JM1776's page

No worries, but it's the potential reliance on historical precedence to exclude them from existing that makes me bristle.

Honestly, I don't see how historical precedence could be used to exclude them. They're here now. They were there then.

It's one thing to say, "I really don't want to hear about your determined seduction of so-and-so. In short, you are successful; we fade to black." It's quite another to say, "You can't play a homosexual/transgender character, because they're not historically verifiable." That's so far beyond unreasonable I'm not sure how I'd respond if a DM told me that.

Now saying, "You're a hero(ine). But declaring your love for this person who happens to be the same sex as you in the Dauphin's throne room isn't the brightest idea in the world" is reasonable, historically speaking.

The fact that some don't like that is, frankly, TFB.

For those talking in terms of pre-modern or historical settings, I hope it's not just LGBTQ issues you avoid on those grounds. Women's lib is modern too. As are modern attitudes towards formal class structures. Widespread acceptance of slavery and/or serfdom. Noble classes with more legal rights than the masses. All or most of it understood to be ordained by God.

It's not just one, still controversial, subset of the differences between the modern world and a historical setting that beyond the pale, right?

I don't avoid the issue, per se, other than avoiding anything that becomes too overtly graphic, whether hetero-, homo-, bi- or omni-sexual, because it makes me uncomfortable in a public context. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

I'd never deny someone the right to play a homosexual or transgendered character. They obviously existed during those periods. But if they began, with progressively more public actions, pushing for open acceptance of their character's inclinations in, say Fatamid Egypt or the Kingdom of Jerusalem, I'd have to seriously consider just how I'd handle it.

It's very possible that it wouldn't end well.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Obviously, there's an agenda: Paizo wants to write a setting where all minorities are represented, and has built their setting's traditions around this, and is willing to put aside some realism to make it work. I'm not sure why "agenda" would be a positive or negative quality. It's just what Paizo's chosen to do.

The word "agenda" often seems to imply that it's a deviation from something; e.g., there wouldn't be all these POC/LGBT/etc. in my fantasy world if not for their agenda.

What's often forgotten is that excluding these things involves an agenda as well.

No, it doesn't in the least. Not including something does not imply exclusion, but could have to do with it not occurring to you, it not being appropriate in context, or other reasons that haven't occurred to us. It does not have to mean, "Mua ha ha, let's keep those people out." Posts in this thread are all the evidence one needs of that.

Paizo's policy of inclusiveness is in its way both laudable and a prudent manifestation of political correctness and business savvy, considering its primary marketing demographic. I tend to doubt that we'd see as much of this were it conclusively proven to hurt sales. It's a business, after all.

OTOH, if the one doing so is a great hero, obviously favored by Allah, just having saved the realm from the forces of evil, it might not end so badly. Not a good way to start your career though. :)

One of the drawbacks to running a quasi-historical game, at least using something like the PF system, is that you have to decide what God thinks of such things in your world. If the religion considers homosexuality sinful, as it tended to do historically to one degree or another, are they right? Is that reflected in a cleric getting or keeping his powers?

Crying anything but the call to prayer in that situation is not likely to end well. During the time I was stationed in Turkey, a US Air Force NCO in a drunken stupor did just that, breaking into a mosque, ascending to the summit of the minaret, and doing his worst imitation of a muezzin, bad mouthing both Islam and the Ataturk, Mustafa Kemal—founder of modern Turkey and something of a Moses-George Washington amalgam to Turks—at the top of his lungs. After begging him to come down, an oskir shot him dead and he toppled to the ground. When the US commander demanded of his counterpart an explanation of what he planned to do about the soldier's actions, the Turkish general replied, "I'm going to give him a medal for showing restraint and asking the man to come down three times before shooting him, when he would have been justified in killing him immediately. He profaned Islam and the Ataturk."

Actually, I really don't have to decide for Christians in this era. As clerical celibacy for singles had long been the required (though often not the practiced) norm (since at least the late fourth century and likely earlier), it wouldn't matter if one were hetero-, homo-, bi- or transsexual: You're not having sex of any kind without it being a sin unless you're married ... and since this is a period in which marriage to someone of the same sex would likely not even be considered because of the social stigma and subsequent opprobrium, not to mention the Church's censure, it's not an issue that would reasonably arise—unless, again, some player was looking to make a sociopolitical statement that would resonate for them in the real world.

I run a quasi-historical campaign set in mid-to-late twelfth century Northern Europe and the Mediterranean basin. Homosexuality and transgenderism are a presence therein, even as they were in our own historical reality. (Rumor has it, for example, that Richard I ["Couer de Lion"] may well have been homosexual or bisexual, though one of the current prevailing theories—one I think most likely—is that he was, for all intents and purposes, aresexual ["in love with war" {to coin a neologism}], and not much if at all interested in women or men.) I'm not desirous, however, of watching players push their real world socio-political agenda by attempting to force my hand in running an openly gay or transgender character during this era. It's fairly obvious that in most cases such an attitude would rapidly become problematic. Anyone has the right to create a character and portray him, her or it however he or she wishes, within reason. I just don't think, to use an absurdly extreme example, climbing a minaret in Almohad North Africa and championing gay, bi or transgender rights at the top of one's lungs is likely to end well. On the other hand, quietly portraying a character who lives as he or she would wish in defiance of social and religious convention? That's stuff of which stories are made.

Although, not all artists who drew Banner drew him all wimpy. For quite a few artists, he's fairly athletic-looking.

Indeed. That's a reinterpretation which has never worked for me. It's like the Andrew Garfield Peter Parker/Spider-Man: Entirely too cooler-than-thou at that age to suit me. Garfield might well have been a good Parker in his twenties ... but not the one who'd just acquired his powers. Maguire easily outpointed him on that score.

Then, again, it's a different era. Perhaps I'm too old school and inflexible.

wow...I don't think I have yet to meet someone who thinks Norton is the best Banner...

I think he's by far the best Banner.

Ruffalo's acting is more than competent, but there's something brutish about his facial features that puts me off in this particular role. Banner should be bookish, slender and present a weak, almost effeminate appearance, the better to contrast with the Hulk. Mark really does look like a very attractive Neanderthal, and that doesn't really get it done, in my opinion. I suppose one could interpret it as the Hulk straining to be free at all times, but ... that doesn't work for me.

Quote:

Read comic books? Watch Justice League animated?

Sure, but you can't assume the general public will, and so you can't relay on everyone knowing exactly who wonder woman or Aquaman is the same you can assume they do about Spiderman or Superman or Batman.

Quote:

You're in a vast minority about the last two.

*shrug*. Throughout most of history, majorities have been wrong about almost everything :)

And most crackpots assume they're visionaries. ;)

... and watch these titans of societal discourse have at it :-)

There's a reason most of the Titans are imprisoned in Tartarus.

Jaelithe wrote:

Scythia wrote:

I think less of DMs that go all Judge Dredd rather than working with a player who has an unusual character idea.

I'm not saying the answer should always be "yes", just that it shouldn't be "no". "Let's see if we can work something out" is ideal, I think.

Unless, of course, the player is pulling that "I know the campaign has a theme and we're supposed to work within its parameters, but this concept, despite being preposterously outside those bounds, is so kewl I have to be a special snowflake and an exception to what we all agreed on" crap.

Then, "I am the law" is entirely appropriate. As a matter of fact, a DM who slaps that s~~+ down should be applauded.

At the very least, I would ask them to save it for a more appropriate campaign.

Too quick for me, K. I added a qualifier 45 seconds later, and you'd already posted.

I gotta stop editing after initial post. You guys are like gunslingers. :)

I think less of DMs that go all Judge Dredd rather than working with a player who has an unusual character idea.

I'm not saying the answer should always be "yes", just that it shouldn't be "no". "Let's see if we can work something out" is ideal, I think.

Unless, of course, the player is pulling that "I know the campaign has a theme and we're supposed to work within its parameters, but this concept, despite being preposterously outside those bounds, is so kewl I have to be a special snowflake and an exception to what we all agreed on" crap.

Then, "I am the law" is entirely appropriate. As a matter of fact, a DM who slaps that sh!t down (after a gentle reminder or two is ignored) should be applauded.

Know what a tabletop forum doesn't need?

People arguing about Creationism v. Evolution.

In fact, that's something the species itself doesn't need.

We'll evolve out of it eventually.

Either that, or the Creator will replace us with a less argumentative model.

TheAlicornSage wrote:

Mistreatment is indeed all too common, but kicking nine year olds out of school over being too girly is beyond mere mistreatment. Luckily the parents raised a stink and since the school was public it got fixed, partially, but that was still crossing the line more than I've seen against other fandoms.

Children of color get kicked out of school for having natural hair.

In kindergarten.

You will forgive my compassion going elsewhere.

I wasn't aware compassion is a limited resource.

Simon Legrande wrote:

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

Simon Legrande wrote:

Defenestration is no joke, yo.

It is a funny word, however.

It is. And rarely does a chance come up to use it in proper context. However, I would not advocate for defenestrating a guest as that's just bad form.

I'll have you know my defenestration form is superb - last time I did it, the Romanian judge gave me a 9.9, and even the notoriously hardnosed French judge gave me a 7.0!

And the judge from Prague?

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

If the government chose to distinguish between unions and marriages, with one a legal distinction and the other a religious one, I'd have no objection.

Then, again, if the government decided to strip all religions of their tax-free status, I'd have no objection to that, either.

My religion is a personal thing. I don't expect anyone to subscribe to its tenets. Nor do I think it deserves some special distinction in the secular world.

Thinking about it in that way, thus, I guess I'd have to concede that refusing to provide a service to a particular citizen or citizens that I would provide to any other citizen or citizens if I had no context means that I would be expecting my religion to afford me certain privileges that, in a nation that ideally provides separation of church and state, would be unacceptable.

Hadn't really thought about it that way before ... but it seems valid—assuming that the laws underpinning the requirements are just.

It's also striking me now that I doubt most of the people who see it as no big deal to discriminate against a group on something as objectively minor as say, buying a cake, have prolly never been discriminated against by a business before.

While it might not seem like a big deal from your armchair as you visit the situation in your imagination it is a deeply unpleasant experience, usually far from receiving a polite(?) "I can't sell to you because of my personally religious beliefs regarding your lifestyle."

But even if it was that nice(?) that is a damn awkward situation to be in and it makes it clear on no uncertain terms you are not welcome there, and perhaps not welcome in any business nearby, also making you wonder if you are not only unwelcome, but in danger.

It is a really unpleasant experience, like really unpleasant. I'm honestly not sure how to explain it well.

I think you explained it quite well.

See ... this gives me pause.

I would never have considered that refusing someone service because of your religious convictions might actually frighten the subject of your refusal. Perhaps that's lack of empathy on my part.

I myself would never wish to frighten anyone who's just trying to go about their business.

I must reconsider my position, in light of all that's been said here. Thank you for explaining how such makes you feel, Yuugasa. I'd rather hear that than all the veiled and unveiled accusations.

Jaelithe wrote:

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

So, a white baker who denies a wedding cake to a couple for being black should be treated with dignity and respect just because the baker says he has "deep religious beliefs"?

Is race not proven a wholly artificial distinction? Has it not been shown nonexistent by the weight of scientific evidence? Is the baker not simply acting out of dislike for a skin color, which is wholly irrational, and not at all a part of his faith's genuine tenets?

Do you think the law and the courts should be in the business of determining what a faith's genuine tenets are?

There were plenty of Christian groups in the days of slavery and Jim Crow that used the Bible and their faith to justify their bigotry. There still are some.
I'm not interested in debating what "real Christians" should believe. That's not my job. I'd think, as a Catholic, you wouldn't want the courts determining what religious beliefs qualified as "genuine" either.

No, I just want, as a Catholic and a person concerned with not forcing anyone to act against their conscience, for people to employ some judiciousness rather than cramming their perspective down others' throats.

Considering that at least three people in this discussion have made clear that such is precisely what they wish to see happen, and that they'll take obnoxiously gleeful delight in it, I hardly think any position that does not wholly conform to "current wisdom" will be left unmolested.

I've not read anything here to move me one nanometer from my position, and I have neither the time nor the inclination to answer every post (and this is one of those discussions in which the dog-pile begins immediately when someone doesn't conform to the party line), so ... suffice it to say that I see the other side's perspective, and while respecting the underlying desire of many (if not most), disagree with some of its underpinnings as specious.

Religious organizations have pushed, and pushed, and PUSHED for years. They don't get to complain now that the group they've been shoving around can push back.

They most certainly do, whether you happen to like it or not. The principle most learn in their childhood about two wrongs not making a right applies here.

It seems to me that, on the surface at least, your argument in this and other recent posts above, stripped to its essentials, consists of, "Hah! Now those guys are gonna get theirs! I have no sympathy. In fact, I LOVE IT!" That's not exactly rational, no matter how eloquently couched, now is it?

All pushing and shoving should end. No group should get a free period of oppressive behavior because some other one had a day, week, month, year, decade or even millennium or three of doing so. It's condoning the imposition of (perceived) subjective morality, and to endorse it is to show that we as a people have learned nothing but pettiness in response to injustice, as opposed to the empathy that proves a catalyst for real change.

The goal is to have every person free to live their life as he or she sees fit, and that as soon as possible.

Jaelithe wrote:

Perhaps a little too handsome, but ... acceptable. It'll be nice to see a character approximately the proper age when portrayed on screen.

I thought Garfield too pretty and self-assured to be a young Spider-Man—a bit of a smirk jerk. Maguire was, to me, far more convincing. Spider-Man is a hero. He's not really "cool," per se, in particular early on in his career. He shouldn't be extremely good-looking, or suave with the ladies; that's a concession to movie-goers who can't abide the idea of good not being perfectly sexy. In those first years, he should be picked on, lose girls to hotter guys, sneeze snot into his mask, have Twitter and Facebook mocking him (as well as supporting him), and live on the edge of poverty because he won't use his powers for profit. If not, the character's essence is lost.

Spider-Man, along with Cap and Iron Man, are the most important heroes in Civil War. The tug-of-war between the latter two for him should be utterly compelling, if this film is to work.

Well, remember that MCU Civil War is not going to be the same as comics Civil War. Spiderman may not have a very large role in it seeing as how it's the first movie he appears in while Ironman and Captain America are two of the biggest in the franchise.

Too true. I guess I'd like to see it. There is of course no guarantee.

I'm a staunch Catholic who can't stand the imposition of my personal and my church's morality on those who don't share it. On sites like this, I'm a screwball theist, and on Catholic websites, I'm one of Satan's middle managers for not upholding the party line. Funny how much is relative, ain't it?

I think the decision is the only one that can be made by those who are not allowing inappropriate influences to sway them. The separation of church and state is, in my opinion, critical to the proper governance of a nation interested in protecting the minority from the will of an oppressive majority.

Perhaps a little too handsome, but ... acceptable. It'll be nice to see a character approximately the proper age when portrayed on screen.

I thought Garfield too pretty and self-assured to be a young Spider-Man—a bit of a smirk jerk. Maguire was, to me, far more convincing. Spider-Man is a hero. He's not really "cool," per se, in particular early on in his career. He shouldn't be extremely good-looking, or suave with the ladies; that's a concession to movie-goers who can't abide the idea of good not being perfectly sexy. In those first years, he should be picked on, lose girls to hotter guys, sneeze snot into his mask, have Twitter and Facebook mocking him (as well as supporting him), and live on the edge of poverty because he won't use his powers for profit. If not, the character's essence is lost.

Spider-Man, along with Cap and Iron Man, are the most important heroes in Civil War. The tug-of-war between the latter two for him should be utterly compelling, if this film is to work.

I find it annoying and nonsensical when players think DMs should be subject to all the same limitations they are: Rolling in front of everyone, putting every one of his/her rulings up for a vote, et al. The game master is above the law, unless through previous conversation the group's decided his or her power should be somehow limited, and he/she agrees. Otherwise, the DM is and should be a benevolent despot with boundless authority as relates to the game. The emphasis, though, should be on "benevolent" and most emphatically not "despot." In other words, the DM should have the power, but seldom feel compelled to use it in fashion that aggravates.

And we can't even agree on how liberal the liberals are and how conservative the conservatives are.

This is going to end well.

Jaelithe wrote:

thegreenteagamer wrote:

I didn't even say it was bad, but Firefly is overrated.

And that is merely your assertion, one with which many discerning fans do not agree.

Just as a reminder...

The name of this thread wrote:

Confessions that will get you shunned by the members of the Paizo community

The righteous indignation isn't required.

Yeah, you're right, because my posts about divine casters haven't at all brought the self-righteous perspectives and push-back out of the woodwork ... and you've never been known to do this on other subjects, when your ire is piqued.

Since it seems my answers here about Firefly are generating posts, that means it's at least somewhat on-topic.

On the other hand, I've never encountered this worship-level enthusiasm people are talking about. I just think it's a great show, and that those who think it was great are not overrating it. Perhaps I don't frequent the sites and/or threads at which the show is given this degree and quantity of accolade against which you're all railing.

And mine is not the first post in response to a confession here, so ...

Ketchup is wonderful on ... pasta, especially pasta bolognese. This is objectively true, by the way, and people who think different are wrong.

The above statements will be used at your competency hearing. Good luck with that.

I mean ... yowsah!

I have never seen a Subway with a microwave.

And I've never seen a Subway without one.

It's just geek chic to like Firefly.

Rarely have I read a statement that screams "DEAD ... WRONG" more than this one.

I always thought training could be used to serve story. If gaining a level mid-adventure allows for some cool "I'm suddenly more a bad-ass, and know I'm gonna whup yours" stuff, rock and roll. If, instead, traveling to the peak of Mount Distant-and-Obscure, where you must convince Master Sneer to surrender his secrets, followed by a cool training montage would be fun, then go that way. This idea that it has to be consistent is ridiculous. If you think a training adventure could be fun, and all would enjoy it, do it. If you think only the guy training would, cram in a solo adventure if possible. If you think most would hate it, then just let the players level.

I don't put ketchup on anything. It's the ruination of a perfectly good tomato.

What you say has little to do with how people perceive your words.

That's once again been made abundantly clear.

You'd think I'd learn.

To some degree I agree with you. That would seem to imply no new GMs though? Or new players, since they wouldn't yet have the experience to trust implicitly?

Well, I think my group would want someone to play for a while before being given the reins.

As for new players, if they can't make a leap of faith based on the testimony of long-time players, that's their problem. I can't be held responsible for the fact that someone else screwed them. Play a fighter or rogue the first time around, I suppose. Alternately, leave your comfort zone and take a chance.

Seems to me a more open process of "here's the spells I'd approve" would seem less antagonistic than asking for some and only getting a subset. Especially... Seems to me a more open process of "here's the spells I'd approve" would seem less antagonistic than asking for some and only getting a subset. Especially if you were open to discussion on some of them - things normally banned but very thematic for the character for example.

I really just think that communication between player and DM is key.

I'd likely be down with spells that are normally banned if the player created a character for which they'd be wicked cool—especially in a sorcerer. They'd appear on his or her template ... and they wouldn't be disseminated as with a Scroll of Rare Spell that's now inevitably becoming a somewhat more common spell.

There is a false dichotomy seemingly set up of 'all choices and options are 100% free in all ways with no exception or the GM is just running the character' which I find faintly absurd.

There's nothing faint about it, in my opinion.

It's both preposterous and obnoxious.

The player only has his PC. The DM has the rest of the multiverse!

That's right. And the gods, who in this case give the PC his power, are part of that multiverse, and under the DM's control.

The PC is the only thing the players have, and taking away control of that PC makes the player wonder why he's even playing. Is it just to listen to the alleged 'DM' tell a story?

A DM who does this is by no means "taking away control of that PC." The interpretation that takes an explicated perspective and interprets it as negatively as possible (even after the actual position has been shown to be eminently reasonable) is beyond tiresome ... but perhaps endemic to many modern players, for whom anything that doesn't perfectly suit them causes immediate bleats of protest.

If a player wants full control over every aspect of their character, no matter how oblique and indirect, then don't play one whose power derives in almost full measure from the gods—who, in any common sense-tinged cosmology, are going to want their say in how their power is used, and will attempt to guide a character to at least a certain extent. That doesn't mean micro-management, which I myself would find wholly unacceptable. It does mean tweaking/nudging ... and rightly so.

This rings alarm bells for many players. The post that started this may have been meant innocently, but the way it came across was like this:-

Cleric's player: Here's today's list of spells that I'm preparing. Note that this list was compiled entirely within the rules for my cleric.

DM: No, you don't get to choose your spells; I get to choose your spells, and if you don't like it then you're a whiney little bi...hey, where's everyone going?

If it "came across" that way, that's in my opinion more about players presuming and being determinedly gun-shy, uncooperative and self-entitled than it is my communicating a reasonable position on distribution of divine power being evidence of tyrannical control freakishness. Amateur eisegesis does no one any good.

It could just as easily go like this. [Note that the following is obviously an example to illustrate, and is, like yours above, ridiculously extreme]:

Player 1 (Dick): "Here's my spell list." [Smirks.]

[DM checks proffered paper for ten seconds.]

DM: "Looks good, except you've added Animate Dead, which is, I regret to inform you, on the forbidden list for your character. Remember, your deity, while indeed the lawful neutral goddess of the underworld, is not in the least keen on opposing the natural course of life and death. She finds undead an abomination. So I'm going to disallow that one, and replace it with Searing Light, since her sister is the goddess of the sun, they're on excellent terms and you just may need it where you're going."

Player 1 (Dick) [in his best My Little Pony impression]: "HOW ... DARE ... YOU!

"It's my character! Mine! And I'll have whatever spells I want! It's right here in the book!" [Jams book in DM's face.] "RIGHT ... HERE!"

DM: "Um ... it's one spell, and it makes perfect sense why it's disallowed. I didn't just completely overhaul your selections. I made one change on a 15-spell list."

Player 1 (Dick): "No! This is about my volition! ... my rights! ... MY CHARACTER!"

[DM wipes a bit of Dick's spittle from his face.]

Player 2 (Jenny): "Hey ... take it easy, man."

DM: "This is a homebrew game, not Golarion, and the specific rules of my campaign trump those usually used for Pathfinder, as I've mentioned and explained time and again." [Holds up the House Rules.]

Player 1 (Dick): "I don't care! Your House Rules SUCK! Your games sucks! YOU ... SUCK!!"

DM: [Sighs.]

I've been doing this for 35+ years with numerous groups and players, and nary a problem or complaint. Of course, I do explain things beforehand, which evidently not all DMs do, considering the reactions some of my statements get here.

And people wonder why I don't always offer my opinion anymore.

Beholders miss ME.

That's because you float like a butterfly and sting like a bee.

Why Magic Weapon? That is one of the few ways a level 1 character can AT ALL harm an incorporeal creature.

Perhaps it's because I'm not one to throw an incorporeal creature at a 1st level character. I do all the balancing when it's my campaign, so I'm not going to leave characters high and dry.

I once ran a homebrew where the gods had been imprisoned by a more powerful force. Every day when the cleric prayed for spells I told him what he got for the day. A good time was had by all.

"LIAR! YOU ... YOU ... MOON-FACED ASSASSIN OF JOY!"

[Rolls eyes.]

After a quick glance at the Core Rules, I allow 21 or 22 of the 25 1st-level spells to a 1st level cleric. I hardly think that's tremendously inconvenient or outrageously restrictive.

It doesn't have to be this way, but most of the time when I see the idea come up it is blatantly for exactly this purpose.

You have my sympathy, then, because you've run into a phalanx of tyrannical, self-aggrandizing, control super-freak DMs.

This is sounding just like the DMPC thread, now, where everyone assumes that something out of their wheelhouse will be done primarily or even exclusively to screw them. It's really kind of tiresome, to be frank.

I have the feeling I'd employ this method and fully two-thirds of the people who're screaming, "UNFAIR! YOU ... YOU ... MOON-FACED ASSASSIN OF JOY!" wouldn't even identify what I was doing as objectionable, because it would never come off as, "Muah ha ha! You wanted that spell, and everyone else but you can have it!" That's not the intent at all, and it's not what I do.

To me, it's a deity being engaged with his/her divine caster, giving guidance and help, as well as certain limitations, as opposed to them simply being a divine Exxon station.

My confession: I outright refuse to play "Core Only" pathfinder, or any other version of it that signifigantly restricts my ability to customize my character. I am fine with a GM asking me to tone down a character's power or when he restricts a few things for setting reasons, but if he starts doing blanket bans of entire books just for the sake of it then I'm not interested in the campaign, lol.

I would also be extremely happy to continue to see paizo add more and more books to pathfinder for as long as my house can contain the books. The more options the better!

I don't know. To me, if a player wants to do something, and he or she is going to buy a book, I can at least read over the stuff in the PRD and try to accommodate him.

That only seems reasonable to me.

The Minis Maniac wrote:

I HATE card games. Hate them all and have developed a phobia of any TCG.

Unless the game is caller "poker" and is played for this stuff called "money" I agree totally. ;-)

If you're ever in central PA, stop by one of our regular games.

I could use the cash. :D

This implies that divine magic is somehow limited and only certain amounts of certain spells can be given out. Not what I'm interested in, in any way, shape, or form. I don't like the idea of my deities being limited in power like that. Not in my world, no thank you.

It doesn't necessarily imply anything of the sort. It does, instead, imply that a deity's motivations and interests are not limited to "make certain each of my priests is perfectly content with his or her lot and spell list 24/7." Players want their gods' powers unlimited, but to also have the gods in their back pocket (for all intents and purposes), anyway—an entertaining juxtaposition.

The divine caster character is a servant of the gods ... and the gods (that make sense to me) are interested far less in making sure you're a bad-ass in your own eyes, and far more in both teaching you and the disposition of your soul, in all likelihood according to the rules of some cosmic game (that quite conveniently plays out in precisely the manner the DM wants—as it should be ... subject of course to fun being had by all). Characters don't make demands and require things be a certain way from their gods. Instead they obey—contentedly or grudgingly ... but they obey, nevertheless, if they actually have faith rather than simply shopping around for the deity who gives them the best deal.

Meanwhile, any player who thinks his spell list sucks should address it with the DM. No doubt changes for the better can be made. But this idea that because a spell is listed in a rule book it must both exist and be accessible in a particular campaign is so enormously presumptuous and asinine it makes me laugh out loud whenever I read it. (And I don't give a flying f**k at a rolling doughnut if that's how Pathfinder does it for Golarion [though that's perfectly cool for their needs and those who enjoy it]. It doesn't sway me one nanometer for one nanosecond.) I tend to lose interest in such a setting rapidly, if not immediately, as a player. Just seems chaotic and counter-intuitive to me. (Then, again, I despise Golarion as a kitchen-sink campaign trying to be everything to everyone and thus failing, so there it is.)

Frankly though I'm against any attempt by a GM to limit the spells their players have access to unless the spell is considered to be too powerful or otherwise problematic. I always cringe a bit when I see posts about things like that. Especially with things like sorcerers' spells known - I don't like the idea of the GM saying "this is the spell you learn at this level, I decide how your magic develops not you". No thank you sir/ma'am.

You'd be right to balk at that. It would be unreasonable. It should be done via discussion between player and DM, the better to have the character evolve both according to the player's vision and within the parameters the DM requires. DM should not be inflexible. Player should not be unreasonable.

Wait, what am I saying?

As always, your mileage may vary.

I never liked that Clerics can access EVERY spell, even just using Core material. Add in the subsequent releases and it just becomes silly that they would even know to pray for most of them. I believe they should have a prayer book with their spells contained therein.

I have never allowed a divine caster free and full access to the spell list. He or she may pray for spells (with a progressively smaller chance of receiving them, from near-certain to highly unlikely) he or she has employed him or herself, seen used, heard of before, or wishes to add as one the gods grant. Now I'm not one for having players constantly or even regularly role-play such entreaties (other than, "I pray for my spells"), but they're certainly welcome to do so on occasion if it's an appropriate dramatic moment and their inner thespian moves them ... but, in general, a cleric, paladin, warpriest, druid, oracle, inquisitor et al. prays (submits a list of requested spells) and the gods (that's right, the DM) grant those with which they wish to currently endow him/her. It's in my opinion an entirely reasonable control—and damn skippy it's about control—to impose on a home-brew campaign, permitting the DM to allow only the magic he or she wishes in his or her game.

Of course, arcane magic users have their own limitations: They are not simply allowed to cherry-pick their pet spells from the various sources—something that's always irritated me about the modern game, and which I disallow with complete and unapologetic prejudice. Instead, wizard types start with a spell book that contains a number of them (discussed beforehand with the player). (Sorcerers and their ilk begin with an internal template they gradually unlock as they advance in levels, and which the player and I discuss so as to guide their preferences.) In my opinion, arcane magic should be a precious commodity received as a gift, bartered for, bought, created, stolen, extrapolated from something they've seen, found and/or intuited in extremis ... and I want it happening in game, because it's vastly more interesting than the more modern 'flip open a book and say, "Me likee dis one!"' system. Boring. Facile.

NO.

(Note that I would likely not attempt to employ this system while running for a prepackaged reality, where the assumptions are much different—at least not without significant modifications. It would cause, I imagine, more problems than it solves.)

I admit that was a poor choice of words. What does annoy me, is that the argument made in that specific instance usually was, that the complainer was upset that the ending wasn't a happy one because that was explicitly what they wanted, and yes ... I read numerous complaints about that ending where one of the bones of contention was something along the lines of "I want to see a happy ending. I paid for this game. Now do as I want!"

Is, perhaps, "get real" a better fit than "grow up"?