The Thing That Should Not Be's page

No.

No it doesn’t.

All the removal of slavery [based on concepts taken from how slavery has been practice in our real world in the last few centuries] does is eliminate white supremacy talking points from Golarion.

That is it.

All real-world societies have practiced (and some currently are still practicing) slavery. No one is okay with this except despots and warlords. Calling out slavery as bad is the height of strawman burning, as if anyone disagrees. It is telling that you chose to use 'white' here when Paizo-published slavery isn't about whites. Your mask is slipping.

If you don't want a backdrop of slavery to grimdark your game landscape, that is fine. But making emphatic statements that nothing is lost is subjective. Playing a downtrodden slave in Dark Sun (for example) was an absolute blast because you were actively breaking the mold, because of the inclusion of the dark subject matter.

Having dark subject matter in a game is not in any way giving a pass to or abetting the same thing IRL.

/puke

It's actually a pretty fair comparison. The LBTQ Gamer Community thread doesn't actually discuss gaming all that much, but rather day-to-day LGBTQ life (and copious amounts of hugging). There's nothing wrong with that, but thejeff's point is that for the most part, the thread is game-themed in name only. So to say that the thread isn't comparable to the examples given is (hypocritically) intellectually dishonest.

Needless to say, I disagree and don't think it is fair at all.

"LGBT Gamer Community thread" does at its core have to do with gaming, in that as a hobby we've grown from a boys-world to a more diverse culture, one that has necessarily adopted a more open-arms approach. There is meat to that conversation and it is certainly on-topic. (side note - if that thread isn't often talking about LGBT-gaming issues as you stated, that is problematic because it is going off topic, likely with political overtones. Someone might stroll into that thread looking for a healthy discussion and find themselves reading a bunch of political bs. That's a problem.)

"Democrat Gamer thread" is a ridiculous comparison because there is nothing about being a democrat, republican, torie, or labour party that has anything to do with gaming.

It is exactly this kind of muddy-water ambiguity that makes any political discussion on a non-politics site unpalatable to me.

So if I started a "Democrat Gamer Community" thread, that should be fine, because it's gamers?

I do think it's not an entirely fair comparison, but I find it surprisingly hard to justify why I think that.

Aaaaand I'm out. You've gone from an intellectually dishonest comparison to full-blown non sequitur.

Should the LGBT Gamer Community thread be shut down as a hot-button political issue, that has nothing to do with the business and is little more than an echo chamber?

I think you know that's not a fair comparison. LGBT GAMER Community does have to do with Paizo, a gaming business.

And frankly if you think the political threads around here are echo chambers, I don't think you've been reading them. I think they were generally pretty damn good, but there's certainly plenty of disagreement. Thus the locking and banning. :(

I've perused some and found them toxic, usually one-sided mudslinging, and so unpalatable that I have no intention of stopping by again. Admittedly this is anecdotal and a limited sample size.

Opinion:
Paizo is a business, one that has absolutely nothing to do with politics, and on its face it makes little sense to facilitate the hosting of political discussion, even if labeled 'off-topic'.

In my experience online political discussion is seldom helpful and more often than not becomes a pissing contest. Exacerbating the point further, most RPG gamers seem to gravitate to a particular side of the aisle, and thus these threads become little more than echo chambers.

I say gut 'em. They're divisive and problematic for the community. There is no shortage of free-speech outlets to voice political opinion and participate in discourse.

The odd elf wrote:

The rules state any class can use independent research to learn spells

Are you even reading our answers?

Several of us have agreed that you *can* use "independent research to learn spells". It's just that they are not *additional* spells.

This x 1000.

Your problem is multifaceted.

I have a player with a gnome druid with a Roc in one of my campaigns. There have been no balance issues. They are tough, but theres no reason to not let them have one.

/thread

Everyone see this? I guess there are no issues.

--------------

As a GM my players spend much of their game time (and by extension, much of the combat) in open areas while traveling. A level 1 character with flying is a perfectly legitimate topic for GM concern; they can trivialize landscape challenges, can have unparalleled scouting potential compared to non-flyers, and can move at lightning speed. All of those change the dynamics of a game in pretty heavy ways, especially for me because I emphasize those types of challenges to my low level players. Without even looking at the combat stats of the animal I would already have a reason to raise an eyebrow to the notion of a flying level 1 character.

This thread seems to be wholly focused on combat stats comparisons which I actually find surprising. The benefits of flying are better illustrated outside of the combat arena.

The Thing That Should Not Be wrote:

The words of the Constitution don't make mention of race or gender as having different tiers of rights - it simply stated that all men (mankind) are created equal

That's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

You're absolutely right. I conflated texts when describing overarching concepts of 'Murrican Exceptionalism. You are correct to point it out, though in my first post I did cite both texts:

For the entirety of human history power has sought to maintain and grow itself, and so when the founders carefully planned out the words of the Declaration and the Constitution it was with the express purpose of putting a muzzle on government power.

The original Constitution didn't even enshrine all white men as being equal, let alone women and people of color. Also, it came after the failed Articles of Confederation (a truly small and limited government). You're also failing to recognize how much of our system was actually based on English common and represented only minor tweaks to the overall system.

Lastly, something can't be both unique and exceptional. Or rather, one of the terms is redundant, and since unique is an absolute term, it should take precedence and just drop the "exceptional". Unless you're using "exceptional" to mean "superior", which case you're contradicting yourself since you say you're not trying to place the US above other nations.

Democracy isn't unique to the US. It didn't originate in the US. Actually, what makes us exceptional (rare/uncommon) is that we were one of the first people's to declare war against our rulers and win. But that doesn't really have that much to do with democracy. Most previous examples were conquered people's regaining their former kingdom/empire/etc or staving off a foreign invader.

The words of the Constitution don't make mention of race or gender as having different tiers of rights - it simply stated that all men (mankind) are created equal (with the notable exception of the 3/5 compromise which is almost always taken out of context as a black person only being 3/5 a person instead of the voter-to-representative issue that came to life as a sort of "many states abhor slavery but we have to compromise for the time being so we can get all states on board" issue that it was. We had to stand united at that point in history, but mere decades later that all came crashing down) Whether equality was practiced or not isn't at issue - of course it was not. But the principles are there and were meant to be.

I somewhat agree with your comment about how we patterned our government after the English but that is to be expected since the vast majority of colonists were English, but inalienable rights and notions of limited government were indeed unique and not part of old world governance. In particular the notion of limited government was foreign to English law. The crown had virtually unlimited power to rule as they saw fit and routinely changed the law on their whims.

I don't see how something can't be unique and exceptional. It feels like you're semantically dancing around terms instead of taking them at face value. Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach all wrote exceptional music, and their masterpieces can certainly be termed unique. There is no contradiction or redundancy there.

The term "American exceptionalism" is not a subjective term; it is not about democracy, it has nothing to do with winning wars against former rulers (the US is certainly not the first to do that, as you claim), and it is not about one people being superior to another. It refers to the notions of individual freedom and limited government being enshrined in a nation's founding document. It is exceptional it its nature and unique in that it had never before been implemented.

America's republic is special and unique because it was the first nation in history to be founded on the idea of personal freedoms being paramount. Government was deliberately set up to be small and limited, which was an unheard of concept. For the entirety of human history power has sought to maintain and grow itself, and so when the founders carefully planned out the words of the Declaration and the Constitution it was with the express purpose of putting a muzzle on government power.

That is what makes the US exceptional. I've heard a lot of folks take exception to the notion of "American exceptionalism" because they believe it puts down other nations. This isn't a statement of brash unfounded pride to prop the US above the people of other nations; it simply refers to the concepts upon which the republic was built. In that regard, the US is undeniably unique and exceptional.

I get that folks wanted change, especially an America first economy candidate. Sad thing is, they could have had Ron Paul who would be entirely more qualified than Trump. Instead we settle for the TV star. However, the right will probably consider Trump another God like Regan.

I think you mean Rand Paul? (as a small "L" libertarian he was my 1st choice)

Most of the right do not like Trump because Trump is not conservative by any stretch of the imagination. He's been a democrat for most of his life and he still holds most of those "New York values" as Cruz put it. Trump got the vote because half of murrica was tired of being called racist and misogynist for rational disagreements with Obama and Hillary's policies. This is represented by the fact that nearly all the pollsters got it wrong due to people being afraid to voice their true opinions.

Yes, some silly hoo-hoos (I'm looking at you Newt Gingrich and Sean Hannity...) will prop him up as some golden idol, but I sincerely doubt he'll maintain any historical hero status among the republican base in any similar fashion to Ronald Reagan. He has zero capacity to keep his foot out of his mouth and we have at least 4 years of that ingrained behavior to witness.

Just roll a 60% miss chance.

wat

I have a an extra pair of Horse Blinders of Willful Intellectual dishonesty +5 for sale, only 500gp. It does appear that most of you already have a pair and wear them daily, if this discussion is any indication.

If your head slot is already taken I have a Brooch of Circular Logic that I might be willing to part with.

My display of Potions of Echo Chamber is empty. They've been flying off the shelf, but I can look in my backroom stock.

Varys is the new king of teleporting. From Dorne to a ship in half an episode! Freaking amazing He'd make Goku proud!

The voyage from Dorne to Mereen across the narrow sea is what, a couple/few days? It would have taken the dragon queen's armies weeks to prepare for their voyage, which is plenty of time for Varys to return.

(Snarkless, as it happens.)

When someone starts off a sentence with "Yeah, no" all I see is snark.

Trimmed for clarity. First, a big part of the reason is what you just said. You currently already have apps that do what you want. There's no real incentive for Paizo to get into the market when it's already satisfied by a multitude of free software.

The very purpose of this thread was inquiring about the viability of Paizo adding some more 'official' apps to this pool of independently written apps. I was attempting to highlight my relative dissatisfaction with the available software, in a roundabout sort of way. Also many of the good apps are not free, further indicating that there is money to be made by presenting an alternative.

I haven't seen a game in at least 5 years that didn't have multiple players at the table with a tablet and/or smartphone, using apps on either or both to streamline aspects of game play. It seems to me like a niche waiting to be filled -- a niche that will only get larger as the years go by and tablets become even more affordable and integral.

Yeah, no. An auto repair shop shouldn't take the evidence that there are available "what's wrong with my car?" apps as cause to put down the wrench and write some software. Mechanics aren't software developers, and neither are publishers (regardless of what talents individual specific employees at the garage or publisher might have). If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing right, and Paizo doesn't have the background or infrastructure to do this right, even if it was worthwhile, which I've pointed out above it isn't.

What an oddly snarky response.

I did not suggest that Paizo "put down their wrench". Companies expand their horizons all the time, and they make partnerships with other companies. Paizo isn't a miniatures company either, but their logo is slapped alongside Wizkids' on the boxes of miniatures that many thousands of us purchase with regularity. It seems a little presumptuous to discard the notion out of hand, just because they're not a software company.

Apps are big, big business and they are not going away anytime soon.

That said, as stated by Steve Geddes, if "Vic" has stated they're not interested, then that is that. I'm just one voice among a million, so maybe I'm overestimating the potential. It is entirely possible that Paizo has already conducted surveys/studies to gauge interest and have acted according the results.

TL:DR -- it's much more complicated than you appreciate apparently.

What you consider "Not a valid problem" is much bigger than you think, and isn't even the biggest problem involved.

Maybe, but complicated =/= not worth doing.

That isn't really a valid problem in my opinion, as evidenced by the myriad existing apps designed to streamline the Pathfinder experience. Making an app compatible for both formats is a hurdle, nothing more.

I am mostly satisfied with the apps I've chosen, but I felt inclined to bring the notion to the forums because I believe Paizo could do a better job while also being able to include trademarked names, art, and materials.

Some examples of apps might be:

-A bestiary index
-A comprehensive spellbook app that includes ALL Paizo spells, organized by class, level, school, etc... one that auto-updates with new released material...one that has a 'saveable' spellbook feature for individual characters.
-An initiative tracker. (Paizo already offers the physical magnet one, why not make an app for everyone with a tablet?)
-A character builder (something akin to HeroLab, but maybe on a lesser scale. Could be as simple as a clickable character sheet with built-in math for AC, to-hit, , CMD/CMD, and saving throw calculations)
-A comprehensive 'Feats' app, with breakdowns and suggestions based on classes, class feature interaction, feat trees, etc.

As far as I know there are only 2 apps that Paizo offers -- the crit deck and the fumble deck in app form.

I'm curious why there aren't many, many more.

Paizo is wonderfully active in giving the player base a multitude of source material, options, toys, and tools to make their Pathfinder experience as awesome as it can be. I put forth that there is money to be made and great tools to be offered in the form of iphone/ipod//ipad/android apps.

I currently use several independent apps for a variety of things that are immensely helpful in-game at my home tabletop sessions.

What rule system will this be? Sounds kinda cool.

Greetings to my possible new friends in the City of Sin,

I am probing for interest right now. I might need a player or two to fill a spot(s) at my existing game, and/or I might be starting a whole new game sometime in the near future.

Game info:
*My homebrew setting is an option. -it's basically a classic D&D/rpg world with people and places of my own making, subtle and significant changes to the norm here and there...
*big fan of Dark Sun, I played it in AD&D 2e, I've been giving some serious thought to running a Pathfinder conversion of Athas/Dark Sun.
*I might be willing to run an adventure path

I generally prefer 3-5 players. I live on the south-west side of town; first game meet-ups would preferably be at a game shop near there. -I think the closest shop with tables is Little Shop of Magic on Flamingo and Decatur.

Reply to thread if you're interested.

I loved Dark Sun in the 90s / 2e D&D, I might be interested in this.

I don't know enough about 4e to hate it, but I know enough that I don't like it.

As DM, you are the arbiter.
Low magic can absolutely work in Pathfinder. At mid-to-high levels it might be more of an issue with the defenses of the challenge-rating equivalent monsters, but that can tweaked by DM fiat as well.
I hate "ye old magic shop" and I don't allow it in my games, with a couple of notable exceptions. I have a city in my homebrew campaign that was founded by an archmage, and it is a magic friendly city. There are a handful of wizards/clerics/blacksmiths there who are willing to craft items for the right "price" (not gold... must be trade value of something rare or magic)
Another exception is the hedge-witch in small towns-- sometimes I'll allow the purchase of some low level potions/oils there, along with alchemical items.
I tend to agree that low-medium magic is the way to go. Pathfinder certainly does have the tendency to lead to Monty Hall games with piles of magic items. I do my best to not let that happen.
If you don't like the magic item creation feats, simply disallow them, or only allow them after an epic quest for the knowledge. If your players are on board with you, then it shouldn't matter too much how many tools from the toolbox you remove.

No comment on the NPC codex. I don't have it, and I haven't perused it.

"Stay in saddle, Ride DC 5: you can react instantly to try to avoid falling when your mount rears or bolts unexpectedly or when you take damage. This usage does not take an action."

This "or when you take damage" is what bothers me. I see nothing at all in the mounted combat section (pg 201-202 CRB) regarding having to make a ride check when you've taken damage. Shouldn't that section specifically iterate this? It seems like a pretty important omission.

I feel like it needs some clarification. Any damage at all? Someone acid splashes a mounted rider for 1 point of damage, and they need that ride check to stay in the saddle?
A charging mounted opponent crits you(while you're mounted) for 70 points of damage, and that prompts the same DC 5/stay in saddle ride check?

Does this also mean that anyone with a minimum total skill bonus check of +4 to ride can essentially never be dismounted until that mount dies or goes unconscious?

I have a hard time wrapping my head around this. Any thoughts?

Poison is a tool, nothing more. It is like a gun. It is inanimate, unthinking, and morally ambiguous. It is the USE of this tool is what might make it evil.

Adun, I hope you think this through again. Your devotion to consistency is problematic if your ruling was an error in judgment. Where would society be if we valued rigid consistency in our laws over good moral judgment?

I fail to see how a ranger who uses poisoned arrows on his enemies is committing an evil act, simply based on the poison use itself. His arrows are incredibly deadly all by themselves. If he shoots an arrow at an Orc who is chasing a small child, he is trying to save the child's life. If he shoots a poisoned arrow at that same Orc who is chasing a small child, the only difference is the effectiveness of the arrow. The motive is the same.