Brennin's page

pres man wrote:

CourtFool wrote:

If you are o.k. with the law being drawn to exclude same-sex marriages, why is the line being drawn to exclude anyone not white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant suddenly irrational?

Back to the court case:

** spoiler omitted **

And if they'd ruled differently, you'd be howling about "disgraceful activist judges legislating from the bench", just like opponents of gay marriage did when the California courts ruled against them.

That's correct because the "reasoning" of the judges in the minority in NY was specious. As I recall, they argued that men not being able to marry men and women not being able to marry women is "gender discrimination" and appealed to the 14th amendment. However, the 14th amendment does not address "gender discrimination." If it did, then the 19th amendment would have been superfluous. Quod erat demonstrandum.

And in my state, CA, the "right" to SSM was conjured out of thin air by a 4-3 ruling. Thankfully, the voters let the four judges in the majority know that we are not content to be ruled by a judicial oligarchy.

Brennin wrote:

No. You should know that the concept of Natural Law is found in Ancient Greek Philosophy.

Yes, indeed, but it was then co-opted by Augustine of Hippo and especially Thomas Aquinas. In any event, it's an intellectual construct, rather than an empirical observation -- "proper ends" are hypothetical, and vary depending on who's doing the thinking -- and the concept is one that ancient Greeks, I might add, would certainly not have used to condemn homosexual behavior!

Plato does just that in his Laws. See here.

Also, the "Natural Law" that Thomas Hobbes later wrote about bears little to no resemblance to the one you're talking about.

I'm not familiar with his work.

Brennin wrote:

Prince That Howls wrote:

I could give two s**ts about how it makes me look.

Obviously.

Wait, I'm confused... Oh, he means "couldn't," not "could." Now I get it.

I was not in a snarky mood. Otherwise, I would have thrown in a [sic].

I could give two s**ts about how it makes me look.

Obviously.

Brennin wrote:

That's casting your net pretty wide.

See edit above -- homosexuality is a natural occurrance.

Yes, homosexuality is found in nature (I don't think anyone was arguing that it homosexuality is preternatural. :D ) but that does not mean it is consistent with the concept of Natural Law, which has to do with teleology and proper ends.

And the standard for what people are talking about when they say "Natural Law" in caps is Biblical law: the laws applied by God to nature. Hence, a religious-based argument.

No. You should know that the concept of Natural Law is found in Ancient Greek Philosophy.

To be truthful, there is very little exterior evidence of the state of Isreal prior to 1500BC and even then it is only mentioned on an egyptian text of one of the pharoahs conquests. There is no record of Isrealites being slaves in Egypt, no exterior evidence of an exodus from egypt, no exterior evidence of 40 years in the desert. We do find some old ruins in Isreal that may date back to that time. But the only real evidence of Isreal pre greek conquest, is minimal.

Egyptians certainly had Semitic slaves. I don't think they cared to distinguish among them. Moreover, Egyptians did not record their defeats. As for evidence of the Israelites in the Sinai desert, I think the millions of Israelites referred to in the OT is either a mistranslation or a "pious" exaggeration. I would not expect a band of refugees numbering in the thousands to leave much of a footprint in a desert, especially when the migration occurred over three millennia ago.

As for Phelps I have fond memories of calling his daughter a… well, names I can’t say and keep this a ‘civil’ thread, to her face when she came to town.

That only encourages her and makes you look bad.

Brennin wrote:

CourtFool wrote:

I count tradition as an argument against it. What other, non-religious based arguments are there?

Natural Law.

He did specify non-religious based arguments.

That's casting your net pretty wide.

I count tradition as an argument against it. What other, non-religious based arguments are there?

Natural Law.

Ah, you got me on that Indian one. However, the reason why Stalin's anti- gay law was there was due to human bigotry. People fear others who are different from themselves. Let's face it, people use the Bible to target gays because of their own prejudices, not because of Holy Scripture. Jesus said nothing on the subject of gays and there are only 2 to 3 references to homosexuality in the Old Testament. If it wasn't for bigotry these references would have gone the way of the shellfish prohibition.

Jesus Christ said "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." (Matthew 19:4-6)

If he supported SSM, that would have been an opportune time to mention it. Instead, he reaffirmed traditional marriage. Moreover, Jesus detailed several areas of disagreement in Sermon on the Mount, which would have been another opportune time to time mention support for homosexual acts, but he did not. Finally, homosexual acts are explicitly condemned by Paul and the author of the Pastoral Epistles.

Actually California DID [pass such a law] if I recall correctly, it was overthrown by the every so popular mechanism of popular referenda which is essentially California's reinvention of pre-Napoleonic Mob Rule.

You don't recall correctly. Four out of seven judges on our supreme court conjured the "right" to SSM out of thin air and the CA electorate subsequently overturned their decision, despite opposition from Attorney General Moonbeam.

I for one am disinclined to pretend that people who stand athwart the advance of civil rights and yell "stop!" are any species of nice person...

I, for one, am disinclined to pretend that people who post these sorts of vapid characterizations are any species of rational person.

As the fight against gay marriage is morally indistinguishable from the fight against interracial marriage...

Pull the other leg; it has bells on it.

...It makes one an accomplice to the injustices the bigot defends.

BIGOT, n.

It isn't hard to see how people could deny their existence. Evolution is a fact. We see new species forming all the time (here is one source:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html). You don't even have to reach for any of the other forms of evidence (and there are mountains of evidence) which prove the fact of evolution. It is as obviously real as gravity, or earthquakes occurring because tectonic plates are moving around. And yet many people, probably most people in the United States don't believe evolution is real.

The sort of trivial speciation events listed in the talk origins faqs are not the sort of thing that taxes the credulity of most people. Common descent, specifically of apes and humans, is the hypothesis that most people associate with the word "evolution" and that cannot be observed in anyone's lifetime. That does not necessarily mean it is false, but it does mean that it can't be equated with gravity, the effects of which are readily observable.

Palin: America must "seek God's hand of protection"

Leaving aside the 1st amendment issues, I'm curious as to which God America should seek. I, personally, am torn between Mystra, Sarenrae and Cthulhu, but of course, I'm a Brit, so I don't think my views count. Ideas guys?

What the first amendment actually says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

What some people suppose it says:

"In order to secure for the laboring masses genuine freedom of conscience, the church is separated from the state and the school from the church, and freedom of religious and anti- religious propaganda is acknowledged to be the right of all citizens."

No, they don't. Bookish, scholarly types should roll the same die as a commoner. Sorcerers are a different story.

Tell Mr. Bulmahn that Mr. McArtor one-uped you guys in [Elder Evils]. Pandorym was the coolest thing in that book...

I agree. He reminds me of my favorite BBEG, Tharizdun.

I seem to remember this story about a dude named Luke Skywalker who came into his powers relatively late in life (according to another dude named Yoda.)

Third Point: Breath of Life

This spell is a gigantic middle finger to resurrection, hence why I consider it a nerf, its a nerf to raise dead and the like. Worse than that, it takes away some of the lethality of the game by allowing "combat rezzes".

They should keep this and drop raise dead/resurrection instead.

Both "silver" and "cold iron" are lame, IMNSHO. I think adamantine should replace both. Also, I agree with dropping "+X" altogether, since +X weapons are also lame.

David Fryer wrote:

maybe we should add Smurf as a player race.

Derro eat smurf.

All your smurf are belong to smurf.

Adding aasimars and tieflings (with different, non-lame names) is something of which I could approve. I have to join the others in shouting down pandamen, though.

I do not care for the charisma based casting, and it is not something I'll implement. Wisdom has always been important to paladins, and rightfully so. Of course, Jason can't please everyone, and I am willing to take the bad with the good.

I agree. I like d6 for sorcerers but not wizards. Wizards should be wimps.

Brennin wrote:

There is always the option of allowing sorcerers (and wizards) access to healing spells. Just as long as they are worse at healing than the cleric, I don't see much of a problem with it.

But if, as James Jacobs said in another thread, part of the goal is to make this a viable option as an RPG for people playing Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, etc., then you've altered a fundamental aspect of setting lore.

Forgotten Realms already allows this, albeit once removed, with the synostodweomer spell.

Then make everything Cha-based. I don't care.

No thank you. I think paladins should have decent wisdom and charisma scores. With Pathfinder's +2 net increase in ability scores this should not be a problem.

There is always the option of allowing sorcerers (and wizards) access to healing spells. Just as long as they are worse at healing than the cleric, I don't see much of a problem with it.

IconoclasticScream wrote:

Just for fun, let's give barbarians 2d6 HP per level.

I like that idea better. And the fighter 2D5s (2D10/2).

2d5 != 2d10/2

Restrict Sorcerers to "primitive" rather than "developed" Spells. Cut their access to Spells requiring refined/modern materials. A Chicken bone and an egg sure but not beaten gold bells, and silver wire.

I'd cut their access to material component spells all together but...

No thank you. You can use the adept if you want that sort of spellcaster.

I like the changes made to the sorcerer, but I still think it needs to be made a touch more powerful by removing the staggered spell progression and increased metamagic casting time. To me, these seem fundamental, simple fixes to bring the sorcerer in line with the 3.5 wizard. The added bloodlines are better to bring the sorcerer up to the 3.P wizard.

I'd rather both the wizard and the sorcerer get the sorcerer's spell progression.

Thank you for your efforts thus far, Jason. I think I will try to blend your sorcerer with Monte Cook's sorcerer.

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

man its not just the math to most pathfinder will be d&d and we want that feel and 3-18 is a big part of that feel I think .death of to many cows is a big turn off I find.

But the modern 3-18 has nothing to do with the old 3-18 from previous editions. Older editions had things like % Strength, Con bonus for fighters only, bonuses came in much higher , etc...

Just having 3-18 isn't really a sacred cow is it? I mean if that's completely true, then Palladium and Runequest have those Sacred Cows too and well, those stats don't mean anything alike in those systems.

I appreciate your desire for parsimony but it is easier for you to take the ability scores out than it is for those of us who like them to put them back in once removed.

Give Barbarians d10 not d12 period. They have rage and damage reduction they dont need this as well.

Barbarians have d12 as a hangover from 1st edition when barbarians were completely different- for example their major restriction was they could not use ANY magic items- d12 and all the fruit they got (much of which they still have)was compensation for not being allowed to use magic items. In 3.5 they do not have this major restriction yet they kept all the compensations- they obviously had a strong lobby group.

Of course they are very popular with players- the power gamers love them. Barbarians in 3.5 are pound for pound better than the fighter. They are stronger, faster, tougher, more skilful, more alert. Why? Because they had a wilderness upbringing?

I reckon the 3.5 barbarian is still tougher than the PRPG fighter even with the power up.

What this poster said.

Follow the role of True 20 here and just go with the bonus.

Eliminate the reduntant math.

The actual score itself is used in so few situations and the benefit of getting the game done quicker and elimminating the math, especially when adding bonuses from things like rage, spells, size modifiers etc... is well worth the toss of the old 10-stat/2.

Please no. This would not be a case of less is more.

Pathfinder's setting moves the gnomes more towards the fey. Bard is a nice fit for that idea. Certainly better than sticking people with a single subset of one class. Helps that the bard is awe inspiringly good. Not on their own, sure, but there's a reason they are noted being possibly the most udeful fifth party member.

I like the +2 Charisma for Gnomes as well. It helps to futher differentiate them from Dwarves.

Some people have also commented in this thread that Elves should have a +2 to Charisma. I disagree. Elves amy be pretty, but they don't neccesarily have oomph because of it. A line of Elrond's guards don't individually stand out. Much like models on a catwalk, a surfeit of beauty only results in a new level of bland. True Charisma should stand out anywhere.

"Elrond's guards" would probably be warriors with charisma scores of 11, post adjustment. Elves only are wizards because there were no sorcerers back in the day. A charisma bonus for elves just makes good sense.

Is there any chance that Pathfinder psionics might return to the portion of 3.0 system that allowed each different ability score to anchor one of the psion subclasses?

Please no.

As I recall, priests in the warcraft rpg get d8, medium BAB, and light armor. That might be a good compromise.

With the increase in feats available to characters of any race (which was sorely needed, imo) and the current PF skill system (which I do not particularly care for) humans are no longer on the same footing they once were.

I think the deathless ability is appropriate whether the character is good or evil. Working with negative energy for that long is likely to have side effects, regardless of how you decide to use it.

What he said; it makes good thematic sense. A necromancer who does not want to become undead could dip into a prestige class instead.

I like Eberron's approach to psionics. Even so, "metacreativity" should die and the ability of psychokinetic powers to cause physical damage should be severely curtailed.

though I generally dislike bards in the 3.5 SRD, I don't have a problem with gnomes having bard as their favored class. A favored class has always represented to me what a race might lean towards in terms of education and natura inclination, thus a gnomish socity based around music and its power to affect the world would very easily have bard as a favored class.

While we are on the race subject:
Why do elves have "unearthly beauty" but not a +2 to charisma? Come to think of it, why do elves with their inclination to things natural not favor the more organic sorceror over wizard?

What this poster said. +2 charisma, not +2 int, for elves please.

I do not necessarily care about the special mount, although I think it should be an option for paladins. (Just not the "called from the celestial realms" crap.) I care about LG, paladin abilities, and spells (which they should be able to cast at their full level.) Perhaps it would be a good idea to have any weapon a paladin wields be considered holy after a certain point in their class progression.

I think the paladin should remain true to its LG pious knight roots. (At the very most, I would open it up to NG characters.)

I trust Paizo will strike the right balance between those of us who would appreciate some changes and those who would prefer to keep things as they are.

As I mentioned over at enworld, I think elves should have a charisma bonus instead of an int bonus and have sorcerer as their favored class.

I guess I forgot:

DR/axiomatic and DR/anarchic

I do not see a need for anything other than:

DR/holy
DR/unholy
DR/adamantine
DR/weapon type
DR/-

I like the compromise solutions. I think a second attack (at full BAB) for melee types is a good idea but more than that is probably gratuitous and iterative attacks are not needed for the other classes.

Well, you're not doing it right then. First you gotta create a character called Black Leaf, then you gotta find a DM named Ms. Frost. Once you hit 8th level, she'll teach you how to "really cast spells". Its all downhill from there.

;)

No, not Black Leaf, Elfstar. Black Leaf always dies at the beginning of the adventure. You remember the other stuff correctly, except you forgot to mention how you'll finally fight the Zombie(TM) and Ms. Frost will teach you the spell that compels your parents to buy you lots of D&D stuff.