Captain Wacky's page

Hey everyone. I just moved to the Monterrey area and I'm looking for a new game. I've been playing for 26 years and GMing for 25. I'm wanting to run an Old World of Darkness game if anyone is interested. I can also run Pathfinder and 3.x but my books are in storage.

Or if anyone has a seat or 2 that needs filled (my father-in-law plays too) I'm good with that.

Captain Wacky wrote:

The lesser version of this spell only creates the demiplane. The higher level versions all have things that will take care of these needs. Until then you'd have to enchant things yourself.

The wall at the edge of the plane, is just that, a wall. It might take the form of mist, or void, but is otherwise impassable.

I wanted to do something similar, I have a mapped demiplane with ventilation, sewer, automated winery, etc, etc, etc... all with broken down cost. It gets really expensive. And all of it requires the higher level versions to truly make it homey.

Well, it's possible to have that for free (or truly every spell), with a colossal investment (I mean the physical dimensions).

Buy a Great White Whale for 12600 gp (market price). Cast Anthropomorphic Animal (you know who's the target). Then switch your soul with Magic Jar with the animal. You are now a whale, with the ability of spellcasting (your spellcasting). Cast your Create Demiplane *** and cast Permanency via Blood Money. You'll suffer from 35, 40 or 45 strength damage (17500, 20000, 22500 gp, depending on the version of the spell). The whale can afford it (has a ridiculous strength of 50!), and you are the whale.
When you have finished your spellcasting, you'll need (talking of medium results on d4s) 14, 16 or 18 free Lesser Restorations to regain all the lost strength. Can be repeated until you want, the whale dies, or the whale eats you.

With this...

If your GM allows this kind of nonsense.

Captain Wacky wrote:

DrDeth wrote:

1. Don't allow Evil (or CN that are really evil) alignments.

2. No "murderhoboes"- tell your players you want heroes.

I'm going to try not sounding confrontational...

1. Evil is perfectly fine, if that's what your players want to play.

2. The players might not always want to play heros... and that's fine too.

Sure, for a change of pace, a experienced DM (Not the OP, note) with a group of mature players might try a "all evil" campaign once in a while. I have done so, and it can be fun.

The OP is new. He needs to go heroic and not-evil to start.

Point taken.

1. Don't allow Evil (or CN that are really evil) alignments.

2. No "murderhoboes"- tell your players you want heroes.

I'm going to try not sounding confrontational...

1. Evil is perfectly fine, if that's what your players want to play.

2. The players might not always want to play heros... and that's fine too.

3. Allow only limited books to start- Core, RPG, then allow more as the games goes on.

4. Allow limited number of figures per Player.

5. Railroading is Bad- showing a clearly marked trail is Good.

6. D&D is a Game, the object of a Game is to have Fun.

7. Don't split the party, this leads to half the fun and twice the work for you, the DM.

All good advice.

Run games on the fly, having to pull adventures out of thin air gets the creative juices flowing. It's also a good exercise to adapt when your players do something unexpected.

Talk to your players and see what expectations they have from you as a GM. Do they want a hack n Slash? Do they want a gritty tooth and nail game? Or something more cinematic?

You don't have to use everything printed. Look it over first and if it doesn't fit in the world you want to run, then cut it out.

Admit when you're wrong as a GM. Sometimes you'll make a bad call, it'll happen. I've done it. Correct the mistake instead of being bull-headed about it.

The lesser version of this spell only creates the demiplane. The higher level versions all have things that will take care of these needs. Until then you'd have to enchant things yourself.

The wall at the edge of the plane, is just that, a wall. It might take the form of mist, or void, but is otherwise impassable.

I wanted to do something similar, I have a mapped demiplane with ventilation, sewer, automated winery, etc, etc, etc... all with broken down cost. It gets really expensive. And all of it requires the higher level versions to truly make it homey.

55. Of course it's even shares.

29. We totally killed all of those trolls. (They did, he was screaming like a little girl in the corner.)

30. I did not scream like a girl. (yes he did.)

31. I WAS TAKING COVER (hiding behind the door.), SO I COULD KILL THEM WITH MY CROSSBOW!!! (doesn't own a crossbow.)

32. It's Up Stairs! (doesn't have a crossbow upstairs.)

33. Anyways... if it wasn't for my warning (another high pitched shrill, technically not a lie) the party would've attacked and killed from behind. (the rats may have been diseased... maybe...)

34. They swarmed us (there were three.)

35. I took point to defend the party. (Was in the back anyways.)

36. I fought the swarm (still three) bravely and won the fight single-handedly (technically not a lie, though he was yelling "icky" "icky" "icky" with his eyes closed and stomping the ground with his boot, not really a "fight" per se).

37. The battle took it's toll and I needed to rest. (fainted)

38. The party was greatful (laughing)

39. My immune system is so strong I fought off any diseases they were carrying. (as it turns out, they were escaped pets.)

40. Afterwards I found their treasure horde (cheese) and the party decided for my brave efforts and sacrifice they would let me have it all. (No one wanted to touch it)

41. I was touched by their generosity (cried because they were making fun of him.)

42. Sadly though, after that adventure, we had to part ways. (they kicked him out)

43. Now I'm leading an expedition into the moutains. (going home with a trade caravan)

24. this isn't what it looks like. (it's exactly what it looks like.)

25. he was dead when I got here. (No he wasn't.)

26. No officer, she's not s prostitute, she was lost and I was walking her home. (your home...)

27. Warts!? heavens no! I'm... textured, for your pleasure. (gross...)

28. Watch Officer!! He went that way!! (Points and has no idea what's going on.)

GM says: Did you get Cheetos?
GM means: You should have known to bring me Cheetos. Now you're getting poisoned.

GM says: Bard, you've spent 20 minutes talking to every NPC passing you on the road and it's yielded no useful information.
GM means: Shut up...

GM says: Make a wisdom check.
GM means: ...thicker than mud... I'll have to hit him with the clue bat.

GM says: You see darkness down the hallway.
GM means: I want someone to say "I cast Magic Missile at the darkness".

I don't use XP. The math becomes unwieldly, the party will level at different rates and players are punished for not making it to every session.

When running APs I'll use the progression chart and level up the party when the story finds it appropriate, which has been working out well. My players still tend to gopher around for side quests and optional objectives because they enjoy exploring the AP to the fullest, and hoover up any extra treasure.

If I'm running my own storyline I'll level up the party whenever it feels appropriate - I'll generally note down appropriate points 1, 2, or 3 levels ahead and adjust as the party progresses.

I will sometimes "delay" a player's level up by one session as a disciplinary action if he misses sessions and doesn't give me a heads up. "I can't make it to Pathfinder tonight because my cousin's in town and we're going out drinking" is fine, "I couldn't make it to Pathfinder last night because my cousin was in town and we went out drinking" isn't.

When I'd normally give out bonus xp to reward players for going above and beyond the call of duty, I instead give out hero points or something similar.

This is my point exactly and is a prime example of why I avoid milestones. In the frist breath says the players and punished for not making a session if XP is used and then in the next says "I will delay a level up as a form of discipline". It's the same thing, at least with XP you don't level up for a logical reason, you didn't show, you didn't adventure, you didn't get XP, simple math. Milestones, you didn't level because the GM was butt hurt.

I didn't even know there was a question here. The wording in the game, time and again, is that damage is a per-target value unless the spell specifically says the damage is divided.

So in your example, 20 creatures EACH take 200 damage. It is just the nearest 20 creatures.

Ahh, that makes much more sense. Thank you.

Creatures closest to the point of origin are affected first.
This suggest a damage pool that is absorbed by the closest creature until dead and moves to the next closest and so on until all damage has been absobed. That's how it's been play at all of my tables, and why I don't know anyone who actually uses it. You are correct, it's extremely underpowered and somewhat nonsensical.

A Banshee's wail is supposed to kill anyone who can hear it, or just frighten them if they're far enough away. Does the sound stop at the point where the last hit point is taken? I'll have to take another look but IIRC the 3.x version was no save, which is slightly better, but still underpowered.

the Queen's Raven wrote:

No sunlight issues either, I believe.

In the original Bram Stoker, Dracula was perfectly capable of walking around during the daylight. He wasn't as strong as at night, but he didn't burst into flame either.

Indeed, the whole vampires bursting into flames thing came from the movie Nosferatu.

Ssalarn wrote:

It seems like there's quite a few people who don't use it for APs and modules but prefer to have it available for sandbox type games.

Does anyone have any good alternatives for how to manage level gain in sandbox style adventures where milestones are less clearly defined?

Ever read Monty Cook's World of Darkness. It's a d20 post-semi-apocalypse re-imagining of White Wolf's games.

It introduces an alternate leveling system where you level in steps. End of every game session you advance in one of 4 categories and once you have taken all 4 your were officially up a level.
A = Hit Dice and Attack Bonus
B = Defense and Saving Throws
C = Skills
D = Special Abilities

So after two game session the Fighter might be level 1 A,B, the Wizard might be 1 B,D the Cleric 1B,C and the Rogue 1C,D

I haven't seen it, but it looks like an Intriguing idea.

Captain Wacky wrote:

Zhayne wrote:

Captain Wacky wrote:

I use XP. I find using milestones puts too much control into the GM's hands.

It's the exact same amount of control. The GM determines XP awards, so there's no reason to use it.

It's not. there are predetermined XP rewards in the book. Kill/Defeat a monster/encounter/trap/etc., get that XP. Milestones are more abstract and can be placed anytime a GM just "feels" like it (unless I'm missing something).

Sure, there are preset xp values for those things, but it's the GM that determines how many there are per session. Want a couple hundred more xp? Add a trap or make an existing monster tougher. Want less? Make one of them crippled or substitute it for a lower tier monster or an easy trap. Whether you get a level up from vanquishing a roving bandit gang, or level up from killing 40 bandits makes no real difference from the numbers side of things. Making it dependent on the quest completion may or may not make it more meaningful to your players though.

Currently, my group is using xp, but I can see the potential benefits of switching. Reducing the amount of math is one temptation, but ultimately false, because even with the milestone system, I would use the xp numbers to make sure encounters were properly scaled to the party.

Indeed, it is up to the GM to determine what goes into the game. But that exurting control over the world as a whole, whitch is what the GM is there for. Without XP the GM has direct command over your character and leveling is solely GM fiat.

I have played in games where the group didn't use XP. We leveled when it suited the story. I like a set challenge/reward, when it come to advancement. It's all well and good if that's your play style. But it's not mine.

Captain Wacky wrote:

I use XP. I find using milestones puts too much control into the GM's hands.

It's the exact same amount of control. The GM determines XP awards, so there's no reason to use it.

It's not. there are predetermined XP rewards in the book. Kill/Defeat a monster/encounter/trap/etc., get that XP. Milestones are more abstract and can be placed anytime a GM just "feels" like it (unless I'm missing something).

What if the baddies already had the coin prepped? There's no duration for how long they are considered "the owner".

I use XP. I find using milestones puts too much control into the GM's hands. I game with a bit of an older crowd and if one has a bit more XP (personal reward or whathave you) and level a bit earlier, no one really cares.

It's in the charm school, but it's not a full blown charm.

What stops it is the spell description. What the spell describes is the only thing that happens. He's not under any compultion to listen to the bard, he has a harder time discerning friend from foe (in regards to the bard). That's it, it's not Charm Person.

Hey folks,

Started up a game last night with a bard in the party. I'd not seen the spell, "Unwitting Ally." Per my understanding, its a pretty handy cantrip. During the came it was used essentially as a way to deny enemies a hostile action for a turn. The bard would situate himself so that he was right before the enemy in the initiative order, hit him with Unwitting Ally, the enemy would miss his turn because he views the party as friendly, and then the party would unload on him. Repeat.

Now, I have no problems with this spell as is... but as cantrips go it feels pretty powerful. Thus, I've read and re-read the rules, checked out forums posts on it, and as far as I can tell we played it right. I'm surprised to find some folks commenting that the spell is not very useful-- it sure felt useful.

So, my questions are:

1) did we play it right based on the above description?
2) were we right in ruling that since the enemy became the bard's ally, it would also listen to him when he suggested that his party were friends as well?
3) would it work on animals and other creatures regardless of intelligence/language ability?

1. No. He can't take any hostile act against the Bard... not the rest of the group.

Well, I'm sure there are other spells in the world other than what's in the books. And I'm sure she's not the first pregnant lady to die. The trick would be to find an NPC who has the right spell within the timeframe before the baby dies.

Limited wish could probably help... at least for a bit. Dunno what level the party is.

Iron was considered to be the life blood of the earth (because blood smells like iron). As such, it was thought to contain properties that could ward off and harm many supernatural beings.

Why not have the local lord sign off on a writ of execution? The PCs will be lawfully obligated at that point to execute them. No need to fuss with prisoners at that point, unless they are required for plot.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Back to the topic at hand.

I read something by Gail Simone: author of Batgirl, Birds of Prey and recently Red Sonja.

Her argument was, that lots of women enjoyed Red Sonja as a guilty pleasure. Simone is trying to change that to an open pleasure. The reason for the guilt was the overt sexualisation of the character. But if that isn't the ONLY way the character is depicted then it's less of a problem, because Red Sonja is sexy, but also kicks ass and is clever and is fearless and it all fits her character. Her sexynwss under Simone's authorship is aspirational.

Seoni is in a similar boat, she's depicted as sexy, but also smart, magically buttkicking, no-nonsense etc, she wears that outfit because she feels good in it, has Mage Armour to protect herself and honestly knows the effect she has on men and doesn't care.

I suspect Seoni wouldn't get many butt pinches by men who have seen her blast a dragon to pieces with a chain lightning spell.

Some men like the danger.

Captain Wacky wrote:

Masculine = more valuable than feminine, is true, in "boy culture" when you are speaking about another boy. Feminine = more valuable than masculine, when you're talking about a girl.

I don't want to seem combative, but I'm curious: as a "feminine boy", where does my social value fall into your paradigm?

Alright, let me clarify. I'm simply expressing my observations. These observations are based on where I grew up and what I've experianced and places I've vistied. They are by no means the end all be all of observations and by no means cover the whole of humanity.

In my personal paradigm, you, as a "feminine boy" hold no place either higher or lower than any other boy, masculine or feminine, gay or staright. This would, of course, change over time if we were to talk more and get to know eachother.

Captain Wacky wrote:

It's not "our culture" it's "boy culture". We are genetically wired for competition. Liking "girl things" makes you a lesser compeditor. Tomboys are cool because they're girls who are closer to understanding us. They are also girls a guy can closer identify with.

No, it doesn't. Not at all. We're just taught to think that it does.

So I like ballet and the occasional shojo anime and antiquing and Downton Abbey and tea parties.

I dare you to tell me that I'd be a fiercer competitor if I just stopped liking that stuff.

I apologize for the miscommunication. I should have amended that sentance with either "We are taught..." or "...in boy culture". It was meant to be a statement reflective within the culture, not my opinion. It apparently didn't come off that way.

I myself am a bronie.

kyrt-ryder wrote:

What twinge? Ballet is awesome. To develop that level of grace and poise is pretty impressive. (Also, male Ballet dancers may wear awkwardly tight pants, but they typically don't wear skirts)

What's wrong with wearing skirts?

I wore a kilt on my wedding day. It was awesome. I've wanted one of my own ever since.

sunbeam wrote:

Jessica Price wrote:

zagnabbit wrote:

Someone gave my daughter a "Bratz" doll. The thing was dressed like a hooker. The suggested age on the package was 6 and up.

Just saying'; This is not an RPG thing.

Other industries' objectification of women doesn't excuse games'.

See this is something I just don't understand at all.

Is there some dark, secretive world of boys and grown men that collect Bratz dolls?

My impression was that this is marketed to small girls, and that is who winds up with the things.

Girls are sold princess culture and similar forms of entertainment, which teaches them that being pretty is the most valuable thing they can do. It's pretty innocent-looking when you're 4 or 5, but the older you get, the more our culture tells you that pretty = sexy. And that starts really young.

Pretty IS vulable. Prople don't but diamonds because they're hard. Pretty certinly isn't everything about a person. But it's the first quality people look for in a mate.

sunbeam wrote:

No self respecting 7 year old boy would touch one for fear of cooties that Lysol couldn't take off.

That's not a problem with it being sexy, though -- it's a problem with it being "girly." And why is it so terrible to like girly things if you're a boy? Because our culture tells us that masculine = more valuable than feminine. Tomboys (girls that are boyish) are cool, sissy boys (boys that are girlish) are not cool.

EDIT:

The same way a lot of girls think drag queens are cool.

Masculine = more valuable than feminine, is true, in "boy culture" when you are speaking about another boy. Feminine = more valuable than masculine, when you're talking about a girl.

Jessica Price wrote:

zagnabbit wrote:

Someone gave my daughter a "Bratz" doll. The thing was dressed like a hooker. The suggested age on the package was 6 and up.

Just saying'; This is not an RPG thing.

Other industries' objectification of women doesn't excuse games'.

See this is something I just don't understand at all.

Is there some dark, secretive world of boys and grown men that collect Bratz dolls?

Possably, people collect all sorts of things.

My impression was that this is marketed to small girls, and that is who winds up with the things.

No self respecting 7 year old boy would touch one for fear of cooties that Lysol couldn't take off.

Not true, some might take off the heads.

I'd like you to explain to me why little girls are interested in Bratz dolls at all. Instead of demurely dressed ones.

Speaking as a father of two girls 5 and 7 years old

Just FYI, Bratz have been BANNED at my house.

Now here is a statement for you to disagree with, or say I'm wrong. But if you do, explain why you think it is wrong.

If you reduce the sex appeal of your art, of the female characters depicted, you will sell less to women.

I think there is a corollary I hadn't thought about too much, until someone pointed it out kinda in an earlier post. If you "tanked" up the men, you will sell less to males.

Now you aren't going to make me mad. If you have an argument that shoots holes in it, fine. But explain why it is wrong.

I'm not a marketing expert. I don't have a clear answer to this. But seeing all the women's magazinzes that have other half naked women on them... I can see the logic behind it.

If art stops invoking a reaction, maybe then everyone is happy ?

If art stops invoking a reaction is then ceases to be art.

Well, there go some of my self-destructive fantasies....

Aww, cheer up! RAW you can still get lots of diseases from them. Summon, Bang!, then there you have it, you have just contracted ganaherpysiphilAIDS!

This also depends on how diseases function in your game.
Outsider
An outsider is at least partially composed of the essence (but not necessarily the material) of some plane other than the Material Plane.

If diseases are microscopic biological things that do bad things in your body. Can an outsider, who is not really made up of earthly material, contract an earthly disease?

OTOH, if diseases are evil spirits that posses your body and drain it of its energies, or what have you. Again, the question is, can one spiritual being posses another?

These are questions you have to take into consideration when DMing. Having outsider NOT immune to disease, is, I think, an oversight.

I've always viewed them as carriers myself, immune to the diseases they contract. There are a lot things missing from different monsters that they really Should have. Being immune to mortal disease for All outsiders is one of them. But that's homebrew.

Also, it's not like succubi can't trade sexual favors for cures. Sneak into the motal plane, seduce a preist. Or just stay at home and trade favors with other demons.

cnetarian wrote:

I don't know if it's an improvement, but it is as easy as keeping track of British coinage pre-decmilization and doesn't require a .333333ml measuring spoon.

I'd let you borrow my one-third-of-a-nanoliter measuring spoon, but I lost it the other day when I sneezed.

Wait, how did we get onto this? Weren't we talking about rates of exchange or something? How many francs to a peso?

1 Swiss Franc to 48.93 Philippine Peso.

MattR1986 wrote:

*Old man voice*: In myyy daaay one gold piece gotcha TWO +1 swords. With inflation n seech now I gotta carry a bag a gold just fer a CLW potion! Things were better and simpler then I tell ya!

Somehow I read that In Ol' Granny Smith's voice....

I was reading it as Deckard Cain.

Yes, the opponent finds out the feint worked as soon as he's stabbed.

Also, what Gwen said. They might know, but they're already off balance. You could always do a second sense motive (hindsight). If they fail it's "stupid rogue missed". If they succeed, it's "crap... my left flank is exposed... this is ganna cost me...". This would give them the opportunity ("them" being the PCs and NPCs) to step out of range and save themselves from a painful mistake (assuming they have a higher init.).

"What could make a man turn neutral?!?"

"Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?"

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

+1 cool point

Captain Wacky wrote:

PC Fighter says, "It's a trap!" Draws sword

As s/he's drawing their sword, the Lead Elf interrupts, "No, no, this is an ambush, Admiral Ackbar, not a trap."

I was so close to using that instead.

The PCs round the bend of the forgotten forest. All of a sudden a dozen wood elves spring from the bushes, bows drawn.

Lead Elf "We have you surrounded, we outnumber you two to one".

PC Fighter "It's a trap!" Draws his sword.

PC Rogue "Trap!" Rolls Disable Devise. SUCCESS!!

The ambushing wood elves bows and weapons drop to the ground, having been disarmed.

PC Fighter "I didn't know you could do that"

PC Rogue "Disable Devise allows me to to disarm ANY trap"

Lead Elf "You can't do that! That's now how the skill was intended"

PC Rogue "I doesn't matter" Pulls out the book "You are skilled at disarming traps and opening locks. In addition, this skill lets you sabotage simple mechanical devices, such as catapults, wagon wheels, and doors." Clears his throat. "It doesn't say anything about it having to be a mechanical trap or a magic trap..."

Lead Elf "well... crap..."

For my homebrew campaign, there will be a few characters age 7-12. How should I write them so that they're not all stereotypical annoying children that the PC's will want to brush off? How can I get my players to listen to and like these kids when they really don't have a whole lot of influence or anything important to say?

Don't make them stereotypical and annoying?

I'm working on an RPG/Campaign Setting that I have interests in adapting to Pathfinder in the future. The game takes place in a virtual reality simulation with a scripting system that enables supernatural effects. A tech-savvy character can code their own scripts and execute them. I envisioned that a character would install a system that grants them X number of "slots" that they can allocate to scripts that function as at-will abilities. However, reallocation takes at least an hour to do so.

However, I want to create an elegant system for players to create their own scripts, but I'm torn on how to do that. I've looked at Words of Power and wasn't happy with how they did it. I'm considering having scripts consisting of a list of "functions" that do very simple things. The order of commands is important. For example, if you want a script that sets a chair on fire, you would have it look like this:

SetTarget(chair)
EmitFire()

What are your thoughts on this? Any suggestions?

Play Mage the Ascension? All Virtual Adept reality hacker game. Pretty much exactly what you're talking about.

Saw a figure that said a knights kit(Horse, armor, weaponry) would be the equivalent of £550-800k.

That's completely dependant on the era.

Is this figure a modern equivalent due to inflation?

I am familiar with Shadowrun, it was not a game that was my taste. I am more the Star Wars, Star Trek, Eureka, Fringe, Doctor Who type of guy. With a wit like Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy at times.

Understandable, I'm not a fan of Shadowrun either.

Rifts has... I think 30 something world books, probably a half dozen dimention books, not to mention all the source books and Rifters.
It has a lot of magic and high tech, as well as psionics, super powers, cybernetics, necrotech, etc, etc...

Hero... Hero is far more flexable, everything is modular, you can build anything you want. I have never found anything I can't replicate in Hero... given enough points.

White Wolf is modern with magic... maybe not quite what you're looking for. It does, however, have a very flexable magic system... if you're playing a mage.

Firefly, Stargate, Travaler are all high tech... though no magic.

Guys, seriously let's bring this conversation back to Golarion please.

My spologies for getting wildly off-topic.

I wonder if there is an alternate word for 'thesaurus'?

I'll check the thesaurus... yes.

reference book
glossary
lexicon
onomasticon
terminology
vocabulary
language reference book
sourcebook
storehouse of words
treasury of words

Here's an entry from wikipedia.

Riddle's analysis has been credited for pointing out that although 'tolerance' and 'acceptance' can be seen as positive attitudes, they should actually be treated as negative because they can mask underlying fear or hatred (somebody can tolerate a baby crying on an airplane while at the same time wishing that it would stop) or indicate that there is indeed something that we need to accept, and that we are the ones with the power to reject or to accept. This observation generalizes to attitude evaluations in other areas besides sexual orientation and is one of the strengths of Riddle's study.

From this context I can see why tolerance has been put into the negative category. She is, however, using a definition of tolerance one does not usually associate within a discussion of this nature. And thus she is choosing to ignore general terminology.

In general, when people discuss LGBT issues, tolerance has a differant definition then one would use when discussing the crying of an infant.

However, Acceptance is still wildly misused. As, if you accept someone, there is no underlying fear or hatred. Otherwise, you are not really accepting someone, you are just paying lip service.

Scott Betts wrote:

While useful as an evaluative scale, perhaps, I think this has more potential to confuse the discussion with a debate over semantics rather than anything else. While the word "acceptance" might have a specific (somewhat technical) meaning to you, as someone familiar with the Riddle Scale, that doesn't mean that it carries a negative connotation when used by others (nor does it put a ceiling on one's attitude towards non-heterosexuality

This isn't logical. Familiarity with the Riddle Scale doesn't transform the word into something else. It clarifies what it actually is.

People buy into a lot of euphemisms like "ethnic cleansing", but that doesn't mean those things aren't highly problematic. People may think they're being positive when they use the word acceptance but that doesn't mean they truly are.

I've heard many people try to argue that "that's so gay" isn't an anti-gay expression, for instance. Their argument is that the word gay now means bad so it's not anti-gay, even though the entire reason the word is now taken to mean bad is due to anti-gay animus.

And, another example of problematic terminology that influences people without being pressured the way it should be is the word gay itself. For one thing, it embeds a false heterosexist dichotomy of good vs. bad (straight arrow vs. bent arrow). Just because terminology is popular and used without much thought doesn't mean it doesn't carry negative consequences. If people subconsciously associate gayness with brokenness due to the term (and the gay vs. "straight" dichotomy), then that's not good.

I've heard those arguments as well. They do not, however, change the fact that the riddle scale is using these words inappropriatly. Personal perspective does not influence terminology. This scale is colored by the personal perspective of Dr. Riddle and her personal definitions. These are not the definitions used by the general public nor do they carry the same connotations as Dr. Riddle seems to think they do.

R_Chance wrote:

Scott has it right here. Unless everyone accepts Dr. Riddle's definitions, is familiar with her scale and uses the terms as she has defined them it's pretty much a waste. And while I appreciate what she was trying to do, her use of English... *sigh* When people begin redefining common English usage terms and turning them into a jargon that other's are not familiar with you have problems in just communicating.

There is no redefining happening. Instead there is an uncomfortable clarification that threatens expressions of heterosexual chauvinism. People may enjoy saying they accept people because it makes them feel like they're being benevolent, but it's a condescending thing to do at best.

Again, as the scale points out, people accept things they can't control, like someone accepts the fact that their friend is dying of cancer.

There is simply no need to say you accept someone for being gay unless you're also saying that you would have them not be. Otherwise, you would use one of the positive words Riddle presents to show your positive feelings.

Tolerance

Acceptance
favorable reception; approval; favor.

These are most people define these words, it's also how the dictionary defines them. Looks like Dr. Riddle redefined them to me. Perhaps she should have picked up a dictionary or thesaurus first. She could have just as easily color coded her scale. The Riddle scale is not the end-all-be-all. It is a tool, like any other used in any science.

It does nothing to clarify. It's confusing definition and common useage with a personal perspective and jargon.

It looks to me like she was confusing these two words with ignorance and denial, respectively. Turning the words tolerance and acceptance (that are either neutral, non-isse and posative, in most peoples eyes) is antagonistic.

Well, Uganda is the African country where the Roman Catholic Church has been most successful. It has been held up, time and time again, as the poster child for what abstinence-only work against HIV can do. Apparently they have some (or try to make it sound as if they have some) results there worth showing.

And they are executing gay people. Draw your own conclusions. I will draw mine.

Do you mean to say they are saying abstinence as a cure for HIV? Is that it?

Anyway, Lovecraft called most/all of them Evil, but I don't think his notions of what that entailed match Paizo's (considerably more progressive) notions of Evil.

I would hesitate to say progressive (as that is colored by point of view). More defined perhaps.

I would call them evil, but in this case it's a matter of perspective. Most of us don't consider ourselves evil for killing a fly whose getting in the way of the TV and annoying us. We might view them as evil because they show no concern or compassion for us.

But as embodyments of forces beyond our comprehension, it's kind of like calling fire evil for consuming wood, or radiation for causing cancer.

We also view them as chaotic. But they rest on multiple planes of existance and between. We can't possably fathom the consiquences of their actions on an interdimentional scale. Destroying a planet full of life in dimention A could be of great benefit (on an interdimentional cosmic scale) to dimentions B and C. For all we know, they could be lawful. Lovecraft defines them as evil and chaotic, from our perpective, that's exactly how they act. But our perspective is extraordinarily limited at best.

I would keep them as CE because they act (from our persepective) as we have defined CE. But if you want to take them on a philisophical level, they are unaligned, like fire, they are what they are.