Red Dragon

colemcm's page

107 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 107 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Bill Dunn wrote:
colemcm wrote:

However this is exactly what the 1st edition Fighter was. They had some of the best saving throws in the game, because they didn't have magic and focused all of their training on being able to overcome whatever the magical world they existed in could throw at them.

I'm not sure why 3.0+ has insisted on making the Fighter the stereotypical dumb-jock. PF did a decent job in updating their fighting abilities from 3.X, but they're still 2/3 pathetic in the saves department.

A lot of people bring this up but I don't think a lot of people have really looked closely at the 1e saves. Fighter saves actually start out on the weak side and end up pretty good, but matched in a number of ways by both wizard and cleric saves. So what's the real story? Fighters had a very favorable table for improving because the saves were on the same schedule as the attack matrix - meaning they improve every 2 levels. That enables them to catch up and become really good overall at about 8th level, and dominant when the fighter hits his apex at 17th level (until the wizard and cleric catch up 3-4 levels later). Notice that 8th level point is when most demi-human fighters are stopping advancement and, according to a lot of anecdotes people bandy around about how 1e got played, about the point most campaigns are ending/petering out. If those claims are true, most people rarely played the game when fighters had the best saves. So I question how many people really saw this effect, of fighter resistance to anything requiring a saving throw, in action. I certainly question the idea that it was an important aspect of the 1e fighter's design as a class.

While there's some truth to this, the fighter at least had the potential to be as tough as nails. A 3.X fighter will always, ALWAYS be an easily manipulated puppet.

Adam B. 135 wrote:
I will put this simply. When I play a high level fighter my goal is to be Hercules. Barbarians are not Hercules. Rangers are not Hercules. The Fighter is the best Hercules, but he just can't do it.

The barbarian would probably make a better Hercules. That dude would lose it and go berserk all of the time.

It would have been nice to see an advanced class that blends the fighter with the magus; focusing on using Su to upgrade his martial abilities. Doing this would allow some people to play the supernatural fighter and others to play the mundane.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kolokotroni wrote:
And you cant just beef up the numbers on the fighter, for instance, your idea of a fighter thats 'highly resistant to magic' is problematic. Because if he is dramatically more restant to magic, he trivializes the encounter with the evil wizard. If he's just a little bit more resistant to magic, well you are in the same boat as Fx lead us too, just with a different variable.

However this is exactly what the 1st edition Fighter was. They had some of the best saving throws in the game, because they didn't have magic and focused all of their training on being able to overcome whatever the magical world they existed in could throw at them.

I'm not sure why 3.0+ has insisted on making the Fighter the stereotypical dumb-jock. PF did a decent job in updating their fighting abilities from 3.X, but they're still 2/3 pathetic in the saves department.

Of course, that's off-topic.

Half-elf's favored class bonus also gives an extra round per level.

The training in its use is definitely true, but ancient armies employed slingers in warfare to great effect. They didn't have to contend with plate armor at that time, but slings were still considered to be effective weapons. While it's true that it takes more skill to be accurate with a sling than it does with a bow or crossbow, accuracy is not the goal in mass warfare. You fill the air with as many projectiles as you can and hope for the best.

Crafting sling stones can be as complicated as pouring molten lead into a form or as simple as partially drying hand-formed bullets of sandy clay. When you compare the amount of effort and materials that goes into making a single bolt, it is effectively a more expensive piece of ammunition. Then consider the construction of a sling to a crossbow, there's no debating which is more expensive to create and maintain.

The crossbow IS a much more effective weapon, but that doesn't mean that a sling is an ineffective weapon.

Part of the problem with weapons in D&D is that they draw from multiple cultural backgrounds and time periods. Slings died out during the middle ages because they lost the arms race with the armor of the time. When you place the weapons of the past next to more modern weaponry, you end up debating weapons that occupied the same role in different time periods.

Except that a sling is fairly common among peasants due to its cost, while a crossbow is an expensive piece of equipment that fires an expensive piece of ammunition.

Belligerent guard: Gesturing to my shortsword, "What are you going to do, stab me with your little pig-sticker?"

Me: "You hardly know me well enough to discuss the size of my pig-sticker."

Traditional Chinese straight swords, or jian or gim, are comparable in weight and flexibility to other European one-handed swords, which the game refers to as a longsword. The nonsense wu shu versions are lighter and OVERLY flexible in order to create an effect that some people might find impressive when viewing a performance. These blades would never be able to give an effective thrust.

Chinese spears, or qiang, predominantly use a hardwood (usually white wax wood) for the shaft, not bamboo. They can also get up to lengths of 21 feet.

Good point about the weight of the scabbard and baldric, Lincoln Hill. Although I would still estimate the weight of a scabbard to be less than 2-3 lbs. that make up the weight difference.

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Lincoln Hills wrote:
Gladiatorial weapons are notable for the fact that they were designed not to be very effective. Then as now, the audience will get upset if the event is over before they've finished their beer.

Yes,... and no. Most types of gladiators used swords of some kind (e.g. among others, the hoplomachus, murmillo, samnite, thracian).

Partly, I assume, because the audience wanted to see "real" fights and the idea of watching someone using a net against someone using a rock gets dull after a while.....

But the key point to consider: why was a legionary equipped with a sword (gladius) and two javelins (pilum and verutum)? It's not that the legions didn't have time to train their soldiers -- a legionary typically signed up for a twenty-five year hitch, unlike the medieval laborers that had to go back to their fields for the harvest. Money wasn't really an issue either -- gladii aren't cheap.

If there were a weapon, exotic or not, that was substantially more effective en bloc than the pila and gladii, they would have used it. It's not that the Romans didn't know about nets and spiked chains, but that they chose not to use them "for reals."

Not that I disagree with you, but I have to mention that Roman soldiers fought in formation, which is impossible with a net or spiked chain. Thrusting weapons are great when fighting in a formation. Slashing and bludgeoning weapons? Not so much.

The historical accuracy of weapons in D&D is something that is non-existent. It's been that way since the beginning of the game. You just have to accept it and move on. Real longswords (or bastard swords, as D&D calls them), weighed in at around 3-4 lbs. Nowhere near the 6 lbs. the book lists. Katanas weigh in at around 2-3 lbs. (around the same as a European saber) and can be used in one hand without excessive difficulty, but you get a better cut when using two hands.
I've never understood why the saber has been completely ignored as a weapon since 3.0.

Imbicatus wrote:

Back to the OP, remember AC is only one of many defenses. Touch AC, Fort, Reflex, Will, and CMD are all things that can be attacked as well.

Monks have good saves, but if they worked this hard to boost AC, chances are CMD isn't as high. Grapple, Trip, Bull Rush, Reposition, and Dirty Tricks can wither deny the monk actions or limit his options.

Even if you can't reliably hit the Monk vs any of those defenses, there are ways to isolate the monk via Difficult Terrain, wall spells, and so on.

If a monk's AC is this good, it's reasonable to assume that his CMD is also really high, as are his Reflex and Will saves. Combine this with a monk's immunity to poison and disease, and that leaves a lot less vulnerability than you might think. High jump also allows for bypassing difficult terrain.

I don't think the OP wants to kill the character, just move him to a more manageable level that allows for all of the players (including their self) to have fun.

If it was just a matter of killing him, it wouldn't be so difficult. I'm pretty sure his touch AC isn't 60 either. A brutal encounter in a haunted dungeon with multiple ghosts could show him his weakness.

kyrt-ryder wrote:
When I see statements like, "Here's my list of items I will require for my build.", from the players, I smile and start deciding how hard to make them work for it, but will do my level best to provide it all to them in a timely manner.

All well and good, but the problem the OP seems to be facing is that they don't seem to be able to do this. They've fallen into the trap of thinking that they don't have the power to do so.

The idea that the DM may have to modulate the encounter to provide a reasonable challenge to the players isn't beyond the pale. As far I can see, no one is saying not to give them items. They're saying don't give them everything they want simply because they have an idea how to become uber-powerful.

Believe it or not, every adventurer in the world doesn't have a Handy Haversack. Some people just have to carry their stuff in a normal backpack.

When I see statements like, "Here's my list of items I will require for my build.", from the players, I call BS.

I think Gargs raises good points. Character optimization starts with the idea that at 20th level I want to be able to X, Y, and Z, so I'll lay out a plan on how to achieve this result. There's nothing inherently wrong with this. It's similar to real life thinking, where a person decides they want to be a doctor, so they plan out how to get into the school they want, how to get the residency they want, what kind of practice they want, etc. . . While their plan to be a doctor might work out, life has a way of derailing things. Even if they become a doctor, I'd be willing to bet it didn't work out exactly how they thought it would.

The path to becoming a doctor or accountant has obstacles, but the decision to do so is a fairly stable decision with a somewhat predictable pay-off. The decision to become a daring adventurer, plunging into abandoned ruins and facing deadly unknown monsters is probably less predictable.

Anyone who's read Gygax's Gord the Rogue stories knows that most of time, he and Chert were often just hoping to survive the encounter with a few coins to rub together. They still find items that are useful and become stronger, but their best schemes rarely have the pay-off they want; which sucks for them, but is still better than them having to get a job. lol

Lincoln Hills wrote:
Maybe, but unless the GM hands out Hero Points or something to compensate for actions that are in-character but give up a mechanical advantage, it's not likely to happen. Sadly.

There are a lot of ways to reward players. A monk that eschews certain items may gain a degree of respect from the order he belongs to or he may gain a higher degree of loyalty from his followers. There are any number of rewards a DM can hand out.

I'm not saying that everyone should play the way I play, but it's obvious to me that you are not happy with the way you are playing. Maybe that needs to be adjusted to something that is fun for everyone? Technically, you're a player too.

I cut my teeth on role playing with 1st edition, where finding a magic item was always awesome. Magic items were unique and inspired a certain degree of excitement from the player.

That said, I don't think the setting has to be low magic to counteract this mentality. Players adventure to discover things; ancient ruins, lost lore, and treasure. The DM determines what treasure the players get. WBL doesn't mean they get what they want, it means they find treasure roughly worth a certain amount. If they want to sell it for gold and buy what they want, they necessarily take a loss in wealth due to resale costs. They can try to make the item work for them, or sell it and get an item that is more in line. The point is, WBL shouldn't be treated like a character's salary.

If you are going to have a magic shop in your game, it has whatever it has in it. If you're looking for a specific item, there's no guarantee you'll be able to find it. The purveyor may just be a salesman, so he may not even be able to make the item the character wants. Even if he has the ability to make an item, what if he doesn't have the requisite spell knowledge? Not having that makes the chance of success lower, which should drive the price up.

Also, keep in mind who the character is what they are about. A monk is the ultimate model of fighting through self-investment. If they just wanted to utilize tools to be the best warrior they could, they would have been a fighter. A player should keep this in mind.

It reminds me of Drizzt and the Mask of Disguise he had in The Halfling's Gem. He could have kept the mask that made him look like a normal elf, but discarded it because he felt it was wrong to effectively lie about who he was. Most gamers would never approach their character this way, but maybe that's part of the problem. Maybe there should be more concern about the development of the character and less about loot they have.

Zedth wrote:

This is one reason why I hate the "ye old magic shop" mentality and I flat out don't allow it in my games. The CRB list of magic items is not the Sears Mail-order Catalogue of Adventurer goodies in my games. It leads to focusing on getting specific items instead of on RPing.

Virtually every past game I've played in that allowed the purchase of magic items, with what is essentially meta-game player-knowledge of what is available, turns into an orgy of greed and nonsense.

Walmart is envious of Ye Old Magic Shop's distribution system.

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe I'm just a disgruntled old-school gamer, but one thing I always wondered about these kinds of posts is how the characters know that these items are available in-game? How does the monk character have this obscure lore about the functions and interactions of various magical items? Does he have a high degree of skill in Knowledge (Arcana) and Spellcraft? Does he even have ANY?

Magic item creation is kind of a cottage industry. There are now ioun stone factories churning out a vast quantity of the exact kind of stone the player wants. How is the item just readily available because the player decided that he wants it?

WBL is a great tool for balancing the game. . . For the DM. It should never be used as a tool for the players to inform you of what items they have. Even if the character has the necessary skills to know about these things, how are the items automatically available? Does he start putting out feelers among merchants to find them? Do they sense how badly he wants the items and jack up the price accordingly?

In short, call BS when people try to meta-game like this. Bare minimum, make getting the items a serious challenge for them.

Or time travel.

Getting around the +2 to all attributes is easy. Just have your player create them like they're a standard human. He's still an Azlanti, he's just kind of a weakling.

I'm gearing up to play an urban barbarian who thinks that his rage ability is a gift from Pharasma. He sees himself as one of her priests and behaves accordingly, using his "divine" gifts to hunt down and kill undead.

Don't know if it's been mentioned, but an Antipaladin's spells are powered by their Charisma, so you don't need to boost her Wisdom.

So the way to make crossbow's not suck is to have a posse? I guess that's one way of doing it. But then they still suck, because you're limited to a standard action. Iterative attacks are out.

Also keep in mind that a druid is likely going to view their animal companion in the same way that they view their PC companions. If the party's rogue died while scouting ahead it wouldn't affect your druid in a way that would make them lose their powers. I don't see the companion's death as being an abuse of their powers.

Ascalaphus wrote:

It's the Small Reinforced bows that vex me most. But I do think we're on the right track here. We're going to make the crossbow the shotgun to the longbow's SMG.


Side note. A friend told me tonight that historically, crossbowmen had civilian sidekicks that wound up their crossbows, so they could rotate through several bows at a time to keep up rate of fire.

Except the rules would probably require a move action to take a crossbow from someone.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That seems to be designer M.O. Instead of admitting that something doesn't reflect reality and expanding the bounds of a weapon's attack possibility, just create a feat to allow someone to do it or give a huge penalty when they try it. Like the thread on here about having to take a -4 to use the butt of a spear to hit someone because it's technically an improvised weapon.

My mistake.

My issue with the crossbow is how blown out of proportion the disparity between a bow and a crossbow is, when the only real disparity is their rate of fire. Bows are obscenely and unrealistically more powerful than crossbows. I'm not sure why this bias against the crossbow is strong as it seems to be.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ross Byers wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
But this is a digression: I was agreeing with the idea that crossbows were designed as simple weapons, and they are quite deliberately not as good as bows. And I'm okay with that.
And I was stating that even with the penalties, I still find the bow preferable to the crossbow.

So, for my level 2 sorcerer, I should prefer a 25% chance of doing 1d8-1 damage to a 45% chance of doing 1d8, just to save a move action? Even if that move action doesn't occur during combat, or I wouldn't have moved anyway? (I'm assuming a target with an AC of 14, since that's the Bestiary guideline for CR 2)

Saying 'both options are so bad you should use a cantrip instead' is moving the goalposts.

Sorry. I don't have a lot of sympathy for the character that eventually gets to nuke entire villages having to struggle at the beginning with not being optimal in combat with a weapon.

The crossbow rules represent the difference in draw weights by having different spanning mechanisms. This works rather poorly, in my opinion, but is easier to represent in the rules.

It makes very little sense when you're talking about a lever-based spanner, because it's just a lever. The limit on the bow strength should be based on what the user could push or pull with the mechanism. However, if you're using a crossbow with a windlass or rack-and-pinion mechanism, the strength of the user is far less important.

Either way, both should be able to have their damage modified to account for Str damage as a composite bow can. The difficulty is determining what's a reasonable Str limit for a crank-loaded crossbow.

P.S. Disallowing a non-composite long/shortbows from have higher draw weights makes no sense to me.

P.P.S. At least light crossbows do more than they did in 1st Ed. 1d4 for a crossbow bolt was ridiculous.

Alexandros Satorum wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
PD wrote:
I've had to chase after my 3-year old son...
I don't care what your 1st level commoner did. Get some Fighter levels and then come talk to me.
to put it more accurately In game terms, the random commoner does not have proficiency in heavy armor.

Or agility training while carrying any kind of load.

There was a feat in 3.5's Complete Arcane called Practiced Spellcaster that boosted your CL by +4, but not above your level.

Too look at history as a seamless string of dates and factoids is to make history unmanageable. Whether you like it or not, history is, at its base, story-telling. All stories must have a beginning and an end. Does this create an artificial break in the series of events? Yes. It also makes it manageable because it groups events that are relevant to each other to show how they interacted in the world in a significant way. Even these artificially defined eras are broken up into sub-eras and specific topics.

The idea of a Medieval era is used in exactly the same way that the idea of a Renaissance era was, yet you seem to take no issue with it. Would you have us believe that there were no period of significant change between the Medieval era and the Age of Enlightenment? Did the Enlightenment spring whole-cloth from the Medieval era without causation? This makes no sense to me.

That a movement does not affect a significant portion of society has no bearing on whether it can be considered a movement or not. I'm unsure why you maintain that it is otherwise. Regardless, during the Renaissance larger society WAS changing. The Black Death had killed millions of people. Those that survived began moving into cities to replace those that had died and began replacing them in the cottage industries. This produced a significant change in the social mobility of the average person. When you have a period of large social mobility and combine it with a re-emergence of classical Greek and Hellinistic thought (with notions like democracy and republics), you can see where historians may look at this time period and say, "Something started here."

P.S.: Altering people's quotes and then responding to them is uncool.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Separating one historical era from another is highly problematic. Historians usually do so by selecting a significant development that was instrumental in the transition of one era to another, in this case the development was humanism. It seems to be an artificial distinction to draw, and it is. Historians debate when eras begin or end all of the time. I assert that humanism was an important element in the establishing the Renaissance era.

Again, humanism has little to nothing to do with secular humanism in this context.

To state that the Renaissance didn't happen because it wasn't ubiquitous in Western society is akin to stating that plate armor never developed because foot soldiers didn't get access to it.

As an historian, I have never in my life heard a single historian assert that the Renaissance not happen. You're going to need a lot of supporting evidence to change my mind on this.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
colemcm wrote:
I think it's a mistake to treat the renaissance as something that didn't really happen. Of course it's difficult to define when one era transitions into another, but the emergence of the humanism had a profound impact on the development of Western society. This is what the renaissance was.

If the renaissance was only humanism, we'd only be talking about humanism. The renaissance is also thought to be a period of reborn western culture, increased secular learning, and quality of life. Except that for the vast majority of european people, this wasn't the case.

  • Education didn't become significantly widespread, staying in the hands of the wealthy and the nobility
  • Most humanists were not truly secular thinkers, and many were even members of the clergy.
  • The term implies that the medieval age was a period of non-learning, stuck between the Romans and the Renaissance. This isn't the case.
  • Most people still lived rurally and worked agriculturally. It wasn't as if this was a period of technological revolution.
  • Mortality rates increased in some areas of Europe, so it wasn't as if increases in quality of life were universal

Even if we were to say it was something that happened, "The Renaissance" is a laughably Eurocentric view to apply to a setting like Golarion or any that stretches beyond the typically Western trappings of fantasy. The far East and most of the Islamic world were either not influenced by Aristotle, or had already been studying Greek and Roman philosophy for centuries.

I never made the claim that no learning occurred during the medieval period. Nor have I claimed that everyone's life was enriched during this time.

Humanism was not a secular movement, it was a religious one. It was a revival of Greek/Hellenistic methods of thought in the process of learning, which had formally been based pretty much on interpreting scripture. It also saw the application of these methods (primarily Platonic and Aristotelian thought) to interpreting scripture. This was a significant departure from the vast majority of medieval learning and that distinction is important.

As far as applying the renaissance to Golarion, I've already stated that I was referring to it in the same way that the DM's Guide uses the ter renaissance as a demarcation of technological development. I make no assertion that our world and Golarion are analogous in any way. So everyone can stop trying to set this straw man argument on fire.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it's a mistake to treat the renaissance as something that didn't really happen. Of course it's difficult to define when one era transitions into another, but the emergence of the humanism had a profound impact on the development of Western society. This is what the renaissance was.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Viewing history from a vulgar perspective is a relatively new approach. It was usually viewed from the perspective of high society.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Unfortunately, codifying the alignment system would probably lead to adding a section to the book that is almost as large as the magic section.

I think it's pretty clear when people are saying that it's medieval or renaissance, it's implied that we're talking about the technology base used during world design, as per the DM Guide's rules for world creation.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Once again, relating this because it was ignored.


First: Pathfinder's not really a medieval setting. It's more of a renaissance setting.

Second: Don't confuse the propaganda of who these men were with the reality. These knights were not paladins as the game describes them. Giving them holy titles had more to do with the exercise of political power on the part of the church. The church described them as good because they served the church. Much like terrorist organizations describe suicide bombers as good. This is not a matter of morality (which alignment is), it's a matter of political power.

Propaganda of what is good is not the same as the reality of what is good.

That's on the side of the defender, I'm talking about the attacker.

When armor (including natural armor) provides defense, Str become more important because armor is something that has to be powered through. It's not just a matter of whether the weapon makes contact and where it hits.

It's not a matter of nerfing a class because you don't like it's abilities or think they're too powerful. It's about what the class actually is. It's about role-playing a character that wants what's best for the world and is sometimes forced to perform an action, like killing a person, that he disagrees with because there's no other option. Because if he wasn't conflicted about killing people, he'd be evil. If you want to play an evil character, then do that. An insane anti-paladin that thinks good people are evil would be an interesting character. But good people are not just the guys that kill evil people, they are teh exact opposite of evil people. They kill when they have to, not because it's easy or convenient. When they kill, it's with a sense of regret, because they would rather not have to do it.

Reducing the equation to, "He's evil, so I can do whatever I want.", is not what the class is about. If a person wants to play it that way in a home game and the DM allows it, that's their business. They don't need anyone's permission for that. However, I don't think that you're going to convince a lot of people on this board that the smite-on-sight interpretation is the only one, or even the right one.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Using Dex as the primary combat stat makes sense for systems that have a defense value, but since D&D incorporates armor as defense instead of damage mitigation, Str makes more sense.

If armor provided DR, Dex would make more sense, since striking someone would be a matter of one person's agility against the agility of another. Str would still be required to determine damage.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's been a long time since I played, actually. I usually ended up doing very episodic adventures. My group only got together every couple of weeks, so details easily got lost in the shuffle between games.

Anyways, I'd usually start at the end of the plot. Then work my way back, adding NPCs (how/if they're involved) and add in extra possible hooks. Kind of an "all roads lead to Rome" approach. Not all hooks get noticed, so it's good to have back-ups.

I like personalized stories, so I have my players write up detailed histories and base some of my games off of those.

As someone who actually trains Taiji Jian (Quan means boxing, Jian is the sword), the biggest benefit of having a free hand is that you can use it. You can strike with it and/or you can grab with it.

So a good approach would be to come up with feats that allow maneuvers like off-balancing an opponent before a weapon strike (grant a bonus to hit, but don't flat-foot them) or tying up an opponent's weapon or shield with a standing grapple.

Nice story! I disagree with it entirely, but it's well written and compelling.

Not every life that a paladin takes puts him at risk of falling. He IS a warrior and that's the means he uses to achieve his purpose. However, a paladin tempers those means with justice. This means that, whenever possible, he acts with forethought and restraint.

When facing a demon, this process is rendered moot. A demon is a creature spawned of evil. It is literally formed from evil.

When facing an evil human, this gets complicated. A human's current status depends on its past actions, but it is not a definite indicator of what they will be in the future. After all, everyone who ever tried anything probably failed until they succeeded.

So in my example, the point isn't that orphaning the kids is evil. The point is that killing somebody with no evidence besides your magic evil-detector pinged is an evil act. It is murder. Killing a person who is not directly threatening you or anyone else is murder. Killing a person just because you believe that they might hurt someone in the future is murder. It's as simple as that. Justice is necessarily an after-the-fact event.

Orfamay Quest wrote:

I think it's simpler -- or perhaps more subtle -- than that.

Good is supposed to oppose evil. But it's not necessarily supposed to kill evil things -- and, in fact, is explicitly supposed to avoid that if possible.

But that also doesn't mean that anything you do in opposition to evil is itself good. The D&D Blood War is an example of that.

That's actually exactly what I've stated in my other posts on this subject.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
HarbinNick wrote:

-I find these arguments over paladins a sign of the amorality of the times.

-60 years ago they would not have such arguments.

That's not really true. The idea that people are less moral than they used to be is a fallacy.

My dad thinks that people were nicer in the '50s and they were. . . if you were a white kid living in middle-class suburbia. It wasn't so good for a lot of other people.

A little over 60 years ago the U.S. gave immunity to Japanese scientists who had engaged in gruesome biological and chemical experimentation on Chinese citizens in exchange for the results of their research. If you don't believe me, look up Unit 731. It's well documented.

There is no Golden Age. Every generation has to learn what it means to be moral.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Guys, please remember this is d&d. It's medieval fantasy. Back then it was ok to kill people just for being evil. You can rule it however you wish in your games but the "you can't kill them just because they're evil" is a much more modern mind set.

If only this were a thing of the past. The idea that you can kill whoever you want because they're evil is still alive and kicking.

1 to 50 of 107 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>