Dor's page

...or all of your feats for Adept (trading 10 for 15)

You only give up 8 feats for Adept progression. You keep the feats at levels 7 and 15.

...actually getting the progression gives you access to a Martial Tradition

Martial Traditions are gained independently of your talent progression; using a feat-to-talent conversion won't net you a martial tradition. You can gain a Martial Tradition by giving up your starting proficiencies (except simple weapons, light armor, and bucklers) so long as your starting proficiencies include either all martial weapons or at least one exotic weapon.

Dor wrote:

Experience and the testimony of reliable witnesses come to mind.

and has been shown to be absolutely terrible. Even well meaning people have a large disparity in between reality and memory.

True. Repetition can cement that memory in reality however.

Quote:

We first learn that the sun rises every morning, not by our understanding of astronomy and the powerful forces of gravity, but by the fact that we have seen it rise every morning since childhood.

Observation. there's a reason that's a big part of science.

Heh. You got me there.

Quote:

As powerful as experience can be in teaching us things, the words of others are just as powerful.

And very often wrong, even on the odd chance that they're not being used to manipulate people for some end.

You don't have much faith in people do you? Can't say I blame you though. More than a few atrocities have been committed using lies.

Quote:

Almost everything that society has learned through scientific reasoning are things that we will never of ourselves take the time to observe and reason out.

But someone will. Being able to have dozens of people check something and get the same conclusion is an amazingly powerful tool to get at reality compared to "i saw this. no. really!"

True. Ease of reproducibility is part of what makes science such a powerful tool. However, you are still taking someone else's word for it, and science has been known to be wrong at times.

Quote:

We believe that atoms form our bodies and that the earth revolves around the sun because that is what we learned in school.

And being the kid in the class that asked "well how do we know that" often enough to turn a teachers hair grey i can tell you that a science teacher can keep that up a LOT longer than a religious teacher can, yes, right down to walking outside and putting a stick in the ground.

Hmm... Not sure how to respond to that one without going into subjects best left to another time and place.

Quote:

I think that these two things can teach us about matters that science does not (and perhaps cannot) touch.

Those things are absolutely terrible whenever we've been able to examine them. Why would they be good just because you don't like the answer science is giving you?

Experience and witnesses aren't always terrible. In fact, good science wouldn't exist without either of them. Scientists must experience the world to understand it, and "good" science relies on having many witnesses attest to the fact. It's not that I dislike the answers of science. I just don't think science can answer everything. I would say more, but it is well past my bedtime. If the discussion hasn't moved on, perhaps I will get back to it.

Dor wrote:

but I think that it is a mistake to assume everything must be known by scientific reasoning

What else works?

Experience and the testimony of reliable witnesses come to mind. We first learn that the sun rises every morning, not by our understanding of astronomy and the powerful forces of gravity, but by the fact that we have seen it rise every morning since childhood. Even on cloudy days, our experience tells us that the sun is what illuminates the sky. Similarly, we learn that touching a hot stove is a bad idea based on the painful heat radiating from it.

As powerful as experience can be in teaching us things, the words of others are just as powerful. Almost everything that society has learned through scientific reasoning are things that we will never of ourselves take the time to observe and reason out. Rather, we as individuals know these things because others have told us. We believe that atoms form our bodies and that the earth revolves around the sun because that is what we learned in school.

I think that these two things can teach us about matters that science does not (and perhaps cannot) touch.

Having now read part of the thread, I suppose I ought to move on to more interesting questions. Why do I believe there is an afterlife, and what influence does my belief have on me?

To answer the first question, I should begin by saying that I was raised with a firm belief in the immortality of the soul. It’s a sorry reason to keep believing, but when it is taught with as much fervor and devotion as it was in my home, it becomes a difficult thing to dismiss out of hand. Beyond that, all I can really say is that I have done a fair amount study of my church’s doctrines and, for lack of a better phrase, they taste good. They feel true. That might not be satisfying to some, and it’s not a particularly “scientific” reason, but I think that it is a mistake to assume everything must be known by scientific reasoning. This is not to say there aren’t strong logical arguments in defense of my faith, but I am not adept enough to give them, this thread is not the place for them, and the logical arguments are not the ultimate source of my faith.

As for the influence my belief has, I need to introduce one more aspect of my view of the afterlife. It is only in the highest of the heavens that families persist, and only those who put forth their best efforts to keep all the commandments of God can get there. This means I need to be kind, compassionate, and caring, as well as tolerant of others who may not see things as I do. On the flip side, though, it means holding onto positions that may not be very popular, such as in regards to certain ideals regarding marriage, family, and the sort of things one should or should not do with one’s body. But I digress. My family is important to me, so I’m going to do whatever it takes to be with them forever.

Well, I'm a Christian (a Mormon specifically), and I believe in a literal bodily resurrection, so you have at least one example.

Responding to the OP, yes, there is an afterlife. As the LDS* view of the afterlife differs in some significant ways from the rest of Christianity, I feel it deserves some mention (I am also horridly biased toward my own religion). In LDS theology, good people go to heaven (subject to some caveats), and bad people... also go to heaven, albeit not as good of a heaven. S full discussion as to why this is and what this means involves discussing the relationship of God to we mortals as well as the idea of life before birth, so I am not sure it is appropriate for this thread.

*Latter-Day Saint. The full name of my church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and we tend to refer to each other as saints or LDS, rather than Mormons.

It would probably be reasonable to have at least one of them (probably the parry) able to be done as long as you have some panache, while the other costs a point.

On second thought, make the riposte "free". You have to pay a feat tax to even use it anyway.

That said, there has been significant talk about making parry and repost 'so long as you have one grit point' abilities. So in some sense the playtest is still valid, its just a test of what would happen if you could always parry and riposte. In that case I could easily see the swashbuckler being very difficult to land a blow on.

Yes indeed. The GM was very frustrated. That said, I personally can't see myself wanting to parry/riposte much (if at all) because of the huge panache cost of doing it (and the requirement of taking combat reflexes). It would probably be reasonable to have at least one of them (probably the parry) able to be done as long as you have some panache, while the other costs a point. Also, you can't parry spells or ranged attacks, or riposte enemies at reach, so the GM has other options for killing the swashbuckler.

Heh, my bad. I wasn't paying too much attention when I suggested that feat. Regardless, he did have enough panache to do what he did. It wasn't nice.