Ceres Cato's page

I don't mean anyone on that board here is offended, but it was mentioned here and there that people COULD be offended.
I'm with you, however, I like the term Gillmen more. Even though the Gillmen girl (?) I once played refered to herself as Low Azlanti. Which somehow seemed odd as well.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

captain yesterday wrote:

If you're so busy you can't even remember your own child is in the car then you shouldn't have children, period.

Frankly if you treat a child like a handbag, or something else you casually forget in the car and something happens you should be held accountable, f&*& the selfish piece of s*&*.

No I did not read the article, I doubt reading it will change my mind and that is too heavy for a Monday morning :-)

I was going to ask. I think you'd better read the article if you want to be involved in a discussion on it. This is a heavy subject.

I said what I had to say on the matter, take it how you will I'll not get involved any longer, still won't read it, I've never forgotten my kids in the car and I'll never understand how people do it, that's all :-)

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.

If you're so busy you can't even remember your own child is in the car then you shouldn't have children, period.

Frankly if you treat a child like a handbag, or something else you casually forget in the car and something happens you should be held accountable, f$*& the selfish piece of s*!@.

No I did not read the article, I doubt reading it will change my mind and that is too heavy for a Monday morning :-)

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.

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.

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.

Well, at least I feel productive. Silver linings and all such.

Really? I just flagged a bunch of threads posted by frostroberts and heriberts.

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.

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.

Bioware's doing pretty amazingly, in my opinion.

I have to say, after EA introduced Origin I lost track of them. I so wanted to play Mass Effect 3 but... :(

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.
Then I'll go some centuries back in history and compare Apollo's statue to a statue of Aphrodite in her linen towel. What's more sexist? By the way, Apollo was completely naked, Aphrodite didn't even show her nipples.

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.

Ceres Cato wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

Frankly i do not see why people care so much about how others view and portray themselves if it doesn't effect others

Because we don't live in a society where it doesn't.

But we can strive for one! Every day!

Yes we can. just remember that you've volunteered for a generations long journey. :)

But someone has to start, right?

LazarX wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

Frankly i do not see why people care so much about how others view and portray themselves if it doesn't effect others

Because we don't live in a society where it doesn't.

Really? if i wear a dress how does that effect you?

One can not toss a pebble into a pond and expect an absence of ripples.

By that all actions are wrong because all actions cause ripples so end the world to stop the ripples.

I once saw a man in high heels. Thought he looked rather fetching in them. Totally unrelated, but he had nice feet.

I just want to know why the Iconic Shaman is wearing a WWF wrestling belt on her head?

Because she earned it?

Ceres Cato wrote:

But you can have sexy robes! And everyday clothing!

On occasions that it makes sense, both in terms of the plot and the situation, for a character to be naked or scantily dressed, it's not stupid to depict them that way.

This said, Pathfinder is an adventuring game where you are supposed to be heroically going out and doing stuff. How many legitimate adventuring scenarios are you going to find where it makes sense for people to be in their underwear?

There are some, but it's not a trope you want to overuse just for the fanservice value. And when you use it, everyone should be showing it. Not just the women.

Tsk tsk, sexy isn't naked or scantily dressed. And it isn't underwear. Sexy is so much more.

And I'm all for more sexy males in my fantasy. Already told so

Androgen insensitivity syndrome

Swyer syndrome

Intersexed people

There are more.

Thank you. I learn something new every day.

What if it's an ENCHANTED chainmail bikini? If magic is involved, nearly EVERYTHING is possible. Even a thong that is as protective as plate mail.

Okay, I have a couple of questions regarding Shardra, because I don't understand this stuff at all and this thread isn't really helping me. I would be so very grateful if someone could shed some light on this matter for me.

First: What exactly is the current definition of transgender used here? I have read about it and I am very, very unsure. Is it somenone who doesn't like his body? Or someone who feels they have the wrong sex? Like, someone in a male body who thinks he is a female? Or vice versa? I guess it's completely different from transsexuals (or is it?) but I'm still completely unsure.

Second: Is it right that Shardra was born a boy? Completely and all? And not as some kind of hermaphrodite? It seemed to me her parents were confused and at first I guessed it was because the child had a weird configuration of sexual organs. Or did they raise her as a boy but Shardra felt more like a girl so it felt weird to her? Didn't she tell her parents? Or wasn't it possible because of dwarven culture?

Third (and last question, or questions): Since when has Shardra known that she is really a girl? I would guess during puberty, when these things start to matter, but what do I know? And she learned what she was from the whispers in her head, right? They told her what she is. And these voices are the voices from other, dead transgender dwarves, correct? Or did her familiar told her about the transgendered dwarves? Are these dwarves still alive?

I am terribly confused by all of this, sorry.

Ceres Cato wrote:

I'm a female gamer. I live in Europe (sometimes I wonder if that is a huge impact on how these things are perceived) and I always like my female heroes and adventurers being cool, badass, sexy and sometimes seductive. Really, I see enough normal people in real life, some of them not pleasant to the eye. I don't need normal looking iconics in my FANTASY game. When I look at a class and the character representing it, I want it to be badass. Cool. Teasing me to play that class. None of the iconics does that.

And it's not a problem that it's sexist to like sexy artwork. The real problem is that people who want sexy artwork are pressured into feeling they are sexist.

What would be an example of something you consider "badass" then?

I want someone who seems to me like they can handle things. With a good self-conscience and ego. Who is able to say: Let me do it, I'm a pro.

An attitude. Amiri, for example, is what I would consider "badass"-looking. She has the appearance and the attitude to back it (at least in the artwork of the barbarian class). She's sexy, in her own way, yes.

Jirelle, on the other side, looks quite tame to me. And that's not even the clothing, it's her face. She looks nice, but not like someone I would expect to taunt me with a flashing smile when I battle her.

The halfling arcanist is a completely different matter. She doesn't seem like someone who excells at anything. To me, her artwork screams "marriage councellor" or "nice lady at the temple". If I am a master (or soon-to-be master) of all things arcane, I wouldn't want to look like this.

Really, I truly believe that you can make great characters with an amazing backstory that are sexy. Not only in their artwork (or not necessary) but in their attitude. And I miss that.

FINALLY!

This is something I have thought about for months, even before the new iconics were revealed (the terrible artwork in the NPC Codex and Inner Sea Gods hardcover being the reason for that)

Of course, we're still waiting for the Hunter iconic to make an appearance, but really, my hopes aren't very high. All the iconics until now are so terribly generic, it's not even fun anymore. And they are nothing of what I have imagined.

The Swashbuckler for example: That's not how I imagine daring swashbuckler with all their teasing and taunting I grew up with. Swashbucklers I know were, granted, all men but they NEVER wore armour, most of the time they wore a shirt opened to the navel. And now we have Jirelle, who looks more like she's heading to a costume ball at a slightly more liberal catholic girl school. Not cool.

Kess, I don't even want to think about her. Yes, she has a naked stomach (oh, wow...) but she totally does not look like a badass brawler. She looks more like someone I would hold my breath when I passed her. Really...

And the arcanist halfling lady, while surely looking nice, looks more like the friendly priestess in a village, not like an adventurer (all these robes! Wow!)

The men aren't better, either. Sure, the bloodrager has a naked chest but, you know, revealing clothing does not make one sexy.

Concerning Seoni: Yes, she wears revealing stuff, but she doesn't back it up with the proper attitude, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm a female gamer. I live in Europe (sometimes I wonder if that is a huge impact on how these things are perceived) and I always like my female heroes and adventurers being cool, badass, sexy and sometimes seductive. Really, I see enough normal people in real life, some of them not pleasant to the eye. I don't need normal looking iconics in my FANTASY game. When I look at a class and the character representing it, I want it to be badass. Cool. Teasing me to play that class. None of the iconics does that.

And it's not a problem that it's sexist to like sexy artwork. The real problem is that people who want sexy artwork are pressured into feeling they are sexist.

What always gets me thinking is the funky reaction to topics like this. It's a very interesting biological question but the first things that come to some people's minds are "Eww, sex, let's not think about that". Wow.

Concerning Tengus I'd reckon there are two possibilities: If they lay eggs (as mentioned above) they would reproduce via cloaka (yeah, sexay). But one can always rule that they get down and dirty like us boring humans. Depends on whatever floats your boat (it's fantasy, after all. Just mess around with those organs).

I, for myself, get great fun out of questions like this.

@Storm Sorcerer Arcturus: You seem so enthusiastic and motivated in your posts, it just brings a smile to my face! Just needed to say that.

I'd say the child gets its soul after birth, with the first breath taken (sucking in the soul, basically).
Really, it makes everything easier, helps alot of people and the point of this "abortion is murder"-discussion is essentially nullified. Which is really for the best.

I use the cheap alternative: cubes made out of wood, in different sizes, with an arrow drawn on top to represent the direction the monster is watching. Then I declare which cube is which monster and that's it. It's cheap, it's ugly and you can buy the cubes by the dozen in online wood stores. I even have a cube for a huge creature we call "Hugh Blockman".

But, even so, I wish I had some decent minis. That would be really nice.