captain yesterday wrote:
But that's the point: People who have spun their daily routine AROUND their child, are hyper-organised and all that jazz and one tiny slip in their routine and it happens.
Basically, it could even happen to someone like you.
GM Niles wrote:
Please, consider that I didn't say it's always okay to forget your child. But if there is no harm done, nobody should hold you accountable. Yes, it would have been tragic if your daughter would have come to harm because of it. But she didn't. I know, not being a mother myself might disqualify me for voicing my opinion in the matter, but as a daughter I have witnessed firsthand the overreaction of parents who made one mistake (that wasn't even the cause for any harm) and after that were always influenced in their parenting by that nagging fear resulting from it. I didn't say it's okay to forget your child. But maybe the idea with the teddybear on the front seat when the child is in the back isn't a bad one. Some reminder or such.
I guess most of the time it falls into the category of (whoa, how to translate this) murder by negligence? Involuntary manslaughter?
Asking bing for some news I just found a bunch of cases from Poland, France, Austria, Switzerland and Belgium. In all the articles it was a father who was supposed to drop the child at daycare on his way to work and only remembered when his wife called him (because she couldn't fetch the child from daycare). In the Polish case, the father found the child on the evening in the car on the company's parking lot, completely dried out. He had a mental brakedown.
Ceres, are you suggesting they should be known as hufolk?
I like the idea, but sadly it misses the point.But humankind tends to be a bit, well, man-centric and Gillmen, with their descendance from said (maybe even archaic) humans could have very well taken those sentiments with them.
However, I also think Gillfolk sounds good as well. Guess I just wanted to say I'm okay with Gillmen, for the record and such.
GM Niles wrote:
Does this mean I am a bad parent? I don't think so. I love my kids. I'd bet every single parent in that article would tell you the same.
I don't think that means you're a bad parent. Far from it. I think many parents forget that they are first and foremost still people. As long as the child in question doesn't suffer, I think it's really okay to forget something, sometimes maybe that the child is sleeping (safe and sound) on the backseat. The important thing is really that the child doesn't suffer from it.
@thejeff: I didn't say that my words apply to everyone. On the contrary. I actually know people who have children because they really, really wanted them. But as you yourself said one post earlier, sometimes stress and distraction get in the way and those things can happen to everyone, at any time. I only stated some factors that up the probability.
Besides that, there are also people who later wished they would never have decided to have a child. In a world where people someties have to take on to jobs to feed their family, juggling family, work and your own life (which basically flies out of the window) tends to get stressful real fast.
And if you decide (as a woman, that is) not to have a child... Well, have fun with all those mothers letting you know what a shabby little parasite to society you are for not giving back. Or if you have a child but decide to give it to the hands of a nurse because you have to, well, work (then you're a bad mother, as well, because you neglect your precious bonding time). Okay, the last part might be because Germany (where I live) can be such a backwater place when it comes to having a child and working at the same time.
captain yesterday wrote:
I don't have children (thankfully) because I know I would probably forget them the minute I turn around and don't see them anymore. But I guess we have some problems in our society.First: Most people don't have time and money for a child. But they feel obligated to have them nonetheless, because "society and such". I can't remember for the life of me how many times I had a discussion with my father about how I don't fulfill my duties for society (not taking into account that I neither have the time or money for a child).
Second: This leads to people having children they don't really have the time for. Because work and life gets to tend to get in the way and without at least the former you can't feed the child.
Third: If you spend most of your life working and caring for your child, you get stressed, sloppy and the probability of neglecting your child in one way or the other rises.
Granted, many parents out there don't have those problems (lucky them) and even like their children (luckier them). But, as the article states, stuff like that can happen, and it can happen (in princible at least) to everyone. It has nothing to do with selfishness or "causually forgetting". That's way too easy.
I think it's more a sign of how society forces us to be constantly on the move, forgetting important things in the process. Sometimes it's the bus ticket, your trousers or your 9-month old child. As the article states, it happens to people of all social classes and it's not really that rare (or as rare as it should be).
Maybe the most difficult thing is separating the tragic mistakes from those (if they exist) forgetting their child on purpose. But I think it shouldn't be handled as a crime. It's a tragedy, yes, but not so much as beating or starving your 9-year old child to death. That's more of a crime, in my opinion.
Yeah, that's the key, I think. The rationality I didn't have back then. I guess I just thought if I don't call for his attention while others do, he won't notice me. Or something like that.
Or maybe his wrathful persona was emphasised more than his omniscience to me. Who knows.
From own experience of my youth: I believed in God, because everybody told me he exists, but I always feared him. He was presented to me as a spiteful, easily angered old man who would put me into hell and generally hate me if I'll touch myself in all the "wrong" places, he'd send thunderstorms if I didn't behave well (I feared thunderstorms) and he would punish me for everything I do wrong. For all eternity and beyond. I feared him and I hated him. So I believed in God but I never worshipped him, opting for staying under the radar and never praying, never going to church, in generally trying to avoid his awareness of me with all possible means.
Wow, what a messed up thing. I'm just glad I'm over it now.
As an atheist with a long and painful way to where I am now (baptised and raised... uhm... how do you call it in English? Lutherian?) I have absolutely no problem with deities and religion in my roleplay games.
The reason: The deities in the worlds where I tend to play in are real. They can appear, they meddle with mortals and they grant powers. They're actually THERE.
I am an atheist because there is absolutely no reason for me in this (real) world to think there is a god, or something like that. That's not the case in my fantasy settings (where mortals actually can talk to the deities with a good chance that they actually answer). So no problems there.
But I can see where the OP's friend might come from. Religious people tend to have a problem with understanding how atheists see the world.
I've had the same problem for years. Buidling an engaging adventure, customising the big baddie, complete with stat blocks and all that jazz (a task that takes hours. HOURS I say! Just generating the stat block) and then my party waltzes in and takes him out. Most of the time, he can't even dish out all the good stuff I gave him. Hours spent over agonising over every feat, spell, etc. gone wasted. Every. Single. Time. It doesn't even help much if the BBEG has some minions around. If you don't plan to have him sticking around all the time, with all those funky "you fight him several times, but he always escapes, returns, yada yada *yawn*" stuff it gets boring real fast.
And even if he is an ongoing part of the campaign, at some point you have to prepare, have to stat him out and the effort is most of time... time ill spent. At one point, I just hated it. I could have spent that time much better planning another adventure or preparing another story. But I rarely felt the effort was worth it. Even if (and that's a big if) the fight was awesome and memorable.
What I did was, in effect, after meddling around with the rules for endless months: I changed the ruleset. For 25 Euro I bought the 13th Age Core Book, everything you need for that game, something even I with my tiny budget could afford. The system is a D20 variant, easy to learn and with some practise stat blocks, even for bigger foes, are generated in a fraction of the time. And easier to play with, too boot.
I know you and your players don't want to change, but talking from own experiences, if you don't have fun anymore and it's more work for you, ESPECIALLY for you, maybe a change would be a good idea. If you can afford it.
Whatever you decide, I wish you the best of luck.
I just want to throw in that A Dance with Rogues, while an excellent module for so many reasons, is in many parts spiced up with graphic sexual situations, the second part even more so than the first. It also deals with themes of bestiality, rape and the like. But it really is a great module, if you've no problem with that.
Edit: By the way, how about those:
Okay, they're old, but still...
You also might want to consider that you two are the only players, which means, you won't anger anyone if you favour the main character. Weakening and customising monsters, handing out better treasure (or simply more powerful treasure) or letting the PC bond with a cool companion or creature, without the use of the leadership feat. Nobody would complain if the both of you agree to it.
Concerning the Mythic rules and other stuff you want to try out, here's another cool thing about groups of two (if both of you are okay with it): You can always dial back a bit or remove stuff you put into the game later, if it proves to be too imbalanced. If the Mythic tiers work great, that's awesome. If not, you can just rewrite the memories of your characters (he never had that power) or introduce a small side quest where said power is taken away or exchanged. Sometimes it is also advisable to just "rewind" the story a bit and try it again under different circumstances. If you two make a good team, almost everything is possible.
Really, you just can have fun with each other without caring for other's needs.
Here's what me and my husband were doing for the last ten years (we were and still are a group of two):
One of us is the GM, the other is the main character. So the story focusses on that one. The GM plays his own character (but resigns himself to a bit of a sidekick role). Most of the time, the GM's character is built in such a way that it helps the main character.
We played gestalt characters for most of the time. It was easier that way. We never used point buy, instead we rolled for stats the first years, later we just used a 93 and asigned the stats accordingly (resulting in high stats, but that's what we liked). Basically, you added all six attributes together until you had a 93.
With those adjustments, we were able to tackle many challenges. We never played an AP (tried Kingmaker, thought it boring) but played many Pathfinder modules. The campaigns focused mainly on those two characters and were very roleplaying-heavy.
I'm not familiar with mythic rules, but assigning an extra feat at first level will help as well. We played this way together over the last years and we liked it that way.
Besides not wanting to play with children below the age of 18 myself (mostly because I'm really, really bad with children, including my own nephews who I just can't connect to), one thing to consider is maybe the following (in now way related to OP's friends, really. Just a general consideration):
Some people, men and women alike, might feel uncomfortable around children below legal age (interpret this however you like) because they try to actively avoid children. For maybe not so obvious reasons. Interacting with children proves a more or less big problem, especially around something with mature themes (more so of a sexual nature). It's a kind of test of will.
Again, this is in no way related to the friends of the OP. But I think it might be a problem for some people.
Okay, I think I don't understand this correctly. Why exactly is it forcing if you just ask her if she would be interested in playing a Tabletop RPG?
Otherwise, maybe you want to mention how much you enjoy RPGs and how much more you would enjoy spending time with her playing said RPGs? I don't know, what kind of nerd is she? Does she like fantasy novels, or computer RPGs or stuff like that?
Emmanuel Nouvellon-Pugh wrote:
Have the wizards put a peace-bond seal on their spell component pouches. Wizards who break the peace-bond seal without explicit permission from a guard and a valid reason to present to the guards superiors are sent to spell-hold.
In the context of the story that wouldn't be possible, because the PCs won't know about the special laws in Athkatla (only if the GM would allow the PCs an appropriate Knowledge check. Which would be another alternative, but really, which PC would use that knowledge if one of their friends is in danger?)
You see, the PCs arrive in Amn without them knowing (they get kidnapped, wake up in a dungeon, and when they leave the dungeon, they are in Athkatla). So no peace-bond seals for them.
In the game (SPOILER ALERT) this scene happens:
I would advice that Imoen leaves the dungeon at first (because of her hatred for Irenicus, make it a short chasing scene or something like that) and the PCs get stalled a bit (by the bandits, for example). When they reach the market, the battle between Imoen and Irenicus is in its las throes, they use their last spells in the scene and the authorities show up. The PCs can see the battle, but are too far away or still hindered. Something like that.
Good luck with your campaign, I wish you all the best.
Be as it might, you see NOTHING of what they did in the past in what they do now.
Edit: I didn't even complain about the bugs. Because for me they were never an issue. I always bought their games when they were mostly patched. It's all about the content. And don't start with the publisher-excuse. That's old and worn out and it's something I will always, ALWAYS think of when I think Obsidian (Obsidian? The guys who are always blaming their publisher?)
Yay, another thing I used to like that Obsidian got their grubby little hands on.
(By the way, I'm all with Hardwool from earlier in this thread on this one)
Granted, I only know Conan and Red Sonja from the films with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Brigitte Nielsen. Watched them with my mother when I was eight or ten years old.
And I guess Marvel Comics, as far as I'm aware, are a whole different matter.
Ooh, she looks determined, I like that!I've always wanted to watch Farscape, but it aired on one of these TV channels over here where every 20 minutes there's a five minute commercial break. I hated these.
Good for you, and good for the other women who dress just the opposite just becuase they want. The issue, IMHO, is variety, and I think paizo have provided a little for everyone.
You're right, variety is the key. You know, I don't think the issue (for me, at least) is that it's problematic that women dress in a way that conceals in part or completely their curves. That's okay. The issue I had with the Inner Sea Gods Hardcover (and I flipped a fair number of times through its pages before deciding to not buy it) is that I was disappointed that some worshippers depicted where not at all what I had hoped for. Besides the Calistrian and Urgathoan I believe I remember that the other women were dressed... quite unappealing. And sometimes not in a way I thought of as appropriate. Desna comes to mind, if I remember correctly.
@Abraham Spalding: I hope we're good now :)
Oh, yes, the twisting pose. That's weird. I don't like it as well. Agreed.However, I think there should be more action poses (not in the class artwork, that's not possible) where anyone, male or female alike, can show (off) their bodily prowess. And their goodies as well. If it is anatomically possible. And sometimes it is.
Abraham spalding wrote:
I am really sorry that I haven't understood your sarcasm. In this whole discussion answers like these are most often than not serious. But thanks for the clarification.
On most of your points I agree wholeheartedly with you (especially the amazing part) but I think there are many things in our lives (or in mine, at least) that can be sexy without having anything to do with looks.
For example, when my husband started crocheting, I though it was somehow dead sexy when he did that.
Maybe sexiness isn't indicative of intelligence, strength, etc. but all these things can be sexy. And I think you can display a general amount of sexiness when you possess any characteristic property of a talent of what you are sure of.
Thejeff: And from there, the argument has grown to include PRECISELY EVERY SINGLE piece of artwork depicting half-naked men, thereby making ONLY art of half-naked females worth discussing. How convenient.
That's the point. I walk through my shopping centre and look at all the half naked, often well-hung, tattooed men in nothing but tight shorts, in commercials for after-shave and the likes. Absolutely not sexist. Not in the slightest. At least to me. And they look wonderful next to the female underwear models three stores further. Are they sexist, because they depict female? I hope not.
And I don't think you can take Conan, who has some years now under his belt, and use him in modern day discussions.
Thankfully, I haven't have the pleasure meeting one of them in person, in real-life, but all the things I have read on forums and the like, it is really disturbing. I have absolutely no idea where that came from.
Regarding your first answer, about the clothing: I think a fully leather-clad female rogue in form-hugging clothes with the proper attitude is really, really sexy. A female rogue in something that resembles more a bikini, in which she totally looks lost in, is not sexy.
And by the way: there are quite a few men out there, who think of nun habits as the ultimate thing. In hotness. Yes. That's why nun costumes are sold in erotic catalogues. Two pages after the butterly ouvert panties.
Abraham spalding wrote:
First: You don't have to dress skimpy to show you have a female body. Really.
Second: The last time I dressed like that I was fifteen years old, in puberty, and completely unsure of my body. Now, almost fifteen years later I can dress form-huggingly (is that a word?) WITHOUT (<--important) showing too much skin and still show my feminine curves. I don't know if others think of that as sexy, nor do I care, but I like it, because I feel mostly comfortable in my own skin. Which I didn't, at fifteen years of age.
And just like that, although I have thought about not posting on the paizo board again, I have to do it, with a question:
Why does everyone think that sexy has ANYTHING to do with how much of the body is covered, or precisely, how less? Is that the only thing you can think of when imagining sexy men and women? Bare skin? Really?
On another note: I was terribly, TERRIBLY disappointed with the art in the Inner Sea Gods hardcover. Besides the Calistrian cleric and some evil female clerics (why evil?) most of the women dressed in stuff so concealing I asked myself: Are these women afraid of showing that they are women?
Really, I don't want to live in any place where sexiness is measured by the amount of skin I choose to show and where I AS A WOMAN MYSELF get told by OTHER WOMEN what is sexist or proper and how I am sexist when I enjoy sexy (yes, and most often, nude) artwork of women. THAT is sexist. And saying that muscular men in the media (you wouldn't want to hear women around here talking about these men) are MALE power fantasies... that's just... wow. I'm done for now. Really.
Concerning the first blog post: I currently play Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning and I was disappointed that my female mage would never get sexy robes. Later I stopped playing her (not because of that, but because the playstyle became boring) and started over with a male. He's such a testosterone package that it's hilarious and I'm having a blast with him. Sometimes I strip him of all his armour, get back to easy areas and go on a killing spree in nothing but shorts, boots and gauntlets. Great fun.
Regarding the second post (the comic): This batman looks really creepy. I like my men with deep socketed eyes, not with big eyes. And if those muscled hunks are male power fantasy... I guess sometimes it's hard being male, with all those fit and muscular men looking down on them from their cosmetics, fashion and what have you commercials, wearing nothing but tattoos, muscles and boxershorts. You look at them and you know that you're not the same and never will be.
But someone has to start, right?
Andrew R wrote:
Now you got me interested...
After asking Bing I'm not entirely sure whether I find it sexy. Probably not. I'm not into atheletics. Of any kind. Ah, well...