backfire."

And the infamous, "Soon, hun."

To which I responded, "Don't. Unless you mean it. (more hand-wringing over how much I like him, etc.)"

"I mean it."


And, crap g*&+@#mit. Now I have to manage to move back to Alaska. Sigh. Guess nothing's perfect. (Not that I mind moving back to AK, but it's gonna take a bit of financial wizardry to manage...)

Anyway, am overjoyed and more than a little stunned: never expected him to discover an interest in pairing up with me.

In addition to being cuter than a baby panda, he's one of the nicest people I know; kind, considerate, empathetic. And our first encounter ended up being a long, involved discussion about comparative religion; yay for brains and education!

So, well, life sometimes looks up in the most unexpected ways.

2 people marked this as a favorite.


In my opinion.

Sunder is perfectly-fair game for the GM.

It isn't even PERMANENT, and cheaper to fix than death (which is also temporary in Pathfinder).

So the big bad barbarian has to be less-than-optimal for a few encounters. Cry me a river.

Weapons (and armor, and wands and spellbooks and etc.) get broken on occasion. Suck it up and move on, get it fixed at the next town. Hell, if it's THAT important, LEAVE THE DUNGEON and go back to town to get it fixed.

But don't approve of a PC whining at a GM for a valid tactical decision on the part of an NPC.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Bluff, for feinting. Almost every rogue character I have that gets to around 12th level...

Plus Use Magic Device for low-Charisma characters.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Count me on board with the "there has to be some risk or it doesn't matter" crowd.

Bug out and run is one of my best things (often to the irritation of the overly-noble "but we're the heroes" crowd I'm with).

If you're not aware enough of when things are getting too sticky, death is the least of your worries.

When you discover the opposition is too big and bad, run away, do some research and preparation, then go back and kick @$$ on the nasty thing standing in between you and your rightful property...

But some monsters are >gasp< DANGEROUS. As it should be.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Quite a bit of the problem (as I see it) is that (a) a lot of gamers fail to adequately understand the nature of evil and (b) the game, itself, fails to adequately explain the nature of alignments, generally.

Common Mistakes:


This one has caused me no end of irritation in evil campaigns. Evil does NOT mean lacking discipline, lacking plans, lacking self-control, UNLESS one is in fact playing CHAOTIC/Evil. And even those dedicated to chaos are perfectly-capable of being creatures of habit, and maintaining a certain amount of decorum. Unless they're jerks, in which case...

I find chaotic alignments to be suboptimal, regardless of where they fall on the good-evil axis. Success is, largely, a function of proper planning and patience, neither of which are well-represented among the true chaosites.

Evil is incapable of compromise or cooperation

Consider the generic band of adventurers, aside from alignment: a group of folks with agendas and goals which may or may not dovetail together easily. Yet, adventuring parties -- successful ones, anyway -- learn to get along with each other despite their differences of opinion.

Why WOULDN'T an evil person unbend from whatever particular position to garner cooperation with other adventurers? Evil people need just as much support (in and out of combat) as nonevil ones. Evil may be home to the selfish end of the spectrum, but that doesn't mean idiots. It well-behooves an evil character to engender an atmosphere of cooperation, the better to pursue their goals of tyranny and dominion over the rest of the world. Again, unless they're jerks...

Eliminating evil solves the jerk problem

This one is a fallacy of the first water. I don't know how many @$$h@ts I've had to deal with, over the course of years of gaming, but MOST of them were NOT evil, and MANY of them were (putatively) good.

The solution to the "I was only playing my alignment" argument is to point out they were playing it BADLY, and not accept the excuse. Odds ARE, that a problematic player will be no more nor less problematic REGARDLESS of the alignment printed on their sheet. And writing off jerkdom as the purview of evil people is an insult to evil people. Evil people are dedicated, ruthless, usually-efficient; they MAY be more likely to ignore the social niceties when they can get away with it. But more often than not, an evil person is likely to seem MORE pleasant than their good counterparts -- who often seem to think that because they're heroes, they don't need to be nice. And evil character -- again, a successful one -- spends a great deal MORE effort on appearing to be a nice person than a good one does. In my experience and opinion.

In my opinion, the "You can't be evil because it causes me problems" is one of the lazier bad decisions of which GMs are capable.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GeraintElberion wrote:
Alitan wrote:

I ALSO wouldn't agree to play an hero... so you wouldn't catch me going back on an agreement.

Sorry your group turned on you; the only solution I know is to quit them. They really don't seem to be worth your time.

I AM sad to see how many folks seem to have nonevil requirements for players. Seems prejudicial, and doesn't solve the problem of jerk PCs: jerks will be jerks regardless of the alignment printed on their sheets... and you lose out on a lot of excellent RP, and excellent players (if I do say so, myself...)

It's about everyone being on the same page, and I also don't spend time with jerks, whether playing PF or doing anything else, so that problem is solved pretty easily.

I'm not sure how it is prejudiced?

Well, as you seem to continually equate evil=jerk, with which to start. And if eliminating one-third of the possible alignment choices in the game isn't prejudicial, I don't know what the word means.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

So... THIS complex of problems rears its ugly head again. Hmmn.

I think one of the underlying issues here is that a lot of players simply lack the skill to role-play their way out of a wet sack. Villainous or heroic -- the side of the axis doesn't really make a difference. It doesn't help when people agree to play one way and then do the opposite.

For the OP: seriously? Stop running for them. Let them go cr@p on somebody else's table.

Also for the OP: While I can appreciate your desire to run for a group of heroes, well... I'd be saying thanks but no, myself. I don't have any desire to be heroic, in or out of game. Just don't like people enough to go out of my way to help them. (This may be a lack in my character, though I get along fine without succumbing to any altruistic urges...)

I don't run stupid thugs, or burn down villages; I simply don't care if the village burns down. Unless there's an especially-good cup of coffee to be had there, or a nice brothel. In which case, I would be moved to interfere with village-burning plans. Not on account of the need of the villagers, mind you, but on my own selfish enjoyment of the coffee-and-whores to be had there.

I ALSO wouldn't agree to play an hero... so you wouldn't catch me going back on an agreement.

Sorry your group turned on you; the only solution I know is to quit them. They really don't seem to be worth your time.

I AM sad to see how many folks seem to have nonevil requirements for players. Seems prejudicial, and doesn't solve the problem of jerk PCs: jerks will be jerks regardless of the alignment printed on their sheets... and you lose out on a lot of excellent RP, and excellent players (if I do say so, myself...)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

OMG. Too much time on so many hands...


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Tomorrow, I get to officiate a wedding ceremony! (The soon-to-be-ex-husband of the bride has refused to deal with divorce papers, so it's just a celebratory thing, not a legal marriage).

I've already cleared with the bride and groom opening with the infamous wedding lines out of the Princess Bride! ("Mawwaige: mawwaige is what bwings us togever today...")

So this is going to be loads of fun, doubleplusgood to be overseeing the joining together of two of my best friends from high school (WAY back in the day).

Wish me luck!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Modernized Version of Bucknard's Everfull Purse would be Bucknard's Nevermaxed Credit Card...

1 person marked this as a favorite.
doctor_wu wrote:
When someone mispells flail as fail, the typo is humorous.

Reverse also true, to wit: Epic Flail.

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Asphere wrote:

It only took 21 posts for someone to get defensive about their snobbery and escalate my comment to accusations of bigotry.

There are a variety of reasons why someone may have poor spelling in a text-based medium. Here are a few: lack of education, intelligence, and non-native speaking. The two former could stem from poverty and lack of opportunity. Neither of them are worth making a thread about simply to wax egos and to make some of our friends here at the Paizo messageboards uncomfortable about posting.

Expecting proper spelling and grammar in a written-format mode of communication isn't snobbery. It's a perfectly-reasonable expectation, particularly from those of us who do exercise linguistic excellence.

I'll grant that there are reasons aside from laziness that could lead to poor usage. But the use of at least a spell-check would seem like a first resort for someone in those positions (well, other than the lack of intelligence you mentioned; can't expect intelligent responses from them).

Disliking the jarring sensation of wrongly-spelled words and/or improperly-written sentences -- and posting about that dislike -- is not snobbery

Mind you, your irritating post accusing people of "classism, regional chauvinism, and privilege" doesn't qualify as bigotry, either.

It's only rude and willfully-ignorant.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

On an unrelated note, I'm walking on sunshine over here; finally got back in touch with my ex.

After a few months of silence, I caught him logged on to Facebook, of all places, and we spent almost 2 hours chatting, catching up, etc.

This is big because (despite being exes) he's one of my best friends, and I was starting to worry after he dropped off-grid.

Anyway, I've been hummingly-happy since Wednesday!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AdAstraGames wrote:

I will note that I play a Paladin of Pharasma in PFS, and I am courteous enough to do this at a table:

"Hi, I have a Paladin of Pharasma. Paladins do not have the block of text saying they have to follow a deity within one alignment step of theirs in the class description, and when I made the character, this was an undefined area. It is also a large part of why she adventures, and it drives a lot of her roleplaying in fun and interesting ways.

It is also, technically, not permitted since the Inner Sea World Guide was published, because that defines, specifically, which deities empower Paladins on Golarion.

I would like to play the character as I have, because she's fun to play and thought provoking, and it makes no mechanical difference. I can also swap her out with another character who's within tier, if that's a problem for you or anyone else at the table, or I can play her as a Paladin and not mention which deity she follows.

I will abide by whatever you suggest."

Problems caused by situations like this one are why I don't play PFSOP. The lack of flexibility is a sad thing, but IT KINDA HAS TO BE THAT WAY in order for the "O" in PFSOP to be there.

Is your concept neat? Yes, I like it, I'd probably enjoy playing with you and your Pharasmite Paladin.

But it simply does not fit according to the current rules.

When you exercise the right to play in PFSOP, you OUGHT to be willing to accept the responsibility to play PFSOP by the rules.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey, Bob.

While there may be a few uncomfortable moments related to your COMING out, from my own experience, I have to say that BEING out is orders of magnitude more comfortable than living in the closet.

Your announcement is well-worded, if lengthy: but I expect your friends/family/co-workers are used to your verbiage by now, so THAT shouldn't be problematic!


Anyhow... I think you're doing the right thing for yourself. And -- maybe this is harsh -- anybody who can't handle it, you're better off without in any case.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I, personally, choose not to let the prejudice of the ignorant rule my behavior. However, I DO consult with my boyfriends about how comfortable THEY are with PDAs; the comfort of my paramour is a consideration that will alter my natural behavior.

Given the option, I will hold hands rather than not, and hug or kiss my boyfriend as the moment dictates. I do give a nod to decorum -- I don't hold lengthy snogging sessions in public, but that would be true of my relations with women (if I had any). A matter of what's appropriate -- within the realm of good taste.

It helps that I'm 6'2", and around 260#. Bigots seem put off when their target is physically imposing. So I haven't ever had to deal with anything more than shouts of "f!!&&@."

To which I reply, "Yep!"

2 people marked this as a favorite.

"It is not that power corrupts; power is intensely attractive to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted."

[Bene Gesserit teachings]

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cheapy wrote:
As well as the sane GMs.

Imo, no GM is sane: being willing to put up with PC hijinx is the sign of a broken, broken mind...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nah, Doc: don't train 'em, just ARM them and point 'em at a town that displeased you...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"I'll just nip off to the kitchen and shoot myself now. Don't worry; I'll be very humane."

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Finding a gaymer bf... kind of a "Choose Your Own Adventure Book" for the gay gamer...

Rocks that you found one!

Welcome to the thread...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I tend to play a lot of Wizards.

I also AT LEAST pick up Craft Wondrous Item.

I get it because I want to be sure that I can get the items I WANT, by making them myself. F'r'instance, there are LOTS of skills that can come in a Headband of Vast Intelligence, but the skills I WANT are usually a touch on the oddball, esoteric side; I don't imagine most crafters are making Headbands with Craft/Shipwright, Knowledge/Geography, and Profession/Sailor...

I also really dislike a regular economy of magic items; why would someone sell a magic item for cash when they make such good bribes, gifts to enhance loyalty among cohort and followers, etc.? Not to mention that buyers really ought to be rare, given the THOUSANDS of gp you're looking at...

Anyway, not sure if I have a real, on-topic point to make... just rambling around the OP.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you're using a heavy crossbow, "keeping up with the archers" is (imo) kind of a nonissue, and remember that Deadly Aim is making you hit a little less-frequently. Putting off picking it up until you have a higher BAB to work with just lets you motor past the archers later in the race. (Though the archers will likely be taking it anyway, too, so the 'keeping up with' strategy is fatally flawed...)

Suit yourself, obviously. My own goal is to reach freedom from AoO as soon as possible, and stack on extra damage later. But that's just me...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Trollin', trollin', trollin', keep those dice a-rollin', where's that website golem?"

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Been toying with "any good alignment" for Paladins. Seems unlikely to break the game, and will make it (imo) more reasonable.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

>staring glassy-eyed at horde of obnoxious amphibians<

"I SWEAR, it was a scroll for possession at half-price: magic jar jar..."

1 to 50 of 131 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>