Arturius Fischer's page

Unlike Earth, which is protected by its magnetic field, the Moon has been bombarded with large quantities of Helium-3 by the solar wind. It is thought that this isotope could provide safer nuclear energy in a fusion reactor, since it is not radioactive and would not produce dangerous waste products.

This sort of thing just goes to show the ruling class's idiocy.

Oh look, you have a potential Seer? I know, we should have this guy who can see glimpses of the future with no physical augmentations go work in the mines!

You know, instead of, say, the fusion power plant where he can touch each coworker on the way in to work and find out if the place might undergo a meltdown or something due to some missed detail.

Last two episodes have been amazing.

The YouTube Planet was like an episode of TOS done with modern themes. Also the guy doing stupid jokes finally got repercussions for acting stupid...I just wish that had happened to the pilot.
My niece pointed out she thought it was strange that they used only text and video, no text+image memes like in the real world. Even she was like "Just hack the feed!" until they (logically) did it.

Also, it's good to know the Union isn't the UFP and doesn't get extreme about a Prime Directive--and that if you screw up and do something dumb on an alien planet you'd best be prepared to deal with the consequences.

---

Isaac is best Space Dad. While I was kind of surprised at the low-key stereotyping (the one black lady is a single mom? Really?), the episode had heart.

The Doctor was already my fav side character and Isaac tied for fav bridge crew, so getting them together was great.

Both the writer and actor of Isaac's character did a great job, and the latter did exceptionally well at making something with no face very emotive. It was good to see the character progression, and even better that it sort of made them into a little family unit. Again, Isaac is best Space Dad... his literal mind makes him great at Dad Jokes too!

27) The PC's are travelling across the battlefield when they encounter a ragged group of footmen with bloody weapons who march toward them. Assuming the party doesn't attack, the group stops as their leader pulls out his pristine officers blade and kneels before the PC's, offering their surrender.

About a minute after this encounter starts, the sound of hooves announces the arrival of a squad of another country's cavalry which forms a circle around the other groups. They demand the lives of the footmen and reject any offers of surrender. They recognize the PCs as heroes/adventurers and would prefer not to fight them, but orders are orders.

Does the party accept the first groups offer? Do they defend them from the second group? Or do they talk their way out only to let the second group slaughter the first.

Its going to be like Game of Thrones soon...
I present to you Mercer, Sower of the Space Tree, Satan of the Starlight, Space Vampire Hunter, Killer of Krill.

As for the warship thing... no. I don't care if they are space aliens, they don't get a pass for using kids as (human) shields. Especially while raising them as child soldiers. If they knowingly bring children into a military vessel going to war, the moral burden is entirely on them. Even their Super Nuke and murder religion are not as repugnant as this facet of their culture.

So... good job to the writers on that part, I guess. I officially hate them now, where before they were just funny rubber forehead aliens.

It's getting more and more sci-fi as it sheds some of its comedy.

That being said, I can do without the divorce jokes, and finally we get an episode that has none. The frat bro thing was overdone a little, but I'm OK with it as this IS a comedy show first and foremost.

There's absolutely zero reason those two should have been picked for that job. That being said, if they didn't, we wouldn't have an episode--and this sort of thing happened on STTOS all the freaking time... why does the bridge crew go down on away missions, again?

I like the leg callback, as well as the holoemitter callback. It's good to see some continuity, even if not not being used to its full extent (The Orville would be one of the most OP ships ever if it was).

The "noncombatant" issue was mildly unnecessary. It was a warship, one transporting a WMD, with the intent to use it. All bets are off. I wonder if this issue will come up again the next time they have a space battle against a Krill ship? For that matter, I wonder if the end result of this episode will be in making them less of a threat thanks to the knowkedge gained.

I like the religious approach. That idea was floated early in the episode and it's good to see them trying to address it. For people who wonder about the aliens motives, remember that there are REAL WORLD mainstream religions whose adherents might think that non-human sapients are without souls too.

For me, the only thing I dislike about this series is that tries too hard to be comedy and sci-fi. If they took the comedy elements out and focused on the sci-fi then it would be on par with series like Star Trek. On the other hand, if the series were more focused on comedy and using the sci-fi as something to spoof, it would also be pretty amazing (Galaxy Quest, the series!). I hope they find a niche to settle into eventially, because they could go either way but seem... lost.

On Trek, when it was good, the writers tried to represent both sides as fairly and equally as possible, or at least in such a way as you can legitimately understand and appreciate the motives of the side they disagree with, even if they've carried it to the point of being ridiculous. In many cases, some weird oppressive thing turns out to be some useful advice or command from the past that's become some religious-like truth over time as its origins were forgotten.

In Orville Ep.3, they didn't even bother to ask "Wait, why does your culture do this?" until halfway through the episode. We never get a good answer other than "Guess Moclans are just sexist for no reason, lol". There's so many ways they could have given them some legitimate reason where the viewer could be like "Hmmm, they have a point" but instead they use silly arguments and make them into caricatures... and then have the end decision go the opposite way you'd expect.

I don't expect much better because "comedy show" but also because Ep.4 was so much better that it seems like they are improving.

Pathfinder system.

People say it's a pain tracking the HP, but they're doing it backwards. You track the DAMAGE, not the health.

The Stamina / HP system is similar to the Vitality Point / Wound Point system of Star Wars D20. It makes sense in a universe based on movies where most weapons can easily kill in one hit.

It makes less sense in Pathfinder-style games.

Something I never understood is why someone had to make this abstraction to begin with. Why CAN'T the dragon-punching demigod shrug off a stab from a peasant's dagger? What's wrong with the shape shifting druid in bear form having arrow shafts sticking from him like porcupine quills while he continues to maul the brigands?

What makes me angry are the silly rationalizations of Hit Point representing luck or skill, but then the healing mechanics failing to use the same mechanical logic. Yes, the Cleric has a harder time healing the more experienced and powerful guy. Why? If HP were representing skill and luck, then healing would scale to the target's level and not the caster. Instead, it just becomes proportionately weaker over time.

The 'bonus' HP also make PC's twice to three times as tough as before. BasicLly the same as getting two Hit Dice per level as far as HP is concerned. This is... excessive in a universe where healing is baked in to the system and so easy to achieve.

It's...not quite like that. I mean, they still use the same gear as PCs and have the same stats, how those stats interact with skills, to-hit, and AC is just a bit different.

Do they? Monsters don't even have normal stats anymore, just the bonuses. The attacks, skills, and saves don't add up at all, and the equipment doesn't seem to matter.

Look at the Space Pirate Crew Member listed in the OP. Notice its armor is a 'second skin', which is +1 EAC and +2 KAC. It has a +4 Dex bonus. Second Skin maxes at +5 Dex, soo.... what's going on here? He should easily be 15 EAC and 16 KAC.

What's going on is that the monster is just a 'skeleton' of stats with descriptional fluff. It could be a Vesk or a Human or it could be in power armor or whatnot, but it's just a 'generic' statblock.

Why bother with the 'normal' stats at all if it's just got assigned attack, damage, AC, and HP for its CR?

That's why it's an MMO Monster. It doesn't really matter what it looks like, or what it carries, or what its stats are, because it's got about the same numbers no matter what. Oh, you might some variety in ones with a special ability or attack, but they are functionally the same chassis, and they probably break down into simple categories like Melee, Ranged, Caster, and Support.

They should have saved time and just put that into the main book. Would save a lot of time with the modules (IE: "CR 5 encounter made of 2x CR2 Melee and 1x CR2 Ranged")

That's not the sole reason. The ability to quickly design NPCs and monsters on the fly based on CR, the shorter and easier to read statblocks are other factors that led to this decision.

Quickly designing NPC's is alright, but once you've made some, they exist forever. As new Beastiary-equivalents, NPC guides, modules, etc, come out, more and more become available with zero work. Plus, as a GM, the ones you make exist forever too. I have dozens leftover from 3.0 that I can dust off if I need in my PF games with only minimal adjustment.

Shorter and easier-to-read statblocks don't require that change either. Just put down the most important details. Which at this point is basically Attack+, AC, Saves, and HP.

---

Still, none of my complaints matter too much in the end since we can just Rule Zero it and build NPC's the "normal" way. It's just irritating that this is hailed as some 'new' way of doing things when it's been done before in games with simpler rules. One of the great things about Pathfinder is that the rules are detailed and have some complexity.

Soooo... MMO Monsters. Got it

Having separate math for players and everything else is one of the main things that made me hate 4th. Best thing 3rd did was unify the math for everything.

Hiruma, thanks for that link. It lets you see how their line of thinking slowly changed over time to come up with this system, and it's an interesting read, even if I disagree with the conclusions and results.

If the problem is that Mind Control results in one player destroying the party, the issue should be fixing that flaw, not re-writing the laws of the universe to change the result.

This seems like a weird thing to say given that, well, Trump.

Why yes, it is, given the opportunities he's opened up to those whose genders, races, and beliefs have been discriminated against. It certainly wasn't the Democrats pointing out how the Democrats were screwing them over.

Trump's reactionary to the progress Clinton's talking about. Consider that the DNC had a muslim athlete introduce a muslim gold star family whereas Tim Tebow declined an invitation to the RNC.

Considering her idea of 'progress' is "off a cliff at full speed while taking bribes to speed along, lie about, and cover it up", I'd say that's a good thing.

If it's any consolation, I don't think Trump really gives a rat's rear about what Mitch McConnell wants. Mitch is out for his old establishment, a relic of a bygone age. Whoever wins this election will see it torn down around his ears.

What TheJeff said. So much.

Of all the things SciFi tramples on (dissipating the massive heat radiation any starship would create, placement of decks on a ship relative to the ships direction of travel, square cubed law for inertia and ship movement, assumption of massive if not infinite amounts of free energy, amount of life in the universe, etc, etc), picking on FTL as unrealistic is just silly.

But, most importantly:

If I have a way to teleport to Alpha Centauri that takes no perceptible time to me, it's perfectly reasonable with no violation of temporal causality for it to put me at Alpha Centauri at a time that will be observed from my starting location 4.3 years from when I left. It's also reasonable that if I immediately return the same way, I'll only have been gone for moments and 4.3 years later I'll see myself arrive at Alpha Centauri. (Assuming I've got really strong telescopes and a really big ship or make a really big explosion when I get there.)

There's no travel to the past involved. No backwards time travel. No violations of causality.

This. All the 'time travel from FTL' complaints conveniently neglect the fact that the time travel can only happen in one direction. Some of the sillier examples ignore the speed entirely by throwing in another section involving absolutely instantaneous travel, the decry the non-instant FTL as violating causality.

---

As for the Dominion of the Black VS Cthulhu, my bets on Cthulhu. While it's nice to just say "He's now a slave somewhow", I think it would be much more interesting if they were trying to keep him asleep. Like a sizeable portion of humanity is put into a Matrix-machine (as it was intended, using brains as processing power, not how it was edited for the movies, using bodies as batteries) whose sole purpose is to generate a dreamlike 'fake world' to keep him distracted and sleeping while the rest of the place is turned into one of the Dominion's flesh farms.

Turning him into a simple tool doesn't really make the Dominion look all that super awesome. It looks more like a cheap shot to boost one mythos as the expense of another. Bit like when Batman fans write a Batman VS Superman story, and require the latter to be relentlessly stupid so the former can win.

Become a Lich with none of the nasty costs?

Sign me up in a heartbeat, especially if it's 3.5 or PF rules. There's a few spells that enable Undead to become temporarily living (one was even posted here). They are mostly to disguise they are Undead, but they also allow them to do things living creatures do, like eat, sleep, etc.

Besides, if I've got levels in Wizard, that means Magic Jar, and that means all those limitations are actually temporary inconveniences. Magic Jar means I can possess someone else's body for a time to do those things. It doesn't even have to be malicious. It can be totally consensual. Here, you want me to double your strength for a day or turn you into an animal for 24 hours so you can see what it's like to fly like a bird or swim like a shark? Well, first you gotta let me borrow your body and hit an all-you-can-eat buffet.

Liches don't even have to be skeletal. This process sounds right efficient, so you'd be keeping the look of your 'original' body if you wanted to. Tammy's use of Gentle Repose will keep you looking as young as your original death. Even then, it really doesn't matter that much. If you want to look pretty, there's two entire schools that can help you accomplish that--Illusion and Transmutation.

As for what 'good' you can do in the world, hey, take them Magic Item Crafting Feats and start producing things that horribly violate physics. Using a bit of conversational ideas over in a Starfinder thread, that means you can help NASA or its European Equivalents by producing Decanters of Endless Water for a perfect 100% efficient reaction-mass drive for spaceships. Want to end world hunger or eradicate plagues? Well, you're basically a one-being harbinger for the Tippyverse, in reality.

I know a friend who'd be happy being a Ghoul if it meant he could be undead in reality. Being a Lich? That's a no-brainer. ;)

There's a reason the "Tacked On" last season felt "tacked on".

Because it was.

The original show was supposed to be 5 seasons, but they were told around 4 that it wouldn't be.

So--they sped things up to complete the metaplot. About halfway through, they were told that they would, indeed, have a fifth season after all.

You know, after they had written in all the major plot points.

This sort of 'tacked on' feel happens the exact same way in SG-1 at the beginning of Season 9. The main metaplot of the series is complete, but they have to find 'newer', 'badder' bad guys and it turned into Fargate, SG-1 with the cast.

---

Don't see why you couldn't use D20 Modern for a quick Stargete D20 game, honestly. You have all the 3rd Ed / Pathfinder / D20 Modern stuff to pull from for creatures and whatnot.

XLordxErebusX: Well, yes, using gold for non-electronic construction is a silly idea.

HOWEVER, for electronics, Malwing is right. Silver is technically one of the best conductors, but it corrodes easily. Gold is pretty close, far closer than copper, and doesn't corrode at all. It's exceptionally good in that role, so long as there isn't enough current to heat it up too much. But for small things, like connectors? It's amazing

That being said, just because it's a space-faring campaign, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to have the same technological base than the real world does. It's entirely possible that gold will be much more common in their circuits and other electronic technology, to the point where it retains value as an exchange medium for that very purpose. A great increase in technology dependent on it will make it valuable enough for such use.

The fact that it also lets use keep GP as a currency, even in an altered form, is just a bonus.

I'd rather have GP than arbitrary 'credits' anyway.

Plus. it's funny to imagine a bunch of characters in power-armor charging up a hill of cracking gold-plated circuit-boards as they attack the Cyborg Red Dragon in its lair. ;)

Voss summed this up pretty well.

I think of most fictional giant mecha that must fight on a planetary surface, and then I think of a 4-man party of 16th-20th level D&D/PF characters, and the latter would smoke the former every time. Spellcasters causing earthquakes and meteors to rain from the sky (nevermind piles of Extended, Maximized, and/or Quickened Fireballs), Fighters destroying them with anti-construct weapons, Barbarians raging and just cutting through them (or wrestling them down), etc, etc.

High level PCs are functionally no different from superheroes, after all.

But... that's where my agreement ends.

Using Mecha in D20 doesn't set up bad choices, it merely requires making good ones. The examples Voss gives are indeed rather bad ones.

Fortunately, having done a D20 Mecha campaign before (using D20 Modern + D20 Future), I've had some time to think on this.

The main problem is defining how the mecha works.

Near as I can tell, going by sci-fi movies and anime, there are two different kinds of mecha--the Hard Suit and the Booster Suit.

WARNING: MASSIVE WALL OF TEXT IN SPOILER SECTION!

If Starfinder has mecha, these are the kind of problems they'll have to think of and solve. While each has advantages and disadvantages, people will argue for one over the other.

Personally, I prefer to go with both. Sadly, that's even more rules they'd have to write and try to balance.

As such, I kind of doubt we'll be getting them in the Core Rulebook.

That being said, I do hope they address an entire book for them (as well as one for Starships), as that would make me quite happy!

BattleStargate Universe was pretty good. The first few episodes, anyway.

What started with an amazing premise and art direction, loaded with possibilities, soon got really repetitive, really fast.

Oh look, the Mad Scientist who thinks he's better than everyone else and has betrayed people repeatedly wants us to trust him. Maybe things will be different this time? I mean, he wouldn't do that five times in a row, right?

Oh, those military people? They must be bad, you can't trust them to lead. It's not like they have an organized structure where people know what to do and who to listen to. Let's us, as a group of random, unaffiliated civilians, convince others that we should be in charge even though we have no plans and will begin turning on each other at a moments notice. We'll screw things up for awhile, the military guys will un-screw it, then we'll start this process again.

---

It IS much like a Pathfinder AP, though, I'll give you that. I think you have that backwards in that it would serve as a great inspiration for a campaign IN Starfinder. What with the stellar exploration, this can be a way to do it. Don't even have to bother with piloting ships and whatnot if the party doesn't want to.

At low levels, you explore this space-bound mega-dungeon. As you get higher in level, you can start exploring the worlds and places it stops by. As you go up, others start attacking or trying to board or whatnot, and then you have the 'reverse dungeon' where the bad guys are kicking down the doors to your home and you have to defend it. The best thing is, whatever part the party tends to like more you can throw back in there. The ship big enough? Well, they can never fully explore it, so at higher levels there can still be convenient dungeons on-board. They like the planetary exploration? Give them more of that. They want to start dealing with other spaceships, well, they can find the controls for the turrets or finally gain access to a ship's hangar, and BOOM, there you go.

Thanks for the idea. Totally going to do this. ;)

If death doesn't involve a character we care about, or hate enough, than it's not a significant death. Serenity was the closeout of a series that had already been canceled out of existence that would never be run again. So yes, I'm all for making bold moves especially when there isn't going to be any tomorrow.

And yes there was a good reason for him to die... it's called being in the middle of a warzone with Axe Crazy Space Berserkers.

So, lemme get this straight... killing a character randomly in all defiance of pre-established logic is a 'bold move' that makes it 'better' when you don't have to worry about sequels? Gotcha.

There was no good reason for it. It was established that Reavers like to do horrific things to live prey, which is why they don't just blow up ships for no reason. The Serenity had crippled engines, had just faceplanted onto a planet, was in a tunnel facing away from their foes (so good luck getting out), and was clearly going nowhere. So, naturally, it's totally in-character for them to fire a giant harpoon at the cockpit of the ship, rather than just 'robble robble' up in there.

Not only does it not make sense with the characters, it doesn't make PHYSICAL sense, either. Where did that attack from from? How did it get down in the tunnel? Where were the guys who fired it immediately afterword?

It was a cheap gimmick, nothing more.

Honestly, price tags for basic ship models are almost beside the point from a gamist perspective. In a space-based setting, ships are either a plot convenience to allow the PCs access to the worlds of the story or, at best, something like a friendly NPC. Whether the PCs should have a free ship at 1st level is really a function of what kind of adventure the GM is planning to run.

This.

It's pretty much the same issue focused when characters are on a sailing ship. Each character can fulfill a different role, or each player can be given something else to do or dice to roll for a specific task. The "Ship as one giant PC, with players working as a team" is generally how ships WORK.

If you want it to be 'smoother' or 'faster' or whatever, you have to give a specific goal. What do those terms mean to you?

You'll find in most SciFi / Space Opera shows, most of the crew isn't directly contributing to the fight. Oh, sure, Ensign Snuffy is making sure the hyperspace capacitors are properly charged and not damaged, and Sgt Shootem has a marine crew ready to repel boarders, but we don't see that very much. Even the main characters often aren't all directly contributing. What are Princess Leia and C-3PO doing on the Millenium Falcon in a fight? Not much, that's for sure.

So if you're running the game or wanting one that meets your requirements, you'll have to be a bit more specific.

Personally, I'd talk with the players and find out how they would be interested in working together for it.

If everyone wants a specific role, such as engineer and pilot and gunner and whatnot, then the "Giant Team PC" that is the default works fine (though you MIGHT want to add more options. Personally I take the D20 Future AND Star Wars D20 character spaceship roles options and smush them together, so all the side roles have plenty ways to help).

On the other hand, if EVERYONE wants to fight and shoot guns, the DM should consider them getting some type of Drone Ship (small party) or Carrier (large party) and the players planning out their characters accordingly. This way, each person gets to control a ship, even though it isn't THE ship, and everyone gets to fight as normal on the battlemap. Of course, this will slow things down, just as more PC's cause combats to take longer.

This Starfinder reminds me a LOT of the old Dragonstar. I hope it is a spiritual successor to it, because that setting was quite interesting. I do, however, hope they give us better ship-to-ship rules than we've seen in prior Pathfinder supplements.

---

"Levelling" a ship is an interesting concept, but how would it be done? A system of 'upgrades' and purchases that make the ship bigger or more capable? Or are you referring to a 'living ship' that has Hit Dice and whatnot, and actually 'grows' over time (like a Dragon)?

because we got an entirely different version of the villain (Lex), which ended up being one of my favorite parts of the movie.

Article writer credibility == Zero.

we don’t have room for Jimmy Olsen in our big pantheon of characters, but we can have fun with him, right?”

Yeah. "Fun." It must be terrible if they had to keep track of all those characters. I imagine if he directs Justice League he'll have to kill half of them off because there's too many in the pantheon, right?

I had wondered if the people who made this movie actually cared about the source material. The more I read, the more I realized they didn't.

Later in the film, when (SPOILER NAME REDACTED) crashes to Earth after being launched into space by Superman, a member of the military personnel goes out of their way to say the area is uninhabited. So at least Snyder learned some lessons from Man of Steel.

Or he learned from the hackjob English translations of the original Dragonball Z. That scene and the Mad Max-esque running vehicular gun battle--both through the streets of Gotham--did double duty for defecating all over Batman's character, too.

I agree with Hama on Lex.

My main problem with Luthor was that he was goofy. You have this super serious, grimdark film involving worldshaking events and forcing the two greatest DC superheroes into a fight. The tone is dark, the action is done in the literal dark, and there's almost no humor the entire time...

...and then you have Luthor running around like an ADHD autistic kid on a sugar rush. The guy who is supposed to be the mastermind orchestrating it all.

It wasn't until someone mentioned the Joker that... yeah... HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE JOKER. Pick a new guy to be Lex, give all the science-y scenes to him, and all social plot-moving stuff to whoever is to play the new Joker. Then the goofy weirdness makes sense instead of jarringly not fitting in to the rest of the film. Or just simply make him the Joker and replace the sciency bits with a minion. Perhaps even have that minion be Lex, who snuck on to the team to study the alien tech. Whatever.

---

JoelF847, don't try logic on this movie, it won't work. As soon as Batman says the equivalent of "I have to kill this guy, there's no other option!" he's already ceased to be Batman. Even in storylines where the bad guys steal his plans to neutralize the Justice League, every single one of them has some 'wiggle room' time to allow him to fix the situation before it turns lethal in case he made a mistake (and, to be fair, he never thought he had to use those plans at all).

---

Mark Radle, that's nearly three hours of video. Can you sort of cheat and give us the times we should skip to for the important bits? Or is that just to be informational in general?

That's cool. Now if they could explain all the history behind this Batman or this Wonder Woman before they set up what looks like their take on an "Avengers" movie, that'd be cool too.

Because this was very much "Man of Steel 2: Now With Other DC Characters and Terrible Writers".

I don't think a second viewing will change that. After talking with friends, they pointed out even more plot holes than I missed. Like in the opening scene...

Hama:

Benchak:

And yes, movie was dark in more ways than one. Man of Steel had no problem with all the action happening in the daytime, so why does every fight here have to be at night? I understand the Bats VS Supes being set them, but the rest?

Ask and ye shall receive.

All the superheroes except the Main Three are seen only in video camera footage.

Aquaman

Cyborg

Flash

Green Lantern is not shown at all. Or if he is, I missed it. It's possible they had him in his 'human' identity at some point with the Air Force or perhaps the police, but again, if they did, I totally missed it.

Incoming Wall-O-Text. Saw this last night.

I never thought Ben Affleck would make a good Batman. Unfortunately, this movie's Batman is not Batman (its Superman isn't even Superman, either).

He did very well with what they gave him. After seeing this, I'm interested in seeing Affleck in a REAL Batman movie.

This version of Batman was some sort of crude hybrid between Batman and the Punisher.

This version of Supes, despite supposedly being a direct sequel to Man of Steel, has none of the optimistic approach or calm self-confidence established in the first movie. He's constantly self-critical and prone to quitting, and he never seems to have the logical response to much of the slander sent his way.

The movie's Lex Luthor is terrible. Incredibly, amazingly terrible. I can't really say anything as to the actor here, but this character is just... bad. Whenever there is a serious moment, Lex either ruins it by being a total creeper or does something so goofy that all the pent-up suspense is destroyed with unintentional comedy.

The best part of this movie is probably Wonder Woman, despite her 12 minutes or so of screen time.

Add all that with a plot filled with holes and unnecessary bulk in places...

This movie is a mess.

it's a reboot, although the trailer certainly tries to make it seem like a sequel

This.

Also, what I'm Hiding In Your Closet said. If you want to make it because you love the source material or want to pay homage to it, I'm 100% down for that. If you're just wanting to do a paper-thin token-progressive or PC remake of something while using all the tired old clichés and dead-horse tropes "because it's there"--or, say, because you want to rake in heaps of money from a terrible product (Turtles, I'm looking at you)--then you need to get off my lawn, you kids.

Having said all that, there's been a few movies I expected to be junk, and was happy to be proven wrong. I hope this is one of them.

Yes, yes...

Everything made after your childhood ended is bad.

You realize old farts have been saying that for as long as we have recorded rants by them, right?

Sturgeon's Law applies.

We just remember the good stuff from the past and compare it to the majority crap we see today. (Along with a nostalgia filter.) We forget about the majority crap back then.

OP spends time to create detailed analysis of voice actors in various movies, gives specific and numerous examples, and supports his points on a case-by-case basis... and is dismissed casually as being an "old fart" and suffering from a "nostalgia filter".

Good to see the internet is running at 100% efficiency, as usual.

He gives plenty of good modern examples. He is not saying 'all old stuff good, all new stuff bad'. At least put forth as much effort to discuss his points as he did in writing them. (Which, to be fair, at least TheJeff did later. Tip-o-the-hat, sir.)

---

Good post, cmastah. Thank you for sharing. I rather appreciate your specific examples, even if I disagree with many of them.

For instance, I rather liked Kung Fu Panda and its sequels. I knew, going in, that it was a comedy, as is anything with Jack Black in it, and I'm OK with that, as I enjoy his style. Even in-character, there was no way to permanently 'defeat' the bad guy without killing him, and they chose a non-traumatic method of doing so (he just went 'poof'). But I'm OK with that not being your thing. It's not the movies' fault that comedy is a trend now, they are merely a side effect of it.

In addition, I'm no real fan of the plot of most of the Studio Ghibli movies, mostly because of the Japenese-based fairytale logic being incomprehensible. That's personal, though, due to a lack of knowledge of the cultural references. Ones converted from 'Western' stories, like Ponyo? Boring. I think the only ones I liked were Howl's Moving Castle and Spirited Away, in both instances because of their fairy-tale nature starting out all crazy, but you have a grounded character who slowly figures it out along with the audience.

I enjoyed The Last Unicorn, except for all the musical numbers that popped up for no reason. I hate musicals, or things that try to be both a musical and not-a-musical at the same time, but despite this trait, the movie was wonderful. It had a very old-school 'faery tale' feel to it, with a world where magic existed side-by-side with the mundane in an enjoyable way. It also wasn't filled with numerous pop-culture references for no reason other than to do so, an easy lesson for modern films to take into account. You could tell the movie was made with loving care by people who WANTED to make a superior product, even if it never went mainstream.

Having said that, there are MANY great modern movies, whether for animation skill, voice talent, message, or just general design--or even all of the above. Movies with just as much love put into them. Any kids I have will be shown such animated classics as The Last Unicorn, Watership Down, and Secret of NIMH side-by-size with such modern marvels as Finding Nemo and the Incredibles, and I will feel no shame in doing so. Yes, they have different themes, and completely different 'atmospheres', but that's good.

Now, I'm going to have to go see about the original book version, as I did not know such a thing existed. Thanks for that.

Alright, lets get brainstormy-

With a little prep-work, a truly creative necromancer could use a haunt to kill a very evil person. Then they could de-bone it and cut off it its head.

Because it was an evil creature killed by a haunt it would become a Geist. (intelligent)

The bones could be used to make a Skeletal Champion. (intelligent)

With a casting of Restore Corpse on the pile of meat and it's ready to become a Zombie Lord. (intelligent)

Just for good measure, the head becomes a Beheaded (unintelligent)

Then, the eyes are used to make a pair of Isitoq (Intelligent)

Which one has the soul?

None of them. The soul left the body upon the character's death. All the others are dark negative energy and/or dark spirits that have been placed into the remains through Necromancy.

---

All the bits about characters not being able to be brought back to life so long as any 'remains' (either physical or spiritual) have had the Undead-ness beaten out of them... well, they tie to this nicely.

What Doomed Hero listed is simply a very EFFECTIVE method of preventing various forms of Resurrection. Oh, you think someone might want to rez that guy? Let's make not one, but FIVE Undead out of the remains.
Have fun getting THAT guy back. I'm sure some enterprising BBEG might take it upon him/her/it-self to do such a particularly heinous thing to an important NPC (or even character!).
In fact, this might be great fun, as instead of the item-based 'plot coupon' style, the DM can have it be based around killing specific Undead all made from the same guy, in order for the someone to bring him back...

---

EDIT: Woo, hey, chalk up another one for 'why animating Undead is Evil'... it prevents bringing people back to life with good, holy magics. Or just back to life PERIOD in a multiverse where such is a thing.

This was always a fun discussion subject (ie: fight instigator) back in the 3.0 days.

Elementals were a separate creature type from Outsider because they were a separate category entirely from Outsider. They come from the elemental planes, not the Outer Planes, are comprised of basic elements of which the Material Plane is itself composed, and are not incarnations of some shade of 'morality' (Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, or Neutrality) in physical form. They don't have a complicated physical makeup (ie: organs) and are generally just composed of their 'elemental' substance.

As for the morality of creating Undead vesus creating Golems, it works a bit like this:

Undead raising via Necromancy is taking a dark, evil spirit (not just evil in alignment, but MADE of evil and the energy that is the opposite of life), and shoving it into a corpse--a once-living vessel that had a living spark of some sort in it, whether it was a soul or not (ie: animating a Human, an Elf, or a Squirrel were all evil, varying by degree). It was a violation of reality, the creation of the Gods, and of Life itself. Even creating mindless Undead is evil, and even mindless Undead would ping AS Evil in most cases. The Evil alignment was not only because of this process, but because of the behavior that resulted--an Undead without explicit commands to do otherwise will attack living creatures in preference to anything else. Were they truly 'mindless' with no animating force, they would simply ignore that which wasn't a part of their 'program'.

Intelligent Undead, 95% of the time, weren't even the original creature's spirit, soul, what have you. Instead, the dark spirit used to animate them was a more powerful one, fully sapient and of an entirely different character (pardon the pun) from the body they inhabit. They have access to that character's memories (thanks to being able to use their meat-brain), and are cunning enough to pretend to be that character out of self-defense, but they are not the same being at all. The few exceptions are due to curses or the creator of the Undead (usually the person undergoing the process) making sure that it is their own essence that remains in control. Or, I suppose, a benevolent one in the case of the Deathless, but I despise the existence of the Deathless on principle.

Golems were another matter entirely. Most were made of a single substance similar in nature to the Elemental spirits bound within them, they were not created in violation of any previous-living form (except in the case of the Flesh Golem, which totally should be Evil and part Necromantic), and the essence itself is not at fault for the actions it is forced to commit (unlike the Undead, which STRIVE to sow death and destruction unless told otherwise). Finally, even going Berserk is not an Evil act, any more than a Barbarian's rage is. The spirit is just either purely furious or so insane from its captivity that it seeks the final freedom--the destruction of the prison that binds it and everything else that gets in the way. In fact, carrying it a bit farther, the Berserk state makes total sense even if it wasn't in a furious rage or insane, as in its escape for freedom it is in a body that can't communicate and the quickest way to find someone who can break it free is to start smashing stuff until they take notice. Most are so slow that 'normal' people can easily outdistance them and get away.

---

Now, in my campaigns (clearly, not official, just sharing), I double-down on the Elemental bit a tad for Golems and Constructs, and decree that the Elemental trapped within is simply the 'power source' for the Golem, not the intelligence or program that controls it. It dwells in an 'unconscious' state 99% of the time (its not asleep, its mind is simply suppressed), and when the Golem is destroyed, it goes back to its home Elemental Plane unharmed from the procedure (various anti-dimensional travel spells can prevent this from happening). However, sometimes, something 'wakes it up', whether it be due to damage, it being forced to animate something unnatural (ie: bodies), or the like. Beings as it wasn't intended to be 'awake', its no-longer-suppressed mind conflicts with the magical programming and its 'trapped' state, and it exists in a state of continuous, unbearable agony. This effect is reflected in the "Berserk" ability.
This setup gives an alternate explanation, and makes it pretty reasonable and totally not-Evil to make Constructs at all, in most cases. Might be a good alternative for people out there who want the distinction.

Found the MRA.

I do hope you're referring to me. After having taken apart your examples for the deception that they are, being labelled such by you would be a badge of honor, as it shows that I'm not an extremist in your direction.

After I disagreed with his silly assessment of Mad Max being worthwhile and not a feminist movie, I have no doubt that Aaron Clarey would consider me a feminist, as I'm not an extremist in HIS direction, either. I'd be proud of it from him, too.

Guess that places me in the middle. Hmm.... I think there's a word for us. Starts with an E, not an F or an M.

---

Dude, you were missing my point. All feminism wants is for women to be treated on equal levels as men. When a movie does that, we consider it feminist. THAT'S ALL.

Indeed. There's even a word for it, but it isn't 'feminist'. Obviously our definitions of feminism differ, as previous posts should attest.

---

Without even looking at his data, because I've looked into this before,

And here I thought Clarey was silly for slamming on the movie without having watched it. Now you're slamming on his (so-called) data without even looking at it.

I think another poster summed it up well: "I'm so damn outraged by this thing that I've not even bothered to watch myself before getting outraged about."

Perhaps he meant they don't pay much federal income tax

If you read it, you know he didn't segregate and just listed it all as 'income tax'. Of course, there are other taxes, and it's entirely possible that the chart just shows Federal level and not state + local, but we don't know, because of the picking-and-choosing he used to select the examples. Maybe he's intellectually honest about it, or maybe he just cherry-picked the parts that supported his argument.

Being poor is tough. Being a Lucky Ducky who doesn't have to pay income tax doesn't make up for it.

Don't forget this part: "Let alone you have the audacity to demand that the rich pay more in taxes."

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

EDIT (Forgot this portion earlier): If nothing else, setting aside the awesome video work, writing, and characterization, this movie is pretty freaking amazing for the simple fact that it's acting like a giant mirror where everyone is seeing what they want from another perspective, pointing it out, and then getting into discussions with people who see it from a completely different angle.
Can't wait for the sequel.

How does a guy, especially a BBEG, in a Pathfinder-esque fantasy world reach level 9 and still stay in a room with an expose window, no guards, and no form of trap ready to stop (or at least catch) enemies?

The PC's shouldn't be the only people that think like PC's. The NPC's should have this sort of thing going on, too. If one dude fooled an entire trade town, he's got a backup plan. And if he's the sort that doesn't, then he'll have a 2nd whose JOB is to think up the backup plans and work accordingly.

Furthermore, even if the PC's did 'discredit' them, did they have the legal authority to apprehend him in his tower? Or will the people they are trying to build their own trade empire with suddenly start to question if it's a good idea or not to work with people who will not hesitate to abduct them should they find themselves in disagreement?

Brooch of Shielding is a thing. At the levels you're working at, everyone who can cast the thing does 5 missiles. Give any non-Wizard bad guy one of these with half the number of charges (at half the price) and you're good to go, especially if they are a caster who doesn't like being interrupted. Costs a pittance. Even makes sense logically if the BBEG knows the PC's prefer the spell, as he'll just get someone to dip to the "used magic item market" source to nab one for the boss.

There's plenty of non-magical ways to handle this, things that work in the real world. Body doubles, for instance. Someone with a really high Disguise skill dresses himself or another up to look like the target, then leaves them in that room. Whether or not it can fight is up to you. Could be some lowbie 2nd level nobody, a captured PC ally, or even a city guard or something, and that initial 'burst damage' from the party kills him messily. Then BBEG can use the corpse and local witnesses to butcher the PC's reputation, pointing out that they're really just thugs and assassins. Perhaps he's even willing to pay to have Speak with Dead or a Raise Dead spell cast on the individual (of course, he'll have approached him/her in such a way so that it won't look bad for the BBEG).

A magical approach uses Illusions to disguise another third person as the target. Again, someone weak but 'prickly', or someone strong. Or a decoy while a real attacker waits to ambush the party. Could even be some Scent-capable beastly monster that's had some Sleep variant cast on it that wakes up from the initial damage barrage (it's not a coup-de-grace) and proceeds to maul anyone who gets close.

Finally, whether the thing there is alive or not, the place can be trapped. In 3rd Edition there was this nasty spell called Ghoul Glyph (which I use in my hybrid campaign) that was notorious for a round or two of paralysis even if you make the save. A great chokepoint-maker in dungeons, and fairly commonly used in places where powerful dudes need a way to stop intruders. More Pathfinder-friendly methods are mechanical traps, or even spellcasting traps that combo up something nasty (Mind Fog followed by another Will save-or-suck). Or even an enemy spellCASTER who's got readied actions going.

In all honesty, though, it sounds like your main problem is physical and mental. Insufficient sleep and a constant state of pain can make easy problems like this quite difficult to solve, and the morale hit from getting your encounters routinely trashed makes you less enthusiastic about continuing. I agree with those who say you should take a break.

The movie was insanely good. Yeah, the 'plot' wasn't something that's going to win awards, but honestly, did anyone expect it to be? I was actually surprised by how well it worked and how many of the little details dovetailed together to make sense.

A post-apocalyptic world where they show where the food and water comes from?! Impossible! And yet, here we are.

All I really cared about was awesome vehicles, visuals, action, and stunts--this movie DELIVERED, and I'm contemplating a second viewing at the theaters.

After possibly over-thinking the movie, I came up with an idea about why Nux gets the most character development. *SPOILER STUFF*

This is actually pretty fantastic. I totally agree with this view. And the thing is, it takes all three of them, working together, to make it work.

---

"FEMINIST STUFF"
I don't get this, from the pro- or anti- side.

Furiosa pretty much had to fulfill a man's role in society, and do it even more extreme so as to achieve her position, all with a set goal in mind. She didn't win by being feminine, she won by killing any stupid MF'er that got in her way and being the meanest SOB on the block. Unlike most of the other males there (the Warboys), she was driven, and wasn't an inbred genetic freak. If this is hard to believe, realize that every bell curve has its far end, and Furiosa is it.

The slave brides didn't fulfill the 'warrior woman' trope. In fact, they represented a realistic "spread" of personality types and natures. The pregnant one just cared about keeping her baby safe (and hopefully free). One was concerned with finding a better place, but didn't believe it existed, and had to learn to hope. Another rebelled early but, having seen the violence of the world, chose to go back to her abusive 'lover' rather than deal with the monstrosities of reality. One seemed sweet and rather innocent and lost in the outer world, even if driven to escape, but soon grew to see those around her as her 'family' and even feel affection for a man who liked her but didn't expect anything out of it himself or try to force her into doing anything. That's a pretty good slice of society, right there, and it was good they didn't just have them all with the same, generic, boring personalities. They fought because they had to.

None of the women that fought, aside from Furiosa, did anything unrealistic--and I save the 'unrealistic' part of Furiosa for her automail arm, not what she herself ever did. It's true they killed tons of dudes, but it was almost always with ranged weaponry. Any time one of the older ones or the 'brides' got into a melee fight with a muscular male, they lost unless they had backup or the element of surprise. If this wasn't an Australian movie, I'd say it was one of the best fantasy-setting exploration of 2nd Amendment rights I've ever seen on screen.

As for Furiosa being the main character, Scythia addressed that one well. There were three. By dint of his insanity, Max couldn't lead but in short stretches of lucidity or when pushed to extremes by his madness. Nux was still young and inexperienced on anything other than fighting and machine repair, so leading wasn't his thing, except when his skills held the key to their survival. Neither of them had a greater goal than surviving the 'now' or dying in a blaze of glory until later in the show. Only Furiosa started the thing with a set goal and the will to see it through. But she didn't have all the necessary skills, and as the former two became more stable, they began to get more time and impact.
It was done so well, however, than I'm happily optimistic that Mad Max: Furiosa will get my butt in the theater on the first day, because now that she's established, I'd like to see what they do with her character.

I think it's funny that both the pro- and anti- side got in a tizzy over this movie, when it's fairly middle-of-the-road in a realistic way while also being satisfying.

Arturius I am guessing that the OP ran away from this a long time ago.

I think you are right. I was hoping for an update at some point, even if the end result wasn't good for one, both, or all of them. Always helps to have information on how things went so that you can at least learn something out of the ordeal.

I don't have an answer for the OP, because HE doesn't need an answer. The issue is between the PLAYERS and THEY are the ones that need to sort things out.

Aaaaand that about sums it up, too.

know but thanks.

I hope it's a actual seperate universe. The type of world where humans are the norm and mutants very much the exception. I'm in no mood to see them stay in the 616 universe and have them hide in a corner and go "humans treat us differently and are racist. Yet we hide in dark corners doing nothing to change that" type of routine they had going up until ten years ago. In a world like the current Marvel universe where being different is the norm. Where a significant amount of people have powers. Both mutant and non-mutant. With no way for the average person to recognize non-mutants among mutants. The whole mutant racism angle just made no sense. racism should have been against both parties not just mutants. how are mutants both heroes and villians hiding off in a corner. not interacting with the world at large. Going to help mutants as a whole.

This. So much.

Oh, mutants have problems and are discriminated against because they are 'different' and have powers?

But over here we have a kid who can jump across buildings and lift cars, shooting webs as he goes. Over THERE is a guy who turns into a big green unstoppable rage monster. Another dude can fly and shoot lightning thanks to his hammer, another has no powers aside from a huge bank account--oh, and he makes power armor for himself and legions of humanoid war-drones. THEN there's the people from outer space. THEN there are the sapient robots and androids, themselves with the ability to annihilate buildings on a whim, who were NEVER human but are accepted by everybody as being 'people' and treated as such.

All THESE people are OK.

But THOSE guys with powers, over there, somehow THEY are bad and we KNOW they are different from the other guys, despite not knowing from where or how they got their powers. Unless we look at them. And then some magic screening system in our brains segregates the ones born with powers from those who somehow achieved them by being the lab-rats of super scientists--all so we magically know who to discriminate against and hate.

Yeaaaaah... no.

X-Men always needed to be seperate from the rest of the Marvel universe. The whole "Mutant discrimination as a stand-in for racism" schtick breaks down otherwise, often hilariously so with what is accepted as commonplace in the non-X-Men settings.

Some good posts (I particularly enjoy TacticsLion's Wall O Text), but the big problem is that we don't have enough details to assess this reasonably in one way or another. There's just too many questions that we don't have answers for. And, in that absence of information, people assume things one way or the other and build off those assumptions, getting into arguments where neither side has all the info.

Some important questions are:

How many players are there total?
Do they prefer focusing on the game or is the game the excuse for them getting together?
How long does a session tend to last?
How much time is taken up by play VS how much time is taken up by T's venting? (And later A's counter-ranting.)
Do the rest of the players enjoy/desire for T to vent each time?
Do the rest of the players enjoy/desire for A to counter-vent each time?
Have you put any solutions to a vote to see what the group things about it?
Have you considered having a seperate 'show up time' and 'game start time' so that people can get the non-gaming related stuff out of their system?
(I have 4 players in my group. This phase lasts about an hour to an hour and a half each time.)
NOTE: It might help to allow people who specifically PREFER the game to show up at game time instead of the former time as long as they are ready to go. That way 'A' can show up for the game, but 'T' can still vent to those who want to listen.
Are there any other players you can include when/if A and/or T leave the game?

That's an interesting idea, but I think it's fine how it is. Really won't see any NPC's that are higher than 3rd or so of Warrior in my campaigns anyway (5 at max). Many of them start out as Commoner or Expert anyway, and those that are devoted enough to some sort of militaristic or gladiatorial combat will just start unlocking Fighter levels.
Good idea, though.

As for the Adept, I'm working on splitting it into the Acolyte and the Apprentice. I don't like it being this weird mixed hodge-podge that it is now. But since I also include the Magewrights from 3.5 Eberron, it results in there being less of the Arcane ones as well, since the NPC's will either graduate into it or start accruing actual Wizard levels or the like.

Which reminds me, I stripped out the Familiar from the Adept. The Apprentice gets it back, the Acolyte gets limited Channeling and a Domain. Both eventually allow them to gain access to their respective PC classes, but they have to make a sort of contract to get there.

The way I see it, only Aristocrats, Experts, and Magewrights will go above a certain level. Adepts, Warriors, and Commoners just graduate into actual levels should they get high enough, or they are already a mix of other NPC base classes.

But deciding to use a loophole in design of the process to hijack the award is a rather offensive way of voicing discontent.

Such harsh words for doing things that were perfectly legitimate.

What they did was change the game such that now everybody will have to doubt the integrity of the awards, because clearly something happened that was not the scenario envisioned by those who came up with the nomination system.

The game was already changed. They just changed it again.

I do think that they are in the wrong in this controversy and that there were better, gentler ways for them to raise their concerns.

They tried 'better and gentler' for several years. No change. While there might be some hypothetical 'perfect middle ground', since no one is able to present it, it's obvious they used a tactic that would work, instead.

The difference is much the same as the difference between a country building short term missiles and a country building an atomic bombs. Both are clearly weapons and are meant to further the strength and position of a country, but they are of very different magnitudes. Once country A develops an atomic weapon, country B has to react in kind.

And yet, two countries building massive numbers of atomic bombs prevented any possibility of World War III.

On an aside, I find George Martin's writing on the subject to be interesting and to the point. He takes a very level headed stance and considers the history and nature of the Hugo awards. Worth the read.

As do I. He accepts the existence of previous manipulations and the current change of tactics stoicly and with an eye toward adapting to the future.

---

"Politically correct" was a term used by non- or anti-Stalinist lefties to make fun of the ever-changing line of the Communist Party USA and those who adhered to it.

It was later revived in the seventies by some on the New Left before it blossomed into the Culture Wars catch-phrase of the nineties.

NEAT! Learn something new every day.

---

1. 'I dont discuss religion or politics in polite company'. - this implies that we should only discuss complicated and important ideas among those who agree with us. Thats stupid. It prevents the transfer of ideas, and create a polarizing effect. If no one ever calls you on your bs, your bs becomes worse and worse over time as everyone agrees with you.

You immediately escalated the situation from "I don't want to talk about things that will start a fight that can never end well" to "You are full of BS because you won't do what I want".

Actually, I think TheJeff said it better:

I actually find "I don't discuss religion or politics in polite company" often is a polite way of saying "I'm not going to discuss it with you, because I know we won't be able to stay polite."

It glorifies the sociopath. The person who doesn't feel, and just does what it takes to make the most, be the most, or 'win' becomes the most 'successful'.

There is a great difference between one who doesn't feel and one who has enough inner discipline to restrain their emotions.

Picking a brand is a lot easier then evaluatiing a bunch of individuals you may or may not know. You just let the 'experts' evaluatate them, and pick the brand closest to what you believe. So where maybe you might have voted for the moderate conservative senator, the liberal but fiscally responsible congressman and the passionate independent for mayor, you are instead encouraged both by others, and by viewing the results of deviating from the brand, to stay on brand exclusively.

So... Everyone did it the hard way, until now, where someone made an easier way, and since everyone is either too foolish, impressionable, or lazy, the 'new' easy way will be the only way.

Family gatherings, and social encounters is where you SHOULD be discussing this stuff. Otherwise you dont get the disperate view points.

Real world interrupts this. Do you really want battles with your family, or is it easier and simpler to find opposing viewpoints on, say, the Internet, where you can argue with strangers all day and never have to worry about being disowned by half your family?

because if you dont, he'll be more of a jerk next time. And so will you.

You're making the argument based on the assumption that your philosophy is the best one. I disagree.

---

You're the one picking the fight, you're the one who said that people who don't want to be civil and not get into heated discussion or arguments whenever you do should be punched in the face. Heck, you're the one who admitted you and your friends punched each other in the face because you couldn't use your words.

This. "You want people to not be jerks about something (politics, in this case) by instead being jerks about everything else."

Then you firmly believe in a kind of behavior that is not common among humans. The old adage "if it ain't broke don't fix it" more usually manifests in reality as "if it doesn't look broken don't fix it."

You're right. Another common behavior amongst humans is complaining loudly, pointing fingers, and accusing someone else of dishonorable conduct when things don't go one's way. That's plain to see here.

Consider democratic nations - clearly almost everyone in them cares about the integrity of the election process, and according to your logic the specific mechanics and details of the way voting elections work should constantly be revised and tweaked so that it could improve, yet they remain largely the same for much longer than the Hugo awards have been around.

Yes, according to my logic, it works. I'm in the USA. Did you know at one time that only people of certain races and genders could vote? And yet, over time, that process has been revised? It's almost like this logic gets applied in the real world.

Look, maybe this slate is the kick in the nuts that the community needed that shows that times and circumstances have changed and the awards need to adapt to stay relevant, or maybe not. As usual with such issues, time will tell and until it does we will bicker. However way you look at it, though, from the viewpoint of those who thought the system was working so far, the voting process this year is seriously unsettling.

It's almost like the fear change or something.

---

For about the 10th time, Scalzi didn't "post his own slate". He makes a blog post where he lists those of his works that are eligible.

Well then, for the 11th time, if you've listed your own stuff in multiple categories, you have posted a slate. Doesn't try to drive votes? Of course he's trying to drive votes. He wants them, he's encouraging people to vote for him. He gets the least amount of respect for that, as it's pure selfishness. If he listed others he liked, but they all had his beliefs and politics behind it, he'd get more respect, but not nearly as much as listing a bunch of different authors and works all with varied views. This is why I place him lower than Rabid Puppies, which is itself lower than Sad Puppies.

It wasn't clear to me until I dug deeper into it that Vox was publishing most of the stuff on his list and no one else on this thread mentioned it

He openly admits it on the posts where he brings it up. Not sure how it's missed. Do people on this thread need to repeat that when it's on the original source?

Without a mention that he profits off most of them.

Almost like Scalzi or other writers don't profit from the list of their own works the push?

Again, a book you thought should have won not winning is not evidence of it being "wrong".

Then you should have no problem with either Puppies list being 'wrong' either.

But so what? There's no objective measure of "wrong" here.

Good. Now that this has been settled, I'm sure there will be no problem with the opposition's actions.

For future years, as I suggested above, the best approach is to get more people to nominate. Drown out the puppies if they try this again.

In other words, adopt the opposition's winning strategy. Sounds good.

---

And it's been pure and pristine the whole time it's been in existence until now... and ... and evil people are fixing the process.

I know, right? Like, it's been perfectly innocent and working as intended for over half a century but now, this Puppy thing is too much and they are doing wrong. ;) (I'm agreeing with you, in case the sarcasm in that statement didn't come through over text.)

---

By pushing bloc voting, even if they were correct, or had proof for it, which I doubt, it will result in a backlash that all voting will be bloc voting for the next nomination.

And if they are correct and do have proof, Sad Puppies IS the backlash.

---

Great. Punish good authors for being liked by the wrong kind of people. That will certainly heal the rift that is growing in fandom.

I don't think the people who are angry about this really care about the authors anymore. It's all about stopping the inevitable change.

Sorry, but when you voice your concerns for years and get ignored, the people who ignore you can't complain when you up the anti.

Pretty much.

I did not call it bullying. I still stand that the use of a slate when everyone is supposed to voting their personal choices is gaming the system (by focusing votes which would otherwise be more spread out) and therefore dishonorable. If you do not see it that way... I am not sure I can bridge the gap.

You didn't, others did. I was merely trying to shoo them away when I was responding to your point.

An invisible slate would be useless since its power comes from focusing voters. People have published who they think is worth considering and hosted pages for people to post what they think in comments. This is multiple people pointing to the same list, and a tone shift from "this is who I like" to "vote the party line to take back the award". One could make the argument that it is the same kind of thing that has happened before just upped in organization and intensity, I disagree with that, but even in that case they have escalated things.

An invisible slate would be useful, as it's only invisible to the public.

If they had joined and voted for who they thought best it would have been different. Instead they joined and voted on a slate to game the system, it was not majority rules, it was coordinated voting defeats people following the letter and spirit of the rules.

1. What if they simply talked about it together first, before casting votes? Like, I dunno, people on forums do?

It is better to have none. For 62 years the Hugos managed it. I think you are wrong about a there being a party before Sad Puppies. Next year there may be two parties and then the award will not go to the book the voters like most, but instead to the pick of the winning party.

Perfect is the enemy of good. As well, there is nothing that is perfect. If you strive for an impossibility, don't get upset when someone who strives for something less gets better results.

---

I got to say, looking at the Sad Puppy list of authors if you claim they organised a politically biased list, I will laugh at you. It contains people from a broad political spectrum who wrote a fairly diverse body of work.

As for the morality of it, if all it takes is a group smaller than a college science fiction club publicly announcing they are going to rig your vote to successfully rig your election, you have bigger problems for one of the most prestigious science fiction awards.

THIS. So very much.

---

That's a level of meddling that is not strictly prohibited or even clearly "wrong", but it should be unsettling for anyone who cares for the integrity of the reward.

I firmly think and believe that if anyone really cared for the integrity of the award, that they would have worked toward making a better and more transparent voting system, and regularly updated the rules as these things were discovered. You know, instead of saying "Good enough" and throwing their hands up in the air for several generations.

Doing it as a slate is an attempt to outright shut out all nominees that are not on the slate. There's only 5 nominees, and the slate is an attempt to control all of the spots at once.

(Hell, I am actually surprised that there are categories that SP didn't ID 5 nominees for.)

You, uh, realize that these two parts are contradictory, right?

---

GreyWolfLord: Thanks for that info on the Asian 'side' of Sci-Fi. Very insightful, and I knew very little about that, so this was quite educational.

If these new people bring more attention to the independent scheme...more power to them.

Agreed.

---

Just for the record: Castalia House is a lesser publisher. Barely known even in Finland, as far as I can tell. Maybe just an e-publisher, I'm not sure. So on that front it qualifies.

That's good to know, thanks.

OTOH, it's Vox Day's project. He's lead editor. So his Rabid Puppies slate doesn't look so much like a principled struggle for either smaller publishers or against leftist bias, but just using backlash against SJWs to push his own business. Without, by the way, making that connection clear on the post where he recommended the slate.

And I suppose Scalzi gets a pass for posting his own slate that included his own works? I mean, pushing one's own business seems to be something both sides are using here. I don't see what's not 'clear' about that, especially when they openly admit it.

Despite all the "leftist"/"rightist" rhetoric thrown around, the brouhaha isn't really about economic systems or even the role of government. It's about "Social Justice Warriors", race and gender inclusion and the other usual culture war suspects.

And about big VS small publishers, and about perceptions of an inner clique/cabal running the thing, AND about support of good sci-fi that wasn't focused solely on social issues. Don't oversimplify things by saying it's "all about culture wars". It's only, you know, about 2/5ths to 1/2 that. ;)

---

Up until then, I was scratching my head wondering if it meant "Single Jewish Women," which didn't make any sense to me.

Apparently everyone is against them! ;)

---

After all, he is, as far as I can tell, literally a professional internet troll.

The more I read about Day, the more I wonder if Poe's Law applies. I mean.. seriously? Crazy stuff.

---

I found it interesting that of the main Sad/Rabid Puppy supporters, Larry Correia turned down a nomination for his book, partially over concerns over impropriety (i.e. perspective that the roster was about him, not their "cause"), but Vox Day certainly had no problem staying nominated.

Having passed the Poe Threshold, nothing Day does really surprises me.

So on the right you have a lot of libertarians, while on the left you get a lot of socialists and other strains of progressives.

Libertarians are on the RIGHT? I'm not sure they'd categorize themselves that way.

Well, dunno about Vox or Sad Puppies or anything, but it certainly seems like the Scalzi guy they oppose did the same thing they are accused of, for several years running:

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2014/01/02/the-2014-award-consideration-post/
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/01/03/the-2013-award-consideration-post/
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/01/03/the-2012-award-pimpage-post/
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2011/01/03/the-2011-award-pimpage-post/
Etc. Went back to at least 2008 before I stopped.
(Not gonna URL that, just copy and paste into your browser of choice.)

He made a list for his followers to vote on, mostly of his own works in several categories.

Seems the only functional difference between Scalzi and the Puppies is a matter of scale. Well, that and the latter nominate several other authors, instead of just themselves.

If "You have two choices, Americans. Either criminalize their behavior and force them back into the closet or be run out of town yourself. There is no middle ground." and ""All men are created equal" cannot possibly apply in a material sense in any world where all men are not even equally homo sapiens sapiens." qualify as "minor bigoted comment" at most to you, your metric is completely out of whack.

Hot damn, was that on one of the first three pages? Cause I totally missed it.

Bullying is exactly what we have here. When you have a bunch of people engaging on forum raid zerg rush tactics on a vulnerable system to push around people less privileged than you? That's bullying.

Aaand... back to this. I swear, it's like I totally respect you for one thing, but for another, I just can't see how you can seriously think that way.

Forum raid Zerg tactics? Do you mean LEGALLY VOTING? Because if that's what you are referring to, then IT IS NOT BULLYING. Winning a vote IS NOT BULLYING.
Drop the privilege act, unless you intend to show how they are pushed around. That's another word that will get weakened by incorrect overuse.

Did they threaten anyone's life?
Did they threaten anyone with force or the potential use of force to change their vote or not vote at all?
Did they send hateful E-Mails en masse to accomplish the above goal?
Did they threaten to disclose personal information on the potential voters that disagreed with them in order to make them vote the way the disclosers wanted (or not vote at all)?
Did they use dozens or hundreds of people in a collective effort to DOS or DDOS the opposition's web servers to deny them the ability to communicate?
If so, you might have a case for 'bullying'. But since you mention 'Zerg tactics', you're going to need more than just one or two individual examples, even if you can find them.
Note that talking bad about someone in your personal area or a place where the talked-about person doesn't frequent is not bullying either.

And legal does not equal "ethically and morally sound".

Ah, so by what moral or ethically system are you using? Your own? That must make it really easy to accuse those one disagrees with of being unethical and immoral. As it is, the law is the enforcement of ethics, and morality is a separate case altogether. (EDIT: Note that if one defines Ethics and Morality as being the same, this will obviously make no sense. So, in my personal definition, "Ethics" applies to the society as a whole, "Morality" applies to the individual. Law/Chaos VS Good/Evil, in D&D terms. If this is different from your definition, please state your version so that I can understand it without assuming it is the same as mine and we end up arguing over stupid misunderstandings for no reason.)

Dude, seriously? You are playing deliberately obtuse.

No, I'm using correct wording deliberately. There's nothing obtuse about it. If something doesn't qualify as bullying, then it is not bullying. Even acting in a manner that you find immoral or unethical is not bullying.

---

"opposition"? What opposition? And evidence against what? Can we at least have specific accusations before some undefined group has to prove their innocence?

The Opposition: The people who oppose your views. In this case, Vox, Sad Puppies, Rabid Puppies, and their supporters.

On who?

Expected a more coordinated effort in altering the results of the vote on the next year, after the first one where it was ineffective.

Again, you're assuming there's some opposing group that has control over the nominations.

No. I'm assuming that the Puppies are the opposing group, and that they believe that there is a group of others who previously altered the process. This is provably true (that they believe it). I asked you if you've seen them attempt to provide any evidence. Your entire reply, up until this point, was you attempting to deconstruct my argument when I was favoring your side and simply asking if you had seen any attempt by your opponents to address the issue.

Organizing a "leftist" group to make a slate to oppose the "rightist" Puppies defeat the whole point. Better to just kill the awards entirely.

Welp, against you now. That didn't take long.

That would be perfectly within the rules of the current system. And a total violation of the intent and of the gentleman's agreement under which it's worked for decades.

The problem with 'Gentleman's Agreements' is that they only really work for the first few generations of 'gentlemen'. Once the rubber hits the road of reality, things will change. Especially when the 'newer generation' of gentlemen on both sides never actually made that agreement in the first place.

The use of a slate, while not against the rules, is gaming the system and many view it as dishonorable

Use of legitimate tactics is not dishonorable. Nor is it bullying.

but it is the first instance of multiple influential people pushing the same list.

Is it? Or just the first openly visible one? If those who support it are to be believed, this process was already going on behind the scenes, with specific choices picked out ahead of time by those who previously influenced it.

letting their "superior numbers" win the day for them

That's how voting works. No sense getting upset at it when it's working as intended. Unless 'intended' is 'exluding people with those views', in which case it deserves to be distorted as it supports a specific faction.

If they lose despite three years of trying to game the system it proves them the minority. Worldcon profits from the money they paid to vote AND Worst case is next year there are competing slates, basically creating political parties. I think the professional world (minus lunatic fringes) is too big and interconnected for that to happen.

That is the logical conclusion, yes. But it's better to have multiple parties than a single one.

---

My political views are liberal, I believe in true equality among people of all blah blah, the usual thing.

Are there people who say they are against equality? Near as I can tell, there are two groups. The first claims that equality is a measurable state and claim to work toward it. The other group claims that equality is both impossible and those who define it are simply pushing their own agenda.

if the science fiction fandom leans very heavily towards liberalism (which by most accounts it does),

By the account of liberals, yes. I bet the conservatives and the middle group (libertarians?) would say that the fandom leans toward their side.

Some also go farther than that and say that if you go to a panel and see an all white, all male participants, that's an example of racism (to me that seems like more of an example of demographic distribution - for example, about 15% of Americans are black, I would expect that blacks are underrepresented in SF fandom because of social and economic issues that are bigger than the genre, so if about one out of 10 panelists is black, that just means equal treatment).

This, however, is good science and shows an understanding of statistics. However, when someone brings up the question of 'equality', this becomes a sticking point.

Not perfect, of course, but nothing has ever been, and what we have now is way closer than what most of humanity ever had.

This is a healthy view, and important to remember for those arguing over definitions.

---

Despite the Sad Puppies claims, liberal writers have in fact not done anything along these lines.

Not sure I follow. I don't care about the Liberal VS Conservative bit here, and from what I've read, many of them don't either. I care about how those who are under-represented due to not having backing by a major publisher would otherwise get little or no visibility. I may or may not agree with the reasoning of the Sad Puppies, but I do care about the possibility of breaking through that limitation.

Several categories are going to get No Award votes, which means that deserving authors are going to be shut out of this years award with no award given. And some authors/stuff are going to get shut out for getting nominated by Sad Puppies even though they are solid works

Firstly: That's a possibility, but not a certainty. The "No Award" bit was put in there to show the system was being abused. But it still requires a majority to do that. If the opposition is so organized as you claim, it is unlikely that this technique will work.

---

I'm on mobile and short for time, but:

If you can't see how VD is as horrible a racist and homophobe as he is a misogynist, you didn't continue reading those entries. They go on for several pages, and are not all inclusive.

Read the first three pages, at least. Again, no major racist, just a minor bigoted comment. Misogynist? Absolutely, already agreed here. Homophobe? Only saw a single comment that could go that way, and it was a really extreme rant about a Magic card, of all things. One of my favorite of the new cards, in fact.

Nifty on the John C Wright links. Don't know him, but will check them out later. If there's anything as crazy as the previous Miso ones, I'll be sure to write back.

As for this not amounting to bullying, that's laughable. That is exactly what we are seeing here. These are people who see others getting some of the pie they once held in entirety and can only see that as themselves as losing ground when they still have the vast majority of media catering to them already.

Aaand then you go back to this...

---

From what I've seen, the award in recent years was controlled by a small clique of fans centered around Tor Books and social justice issues. They had a disproportionate influence on the awards just because the voting base was so incredibly small, and people who didn't like it were more likely to just walk away than to recruit others with similar tastes to join in. Until now, anyway.

That seems to be the purpose behind Sad Puppies, yes.

---

I could go on but that's a good enough chunk, I think, to make my point.

Science fiction exists, in part, to explore issues of humanity and social justice. Why shouldn't the awards reflect that?

There's a difference between 'reflecting' and 'being the sole purpose of'. If all the awards go because of those things, and not based on the entirety of sci-fi, then it has been hijacked by a special interest group that desires only to spread their interests.

Perhaps a good solution would be to introduce those categories as awards. Then the 'totality Sci-Fi' people could be happy along with the 'socially-progress-focused Sci-Fi' people too.

---

I don't have much to contribute to this thread, but consider this my reminder to everyone that science fiction was invented by a teenage girl.

As fun as it would be for this to be true, tales of father and sun flying on wax and feather wings, swords that shine like rainbows and cut through mountains, and weapons that can obliterate entire armies in a single shot fired by mortals who challenge the gods fill human history with examples of what we now call "Sci-Fi" long before we had the term for it.

Welcome to the wonderful, wonderful world of Ted Beale, where the guy's a [Profanity-laced tirade omitted for polite company] with his head [Let's not go there either] and so are his detractors. You can't stick up for him because he's indefensible, but you have a hard time siding with the critics because you got to comb through their blog posts to sort out the facts from the hyperbole.

Yeah.... I just... man.

It's rare that I see what seems to be hyperbole on the internet ("He is a misogynist of horrific proportions"), only for it to be understatement.
I completely agree with your stance, though. Mind you, his detractors here are quite reasonable, so I've nothing against them in particular.

Ask and ye shall receive

OK, first off--I don't like having to go three links deep to get to the source. Gimme what the guy SAYS or DOES, not what people who hate him says or does as they cherry pick his words and put more words in his mouth.

The only thing in that link even close to what you are saying is the "infestation" comment, and I can't tell if he's being serious or putting slanderous words in someone else's mouth. I'd say he gets about a 3 of 5 on the Bigot scale from that, along the lines of one's affably bigoted grandparent who states socially inappropriate things in public and needs a gentle hand to guide them away from the crowd before they piss someone off.

---

And here's more.

Now THAT's how it's done! Straight from the horse's mouth, nobody mucking about with it and putting their own words in.

And running roughshod over a vulnerable community and vulnerable writers is bullying.

And just when you're on a roll, you say something like this and I am sad.

Still, the misogyny thing? OUCH.

There is a difference between "pointing out how government works" and promising not to honor any agreement the government makes.

Good thing they didn't do the latter, then.

He's right though. In the sense that it's all internal politics. It's not even so much putting pressure on the administration to make a better deal with Iran as painting the administration as soft on Iran.

Too bad that reality has shown that the Administration to be soft on Iran. Check the current deal for emphasis.

---

It's illegal under a law that has never been enforced.

Which one?

I'll take that as a "no," I guess.

Of course there's a difference. Whether it's meaningful or not is another story.

---

Roughly 60 of the 100 US Senators are lawyers. So I am pretty sure the letter was legal. Just think next time before you vote for your senator--do you want him to be a lawyer?

Don't care if they're lawyers, cobblers, or homeless bums under a bridge. Are they placing votes for what I support and against what I don't? Cool.

K, so what exactly is 'wrong' or 'illegal' here?

It sounds like the voting process works a certain way.

One group used this to its advantage before others were aware of it.

Another group said "we can do that too!", did so, and now the first group is upset. Then they make a counter group to the other one and... well, it's Turtles, all the way down.

Yet... none of them did anything incorrect or illegal, but each side is upset that the other side is 'using the process wrong'.

I figure most responses will simply depend on which group you find more to your liking.

Many people are angry that a small but vocal minority may have damaged the voting process.

You just described politics in general. A small, vocal, voting minority swaying the process for its side.

Combine that with the fact that a lot of these nominees are from small e-presses and even self-published...it makes you wonder if these nominees really deserve the praise.

Is it, then, based simply how how well-known a Sci-Fi book is, the size of the publisher, and the amount of money it makes? Or is it about the quality of the work?

Personally, I'm all for 'lesser known' Davids getting the chance to stand with the fully-resourced Goliaths.

How will this affect the Hugo and Worldcon? It will probably either make them revise their rules to get what those currently in control desire to be the proper focus, or they will likely remain the same if a sufficient amount of the 'vocal minority' itself becomes the majority and wants it to stay that way.

The worst that can happen is that hundreds or thousands more people on both sides are drawn into Sci-Fi because of the 'competition' and the entire field gets a lot more notice. I'd chalk that up as a win for both sides, myself.

---

Also, Grimm is an amazing show. Though, as Rynjin said, the past couple weren't so hot compared to the seasons previous. But it will take several more stinkers in a row before it ceases to be one of my favorites.