Andrew Marlow's page

19 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:

I would like to see the old flavor of Favored Enemy expanded in feats though. Maybe not specifically damage and attack bonuses vs a certain creature type that may rarely or never come up, but rather, thematic abilities that would be excellent against most creatures of a given type. For example, maybe a Ranger who has the equivalent of Favored Enemy Giants does extra damage and gets bonuses on maneuvers against creatures larger than she is.

This. Like a bonus to saves and something to disable creatures from flying if Favored Enemy Dragons is chosen. Also, I feel like rangers are less a "a rough and tumble warrior in the wild" and more a protector of a given range, so Favored Terrain are more what Rangers are about than the hunter/slayer feel that this gives. I know some may feel druid takes over this role, but that's more someone that communes with nature instead of someone that keeps intruders out.

Maybe something that allows a ranger to scope out a given terrain before hand and gain all sorts of advantages while inside it?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I imagine another devil usurped Asmodeus. Probably Barbatos. He has a very alien feel to him. I'm really hoping the outer-planes and most of the gods went through major changes. It would be kind of boring if little changed in the cosmology of things.

Thanks. Yeah, I was misreading the entire thing, but I was set straight a couple of days after making this thread, so it was a bit of a waste. Thanks for the replies and sorry about not acknowledging them earlier.

Knight who says Meh wrote:
Yeah, it's probably unfair for the left to hold the right to "facts" and "reality." Clearly that way lies madness.

Is the snark really necessary? It certainly doesn't make the left agreeable.

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Forgive the repost from the Books Thread:

Parable Of The Sower – Not 1984 – Is The Dystopia For Our Age

Speaking to The Stream on Al Jazeera, Okorafor read from the African-American novelist’s 1998 sequel, the Nebula-winningParable of the Talents, which features a presidential candidate, Andrew Steele Jarret, who rises to power by promising, like Trump, to “make America great again,” and whose supporters are known to form mobs to burn and feather and tar those who don’t “quite match Jarret’s version of Christianity.”

That's far less impressive when you realize that the slogan dates way back to Ronald Reagan, and maybe even before then. And the whole "supporters who form mobs" reminds me more of what happened in Chicago broadcasted on facebook.

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Arbane the Terrible wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

Or the implication that refugees from Syria practically waltz in to the U.S. It was already taking 18-24 months of rigorous thorough vetting. But the Dems practically let Trump have that talking point without a fight.

Can't win hearts and minds to your candidates if you don't fight hard to control, or at least shape, the narrative.

Oh yes. The total unwillingness of Democrats (or our worthless 'news' media) to call rightwingers on their 'alternative facts' is one of our biggest problems. (And not just a political problem, a BASIC SANITY problem at this point.)
There's no point in doing so. The base that supports Trump proved time and time again that they won't listen to "facts" coming from sources they despise. Which is everyone save Trump, BriteBart, and FOXX.

You just described confirmation biased. There have been some interesting accusations and assumptions made in this thread, but surely you don't mean to imply that only the half of the country you disagrees with you on politics is guilty of confirmation biased while everyone who agrees with you is free from it? That in itself seems like a form of confirmation biased, or how it's otherwise known, "myside bias".

Also all this talk about how the left needs to "control, or at least shape, the narrative" seems like a direct route to Oceania and the Ministry of Truth.

So I know a similar question has already been answered about this in the FAQ, but it is important to note that this isn't about if I don't have the spell or don't reach the CL. This is about if I am not a high enough level to cast that spell level.

Summary: The rules state, "A creator can create an item at a lower caster level than her own, but never lower than the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell." My GM says that as long as it's not a create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic item, I can craft the item. I say for potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items, you need to know the spells but for everything else, you need to be able to cast spells of that level even if taking the +5 for every spell and prerequisite removed.

The Situation: After crafting a Handy Haversack as a level 5 Arcanist, I read this rule and realized I wouldn't have been able to craft it until level 10 since that is when I will gain 5th level spells, the spell level of Secret Chest, although I wouldn't need know Secret Chest. If I understood my GM correctly, taking the +5 to the DC would remove both "requirements" according to him, even though the part about spell level isn't listed under the requirements of Handy Haversack and so wouldn't be considered one of the prerequisites the rules refer to. In other words, I say the spell level is a requirement, but not a "Requirement". He says it's a "Requirement", but not required. On a side note, it you don't actually need something to complete the item, than calling it a "Requirement" is kind of a poor choice in wording, Paizo. I'd really appreciate any help in getting this sorted. Thanks!

Really this whole thing can be averted by using more descript words than just "beautiful". You do have a point that "beautiful" can mean many different things depending on the context and will paint a different visual picture to different people. We may argue how much so, but I no longer believe that's the point you are trying to make. So maybe using descriptors like "svelte", "lithe", "hearty", "buxom", "robust", "strapping", "plush", and "plump" can all provide a pleasing description while providing a more detailed and varied build than just "beautiful". After all, isn't the point of the description is to paint a cohesive image of the subject between all players?

What I don't get is how his approval rating is so high, 86% + or - 3. ing-hits-86-despite-drug-war-criticism

I don't really see them that far apart, except that the proportions are more exaggerated in the works of art, which is to be expected given what is possible with sculpture and painting. It's like what you said with what is real and what is ideal.

But we are talking about a fictional rpg setting. The unrealistic is more than feasible and people who have problems telling apart reality from fantasy should probably not engage too heavily.

7 people marked this as a favorite.

If gods had their alignments flipped but retained as many of their domains as reasonable.

God of the mystery box. What's inside? Who knows. His followers also carry around a box of personal mystery on their quest to spread their civilization. There are as many of these civilizations as there are followers, with the exact nature of them being entirely up to them. It could be their children, gold, or a disease. Who knows. While many see the followers as vagrants at best, they see themselves as kings and queens of a nation of one.
Good hearted trickster god. The only way you could get him or one of his devils to do what he promises is by making him sign a contract. Most of the time he brings pranks of no harm, maybe even excessively generous. His kindness knows no stranger and is handed out at random.
The Goddess of courtley love, vows, wedding cermonies, arranged marriages, and sex for procreation only. If a sacred vow is broken to one of her followers, they are completely just in any act of vengeance or trickery they commit. Otherwise, she is also known for being a goddess of good fortune in all things people seek, not just a spouse.
Cayden Caliean
The wandering swindler. Cayden Caliean travels across the land to use his charm and might to convince others to hand him what he desires. The odd thing is, he is not a deceitful god, if asked, he makes his intentions plain, but people just find it difficult to say no to him. His arrival is often both a blessing and a curse. If asked, he will fight off bandits, slay great beasts, even repair your home, but he demands a reward afterwards and will only speak of it after the deed is done. It is often far worse than the problem that required his aid. His stays true to this and will make sure you do as well. If you fail to provide, he will make wine from your blood and keep your soul in a tankard.
The cosmic invader. After Lamashtu slayed the tyrant Curchanus, she took up his mantle and took his endless conquest to the stars. Her army never rests and if it wasn't for the world guardian Rovagug, she would have long conquered Golarion.
God of the Wild Hunt. Erastil holds a tight group of the souls of the worst murderers and most powerful archons. Those that tread on what he deems his wilderness are ruthlessly chased every night. Other times he hunts people down for the challenge of it. The strongest and greatest among use must constantly keep watch of their back and sleep with one eye open for Old Deadeye.
God of honorable war and war treaties. Gorum's highest priests seek to learn to control their rage and ferocity, to refine it. Their destruction is not like wild fire, but a harnessed beam so that they may strike only other worthy opponents. Gorum always teaches to practice restraint, especially towards those weaker than yourself; to never take advantage of an opponents misfortune, to never war for the sake of war, that fighting is the last solution, not the first. This is the path to glory.
A dualistic deity, a god of the wave and surf and also a goddess of the storm and sky. Remarkably calm to the point of apathy towards everything, even when Gozreh's domain of nature wreaks havoc on the innocent.
Goddess of self glorification. She fights not for land, peace, or ideology. She fights to prove her strength over others. See that tree? It thinks it's so strong and big. I'll cut it down to size. She is also the goddess of petty slights. Consistently when Desna is at her greatest and on the verge victory, Iomedae's envy and desire to prove herself flings her into war with Desna, much to her displeasure. She used to believe Gorum to be a worthy opponent, but his constant refusal to fight convinced her that he is cowardly and worthless.
God of barbarians. He was once a hedonist of the greatest magnitude. His desires had no bounds, committing any act his heart pushed him towards. His debauchery led him to a state of ecstasy beyond mortal comprehension, so he became no longer mortal. In this moment of enlightenment, he not only became a god by accident, but also learned knowledge unknown, including runes. His followers seek to follow his path to godhood, but none have found the secret combination of drink, food, and sex.
A motherly goddess who could no longer stand witnessing creatures enslaved by Curchanus and dying in his wars, so she allied with Desna briefly to plot his demise. His murder was not desired but a necessity. On his death, she took his godly domain over beasts, to be nursed back to health by her, but after Desna stripped his domain of travel, she turned on Lamashtu who narrowly escaped. She could never bring herself to war, harming her children. Her protectiveness, while overbearing to the point of controlling, is extended to all who would take it. She is also a fertility goddess, giving those who do good by her strong, healthy children. Those who earn her disdain, those who harm their own children being the worse, are punished with infertility and a visit by the Child Protective Services.
Once two powerful wizards constantly at war with each other. By a magical mishap, they merged into one being. While their opposing personalities used frequently be in conflict, centuries of meditation and "just getting used to it", has brought them into harmony and gave one half a new found understanding of the other. Honestly, he doesn't know what he would do without himself.
God of vigilantes by night, charming philanthropist by day, Norgorber is not only charming, but clever too. He is always first to the crime scene and the punchline. He always seems one step ahead, almost by clairvoyance, but really, he just knows others better than they know themselves. Norgorber's followers do not seek to punish evil-doers, but keep a watchful eye where no one else does, protectors of the night.
Accurately predicting the birth of Aroden, Pharasma finds her power of prophecy growing stronger. Unfortunately, her domain over death, birth, and fate are weakening. At this point, souls are starting to judge themselves.
The gentle giant and cosmic savior. Golarion was a tumultuous place of suffering before Rovagug arrived. A protector of planets and hero to all the good aliens, Rovagug noticed that one planet was not happy, Golarion. He made hasty work imprisoning all the wicked and chaotic gods (Abadar, Apsu, Dahak, Desna, Dou-Bral, Erastil, Gozreh, Pharasma, Sarenrae, and Torag) and quickly began bringing smiles and cheer to all life. Yet Asmodeus was tricked into letting all the gods out and forced to sign a contract to help them destroy Rovagug. When the battle would soon draw to a close, Calistria uncovered Desna's plan to turn her armies against the other gods soon after. Low on strength, but still as selfless as ever, Rovagug begged the gods to seal him within the core of Golarion. From there he could create a protective barrier to keep Desna's forces to return. Priests of Desna for-tell a most fortunate day for their goddess, when the stars are just right and Rovagug's shield weakens, ushering in the return of The Great Dreamer and ending her exile.
The searing sun. Just as the sun blisters the skin does Sarenrae contort and torment the flesh. She'll slice off your limbs with her cauterizing scimitar and torture you to death, only to bring you back to life and repeat the process. The pure of heart and virtuous are her favorite prey. Victims either go mad or surrender themselves to The Everlight.
This goddess of vanity seeks to rid the world of all who she finds ugly. This does not always mean by ending their existence, many that she finds to have potential, her priests mainly, she'll graciously put in the effort of remolding them to live up to her standards. Viewing herself as the most beautiful being in existence, this often leads to some interesting results. All expressions of ones love towards her brings her great pleasure, leading to many songs, poems, and painting praising her many flawless qualities. The being she loved the most, other than herself, was her half-brother Dou-Bral, who looked the most like her, naturally. She kept him around mainly as a pet, but once escaped he found solace and peace with another, vowing to never return. Shelyn vows to bring him back and "make him more beautiful than ever."
There is no predicting what the mad artisan will create, only that it will make your life miserable. Never ending labyrinths, torture devices, and uncontrollable golems are all favorites of his but by no means staples. his followers once kept their work beneath the ground, but he demanded that they rise forth and share their gifts with the surface dwellers. He may not be willing to let others play with his toys, but he sure is willing to let his toys play with others.
While plague and the occasional dead rising are uncontrollable forces of nature, Urgathoa is certainly willing to lend a hand when others are in need. Her priests cure diseases and help escort the expired find their way back to their beds. The truly selfless of her followers will even offer to continue their services after death. And being the goddess of plenty, some followers even offer to become fertilizer to help with next years crops.
While fleeing from his sister, Dou-Bral found the only refuge to be between the planes, where he found an alien being who taught him the path of freedom through pain. Through pain will he free his mind of his sister's influence and through pain will he find bliss. Grateful, the now reborn Zon-Kuthon carries this strange creature within his heart, where it always keeps him company. Mutilated and confident, Shelyn was abhors what her brother has become. His followers torment themselves consistantly, self-flagellation being the most common method. They never torture the unwilling, but are always eager to give a hand.

This was actually pretty exhausting. Maybe I'll continue with the minor deities and proof-read later.

Spastic Puma wrote:
This point may have passed a while back but I thought I'd throw my two cents in. Countries don't exist in vacuums, and the idea of a beauty pageant as it appears in contemporary society did not simultaneously spring up everywhere as a form of parallel evolution. Thus, using their similar results as an argument for a certain beauty standard is really not taking into account globalization or even smaller scale transfers of values and practices.

How about comparing second millennium bc Minoan portrayal of women, who had ample breasts and wore corsets with the potrayal of Didarganj Yakshi from 2nd century India, which had ample breasts, a narrow waist, and broad hips?

I also want to make it clear that I don't view there to be one universal ideal body shape. It's more of a range, and the further you move away from this range, the fewer people will still find it appealing.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
welcome those who can reference Pathfinder art of "beautiful" creatures who don't match the standard "slender big-bosomed" body type.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
As long as we're talking about evolution, I might as well point out that size and curvaceousness are actually quite desirable traits on that front. Big hips are childbearing hips, after all, and big chests make good football quarterbacks.

Sorry about posting again in such rapid succession, but my eyes must have skipped that sentence and it left me a little confused. Are you arguing for fewer or more art with big breasts?

Maybe you only brought it up because you feel that I am opposed to big breasts because I mentioned the azatas that don't quite fit your description of "the standard "slender big-bosomed" body type." I only brought that up because your statement made it seem every creature described as beautiful had this Jessica Rabbit-like physique.

Bearserk wrote:

You will say that owls, tigers, lions, gorillas, eagles and other big beasts are ugly?!?
I don't think so.

Graceful and lithe does not equate to small. While not as lithe as the examples I have given, I would say all those animals you listed could be described as being graceful and lithe except for the gorilla, which is just graceful. Also I would say tigers are "colorful" in the sense that they have a striking pattern, which is why many people find them beautiful.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Andrew Marlow wrote:
Are you now saying only hyper-slender women are attractive? I know that the fashion magazines and beauty contests have more-or-less decided that for themselves, but is theirs the Ultimate Authority you would brandish to evidence that claim? Or is this solely your own opinion?[/b]

What did I just say about over exaggerating. Where did I at any point say only hyper-slender women are attractive? I said there is a reason why being slender is often associated with beauty. Maybe you mean the title? All it stated is that the women described as beautiful are attractive and I only said that because I thought you felt they were, writing that new title as if I were you. Do you feel like they don't live up to your view of beauty?

I don't understand how you came to the conclusion I feel that way. I'm having problems understanding what you are trying to communicate in general. How do you want these "beautiful" creatures to look? Why not choose something fits the most people's view of what beauty is? Why should they look different?

I also don't get at which point I am "really resistant to the idea that people are born with different bone structures and different metabolisms" when I stated the opposite in that people have different metabolisms to adapt to different diets. Or that "as well as the idea that anyone might find curvy people good-looking". How did you come to this conclusion? Because I said thinner people are more graceful and delicate than heavier people? Just because they lack these traits doesn't mean they can't be beautiful but those traits in themselves tend to be widely viewed as beautiful.

Personally, I find women with a bit of muscle the most attractive, but I realize I'm not really in the norm when it comes to this. I didn't want to bring my tastes into this, since I feel personal experience makes for a poor argument and that you have every reason to doubt what I'm saying is true, but I feel it has come to that with these accusations.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Actually, the issue is that you're fixated on a subtitle. Subtitles like that are generally casual and/or simplified: Look at Doctor Strangelove for an example. The problem is that you took the title and then apparently ignored everything else I said, which, yeah, I'm finding frustrating. It seems like you came here looking for a fight. Your nitpickiness and insistence on 'scolding' me for my word choice kind of supports that impression.

Now, to be clear, I was using "angel" in the contemporary sense, not the game sense, so I recognize there may have been some miscommunication there. In that sense, azatas are angels. They are arguably the most sexualized celestials in the Bestiary, and they do gravitate towards slenderness, so yeah, they're a pretty good example. I'll title this "What's With All The Skinny Azatas?" next time. Or I'll just skip the subtitles, actually. They seem...

I didn't come here looking for a fight you personally, but I disagree with the points you made, I find them lacking. Now perhaps I didn't carefully analyze what you said, taking fey, celestial, and monsters described as beautiful as being three seperate catagories, but I find the arguments that you put forward to diversify the art was

1."I think it goes without saying that "beauty" is entirely subjective"
2."no one of the three most common body types is superior to the rest"
Now I went over why the first statement is wrong. The second statement is phrased in a matter difficult to disagree with, but I feel I went over why using those three body types doesn't really support your point. Perhaps you didn't make these comments to be taken so on point, and I do apologies if I am coming across as being strict, but I honestly feel this is a better way to handle this discussion. Else it easily swerves off into accusations of what we feel the other person is saying instead of what they are actually saying, which just leaves people confused and angry. I already fear I might've begun heading in that direction.

Please, don't take my austerity as anger. I'm actually enjoying this discussion and would much rather be talking with someone like you than someone who I already know would agree with me.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for the advice.

So what did you mean by the subtitle?

The "body types" you listed are more reactions to a similar diet, when really, with a diet tailored to them, they would look fairly similar, just maybe at different heights.

What we consider "Beauty", as you have stated, is in large part engrained in our biology, because when people say "Beauty" in reference to people, they mean attractive, not they have good color composition or something. More accurate than saying beauty is "subjective" is that it varies.

And if your issue isn't with the angels, you shouldn't have said angels in your opening post.

So maybe your title was meant to be:

Or maybe not. Going over what you read, I'm still not sure what examples you have in mind. You said that Celestials are a good example, but I doubt you had archons or agathians and we already established angels are a no go. The only azatas I see described similarly are Lillends, Brijidines, Gancanaghs, Raelises, and the Veranallia. The only one of these that I might describe as being "big-bosomed" is the Brijidines, but hardly so. I can't even find a depiction of the Veranallia. I know you might be thinking, "why is he taking my statement so literally. I obviously only meant those few celestials that he mentioned". If you don't want me to take what you say as if you meant it, than maybe you shouldn't say things you don't mean or don't exaggerate too much while trying to make a point.

Still, I have yet to give a proper answer to the question of importance, why are "beautiful people portrayed as being thin." Because being lithe makes it easier to be graceful and tends to mean being more delicate, both traits associated with beauty. Animals described as being beautiful are usually the slender and graceful (peacocks, cats, cranes, deer, rabbits, foxes, butterflies, swans) with exceptions being those that are just colorful.

I hope that answers the question you were looking for.

"Form follows function" is the motto of good design. Astral Devas are thin because they are divine messengers, not soldiers. They should be light, quick, and nimble. Planetars, Solars, and Movanics are warriors of heaven, they should be physically imposing. Balisse angels are there for guidance and Choral Angels are there for singing, not combat. Actually, I don't know where this impression of beautiful skinny angel girls are coming from. Just look at them: _Kekai_Kotaki-D%26D_3ed_(2011-01)_Paizo_Publishing_Pathfinder_-_Pathfinder_ Roleplaying_Game,_Bestiary_2.jpg wns-Tokens-036-Angel-Astral.jpg 482US482&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjVjNrw7PnQAhX piVQKHfUhCGoQ_AUICCgB&biw=1422&bih=1020#imgrc=efNiR4K0dgLuAM%3A
The only one you could even say is unusually thin is the Planetar, and even that is a bit of a stretch.

(The links seem to work fine. It's only after I post do they start giving issues. This is my last attempt to find links that work. Apologies to anyone else who is having problems.)

The thing is, who determines these body types? Why just three? As I said before, even if they are common, how does that make them the standard for beauty?

And you say they are subjective, but they aren't that subjective as it seems you believe them to be, and while you may not find competitions from around the world based on beauty not entirely convincing, you failed to bring any source to back your claim that beauty is so subjective that Paizo should have a wider range of these differing standards of beauty. You only assume that people would agree with you. While the results may not speak for every individual, if we are looking for the body type most commonly viewed as attractive across time and is the standard of beauty world wide, I find the Miss World competition a good indicator of this.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Except its not really all that subjective or limited to Western standards.Just look at the winners of beauty pageants across the world over the past century: swimsuit-portion-of-competition

So not only do the standards of beauty differ little in between developed nations, but the differ little between genders:

Certain physical qualities are just associated with good health and better suited for various tasks. So it is only expected humans have adapted to find these qualities attractive and in turn, adapted to give off this appearance for a higher chance of mating. Just look at the distribution of fat between the sexes.

Ectomorph, endomorph, and mesomorph (in otherwords, somatotype) was a theory developed by a psychologist, not a biologist, in the 1940s and rooted in constitutional psychology and eugenics.

Even if you still hold that there are large populations of these differing body types, you must admit that this isn't an adaptation based off of sexual selection, they are adaptations based off of diet. The reason why Samoans have a higher rate of obesity isn't because they like their women large, it's for the same reason why Native Americans are more likely to develop type II diabetes or why the majority of the world is lactose-intolerant. Neither does bringing up how common each one is carries much relevance. Beauty never was based off of what is the most common.