Place Your Rant Here


Gamer Life General Discussion

2,101 to 2,150 of 3,910 << first < prev | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

James Keegan wrote:

You know who's awesome?

Tesla.

Tesla had invented this machine where you would grab two coils and electricity would dance across your skin as you completed the circuit. Apparently, it was really exhilarating. So he's hanging out with Mark Twain one day, and Twain tries out the machine. Twain's standing there with electricity running all over his body and he's like,"Wow! This is amazing!" And after a few more minutes, Tesla says,"Hey, Mark. I think you should really get down now." And Twain just keeps holding it, he says,"No way! This is too great!!" And Tesla says again,"Okay, but I think you should really get down now."

After a few more minutes, Twain shouts,"WHERE IS IT?!" Tesla knows exactly what he's talking about. He says,"Down the hall and to the left." So Twain runs down the hall and to the left to the watercloset.

And s#%!s his brains out like he had never done before.

Nicola Tesla gave Mark Twain the worst diarhhea of his life without even trying. That totally beats putting your college roomate's hand in a bucket of warm water while he's passed out.

Sweet! Tha story rocks! Is it real? I know that Tesla lived in the US, but I wasn't aware he was good friends with Tesla.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

I HATE THE PAIZO MESSAGE BOARDS!!! That's my rant. Another post eaten. Now I'm pissy.

Aberzombie wrote:


Yeah, I guess Bush and his cronies were too blinded by oil greed to consider the consequences of their actions.

That's such an accurate depiction of my simple minded one sided view of the world, it's scary.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I have no doubt that Bush had the best intentions in doing what he did. I'm not even convinced that invading Iraq was necessarily the wrong thing (buckle your seat belt and reread that - I don't actually form my opinions based on Fox News, the New York Times, or somebody else's party line). I am convinced that it was handled in the wrong way. After 9/11, the country and the world were united behind the United States. That goodwill was not only squandered, it was spurned. Reagan would not have squandered it. Hell, even Nixon would not have squandered it. George W. Bush did. The only way he could have run the war in a worse way would have been to start with nukes and end with Christian conversion camps.

But I'm all ears. If you have an explanation for why we needed to invade at the time we did, in the manner we did, for the reasons known to our leaders (though not necessarily our people), please, spout forth. Just don't start with "we thought there were WMD's" or "the terrorists that destroyed the twin towers came from Iraq" because those are both false statements and insufficient justifications. We thought there were WMD's being developed in Korea and Iran at the time, but we didn't invade those countries.

Aberzombie wrote:
Yeah, I guess I was just going off a poll done not too long ago where they said a large majority of all college teachers thought of themselves as liberal. And where there are liberal high schools is usually in the Northeast and the left coast, both with large population densities.

And what exactly was the source for the poll? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that it came preattached to a particular political ideaology. You may find that once you subscribe to a diversity of information sources and ideas that the truth is not so simple as "Bush is greedy."

Also, in a similar vein, I'd advise you to pick up media from the other side of the political debate. I know that over in Bill O'Reilly land, Christians are persecuted and so are right wingers. But over in New York Times land, gays are persecuted and liberals are bullied. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there are a@#&~#+s on both sides making life miserable for each other and not some objective truth in which one side is more persecuted than another.

Aberzombie wrote:
Or that those who are against the death penalty can be in favor of abortion.

Or vice versa?

Aberzombie wrote:

Of course, my point about this was that Global Warming enthusiasts were saying that the scientific evidence to support their side existed. And there was some. But there was other scientific evidence that suggested they might be wrong. Point being - we really don't know for sure.

As for believing in Jesus and the Bible. That is a matter of faith. I've never even suggested that it could be proven one way or the other.

Got it. So, it's okay for people to impose their beliefs if they are based solely on faith in a magic book (e.g., stem cell research), but it's not okay for people to impose their beliefs if the are based on some scientific evidence (e.g., global warming).

I don't understand why arguments for less pollution are per se bad. The fundamental argument is that the costs of production should be internalized by the producer. The extent of those costs is debatable, and the global warming people might be overstating those costs, but to approach the argument from the perspective of "there is no cost" is ridiculous.


Aberzombie wrote:
James Keegan wrote:

You know who's awesome?

Tesla.

Tesla had invented this machine where you would grab two coils and electricity would dance across your skin as you completed the circuit. Apparently, it was really exhilarating. So he's hanging out with Mark Twain one day, and Twain tries out the machine. Twain's standing there with electricity running all over his body and he's like,"Wow! This is amazing!" And after a few more minutes, Tesla says,"Hey, Mark. I think you should really get down now." And Twain just keeps holding it, he says,"No way! This is too great!!" And Tesla says again,"Okay, but I think you should really get down now."

After a few more minutes, Twain shouts,"WHERE IS IT?!" Tesla knows exactly what he's talking about. He says,"Down the hall and to the left." So Twain runs down the hall and to the left to the watercloset.

And s#%!s his brains out like he had never done before.

Nicola Tesla gave Mark Twain the worst diarhhea of his life without even trying. That totally beats putting your college roomate's hand in a bucket of warm water while he's passed out.

Sweet! Tha story rocks! Is it real? I know that Tesla lived in the US, but I wasn't aware he was good friends with Tesla.

Even if it isn't real, it's a great story anyways. And I think Mark Twain totally would have copped to accidentally giving himself a serious case of the dripping fudge'ems.

Tesla would also threaten to build a machine that would use electricity to collapse his neighbor's house if they didn't quiet down. He had plans for it, and I think Mythbusters tried it out. But it wasn't powerful enough as written.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Development

Heathansson wrote:

Everybody in Texas doesn't wear a cowboy hat and drive around in a cadillac with bullhorns on the front.

Just me and Daigle.

Kinda late to this but...

Don't fergit da part 'bout us firin' our six-shooters!

Paizo Employee Director of Game Development

Aberzombie wrote:


Sebastian wrote:
Why is it that those who say life is sacred don't mind the fact that tens of thousands of innocent people are dying in, among other places, Iraq?

Or that those who are against the death penalty can be in favor of abortion.

Or that those who are against abortion can be in favor of the death penalty?

I don't think that analogy works.

Scarab Sages

Sebastian wrote:
I HATE THE PAIZO MESSAGE BOARDS!!! That's my rant. Another post eaten. Now I'm pissy.

I think that is happening to a lot of folks these days. We've been theorizing about it on the "Untitled" thread.

Sebastian wrote:
I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I have no doubt that Bush had the best intentions in doing what he did. I'm not even convinced that invading Iraq was necessarily the wrong thing. I am convinced that it was handled in the wrong way. After 9/11, the country and the world were united behind the United States. That goodwill was not only squandered, it was spurned. Reagan would not have squandered it. Hell, even Nixon would not have squandered it. George W. Bush did. The only way he could have run the war in a worse way would have been to start with nukes and end with Christian conversion camps.

Actually, like you, I think that Bush had the best of intentions going into Iraq. I do think that, ultimately, it was the right thing to do, as we (finally) got off our butts and deposed at least one brutal dictator. As far as going about it the wrong way, the only other choice would probably have been to not go at all. There was never anyway, in my opinion, that we were ever going to convince France, Russia, China, or the majority of the U.N. membership that this was the right thing to do. The ultimate rightness or wrongness of Bush's actions will be argued about long after we are dust.

Sebastian wrote:
I know that over in Bill O'Reilly land, Christians are persecuted and so are right wingers.

Actually, I really don't like Bill O'Reilly, or shows like his. There are often just so much yelling back and forth between folks. Lots of interruptions. Never a civilized debate. But thanks for making that assumption.

Sebastian wrote:


Aberzombie wrote:
Or that those who are against the death penalty can be in favor of abortion.
Or vice versa?

I was operating under the idea that Death Row inmates have been convicted of a terrible crime. Unborn children have done nothing but come into existence.

Sebastian wrote:
Got it. So, it's okay for people to impose their beliefs if they are based solely on faith in a magic book (e.g., stem cell research), but it's not okay for people to impose their beliefs if the are based on some scientific evidence (e.g., global warming).

I don't think it is right for anyone to impose their beliefs on anyone else. I also don't think it is right to ignore some scientific evidence just because it doesn't support a particular viewpoint, whether for or against. My point was that some people think we do not have enough knowledge to settle the debate. The people whose works I've read, such as Bjorn Lomberg (spelling?), are skeptical of whether or not global warming exists, or how much mankind's actions might contribute to any changes in the global climate.

Sebastian wrote:
I don't understand why arguments for less pollution are per se bad.

Who said that arguments for less polution are bad? It certainly wasn't me. I was just questioning the seeming absolutness (is that a word) of some people's arguments on the subject.


Krypter wrote:
Grór wrote:
Rant: What happened to this game?!

For what it's worth I agree with you totally, Gror, but unfortunately we're in the minority. D&D is turning into Warhammer before our very eyes, and Warhammer is just a soul-less corporate business squeezing money out of expensive miniatures. It's not roleplaying, but apparently WotC aspires to that operational model. Sure, the rules have been fixed and are patently more logical, but a game of imagination and creativity has been turned into a tactical board game.

Thank you very much Krypter!

I appreciate your candor & taking a chance of incurring the wrath of our fellow gamers.

Did you notice that the only other posts responding to mine concern rules mongers LOL?

Well, I love gaming & still look forward to getting back into it again, however, I suspect that if I do DM in 3.5 I'll probably try to meet players who are not as rules-intensive & just want to have fun & develop more characters & plots. We use to play in Middle-earth & it was a blast. Hmm. Maybe newbies who aren't tainted by the rules (rolls eyes).

Seriously though, thanks again & hang in there, cause reading other websites convinces me that more of us than WOTC/Paizo realize probably feel that something is off the tracks with the game, however, they needed to fix broken rules & appeal to the Anime (sp?) & Manga generation raised on video games with incredible graphics, films with superlative CGI, make money off minis & so on.

Different strokes & all that. If that's what works for you, fine, it's just not my thing & since this is a rant, I figured I'd throw in my 2 pence.

D&D still rocks for all of its faults, it's just that now I see why I meet so many gamers who say "I use to play D&D but moved on to (fill-in the blank) which is a better system because..." bwah, bwah, bwah.

If you're one of those gamers you know exactly what I mean. If not, that's fine too, whatever works for you.

The Exchange

Grór wrote:

Thank you very much Krypter!

I appreciate your candor & taking a chance of incurring the wrath of our fellow gamers.

Wrath? Hardly. No one really gets flamed on these boards, so it is a pretty risk-free strategy posting here.

Grór wrote:
Did you notice that the only other posts responding to mine concern rules mongers LOL?

I'm not sure what your comment in respect of rules-mongers really means, but since your comments seemed to be about the speed of the game and how it seems to be more tactical and rules-based than it used to be..... Well, yeah - and some of us quite like that. I'm not sure than makes me a rules-monger, and even if it does why that should be bad.

Grór wrote:


Well, I love gaming & still look forward to getting back into it again, however, I suspect that if I do DM in 3.5 I'll probably try to meet players who are not as rules-intensive & just want to have fun & develop more characters & plots. We use to play in Middle-earth & it was a blast. Hmm. Maybe newbies who aren't tainted by the rules (rolls eyes).

What - you played MERP? Or even Rolemaster? With all those complicated critical tables?

Grór wrote:


Seriously though, thanks again & hang in there, cause reading other websites convinces me that more of us than WOTC/Paizo realize probably feel that something is off the tracks with the game, however, they needed to fix broken rules & appeal to the Anime (sp?) & Manga generation raised on video games with incredible graphics, films with superlative CGI, make money off minis & so on.

Different strokes & all that. If that's what works for you, fine, it's just not my thing & since this is a rant, I figured I'd throw in my 2 pence.

D&D still rocks for all of its faults, it's just that now I see why I meet so many gamers who say "I use to play D&D but moved on to (fill-in the blank) which is a better system because..." bwah, bwah, bwah.

I have to say that, really, your point is probably not correct. Many more people are now playing D&D than before, and the new rules reinvigorated that, and probably the whole RPG hobby. So while a few people may not like 3E compared to the previous systems, I think that the evidence points more in the opposite direction. Many people, including myself, didn't play D&D for years. 3E reignited my interest, provided a system which actually seemed to offer quite a lot in terms of content and what a character could do, and got me rolling dice in company again.

I also don't think that 3E precludes character development and story-telling. That is mostly in the hands of the players, DM included. Sure, you have a system which delineates combat in detail. But nothing forces the players to draw their swords if they don't want to. And it provides a much more detailed mechanic for social interaction than ever applied before in previous editions. The game possibly appeals more to power-gamers before than it used to, because the options available are much greater. But a perusal of these boards surely indicates that current D&D players are not a bunch of power-gaming min-maxers. Yeah, some are - but not all of them.

As for the rules and miniatures - there are commecial reasons for a lot of that. I don't want to get drawn into that particular debate as it has been rehashed before, but if the companies producing these games don't make money, they don't produce the games. I don't see that as a good outcome.

Grór wrote:
If you're one of those gamers you know exactly what I mean. If not, that's fine too, whatever works for you.

Quite. You are, of course, perfectly entitled to your views, though I contest them, and in particular your preferred style of play, which is totally up to you. It is always interesting to get the views of others, which is why most of us are on these boards. When all is said and done, our differences boil down to individual preferences.

Scarab Sages

Now on to something different. I’d like to rant about something that will, perhaps, earn me heaps of scorn. It is a topic that has plagued mankind for well over 40 years. A topic that is more controversial than cloning, more polarizing that politics, more argument-producing than illegal immigration, and more hate-inducing than George Bush stealing candy from a baby. This subject ignores race, gender, religion, mental stability, and even sexual preference, drawing many men (and more than a few women) into its insidious, violent, and statistic-ignoring embrace.

I am writing, of course, about (American) Football.

Specifically, I am speaking about professional (American) Football. Not to be confused with Association Football (rules for which were codified in England around 1863 and henceforth spread across the world via the British Empire), also known as soccer, American Football is (like many of today’s great inventions) a proud product of the United States and its people. From here on out, and for simplicity’s sake, I’ll just call it football.

Even more specifically, I’d like to write about the upcoming Conference Championship games and the four remaining teams with hopes to complete a long and difficult journey to the Super Bowl (which is, or so I’ve heard, one of the most watched sporting events in the world).

The Chicago Bears and the New Orleans Saints will play in the NFC Championship game. Not many people (including yours truly) expected either of these teams to be here at this point. Each team has worked hard and been well rewarded. All that aside, Da Bears (despite what SNL might say) are not the end-all, be-all of pro-football. Their vaunted defense (suffering from injuries) struggled against the Seahawks. The quarterback, Grossman, is easily rattled and prone to mistakes. The Saints, on the other hand, are a good team with a history of losing games they should win. Not to mention that they are a southern, dome-playing team who will be faced with some nasty winter weather. Nevertheless, these lovable losers are said by some to be playing the best football in the NFC. Who will win? As Yoda might say, “Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future.”

The AFC Championship will be played by the Indianapolis Colts and the New England Patriots. Is anyone else tired of seeing these two teams in the playoffs? I know I sure am. The Colts, under Peyton Manning, are perennial playoff losers. Will they ever win the Big Game? At this point, who cares? Then there is New England: Yes we know that Belichick is a god (or at least a demigod) among men and that his only begotten son, Tom Brady, can walk on air and multiply beer and wings with a pass of the hand. However, you are stuck up there in the Northeast with the snow, ice, and Dagon-worshipping ichthyoidal mutants. Do you really expect the rest of us to care if the Pats win (again)? I will say, however, that I think the winner of this game will likely go on to win the Super Bowl. Miracles can happen though.

On a final note, it has been announced that, starting next season and over the next five years, the NFL will attempt to schedule at least two games in countries outside the US. They already have a game set for London. Cool huh. Its about time we got moving in trying to get the rest of the world hooked on our football the way they have wanted us to embrace soccer.

Oh yeah, GO SAINTS (as if you didn’t see that coming)!


Lilith wrote:
ZeroCharisma wrote:
I haven't had a Shiner Bock in nearly a year and a half!!!! Frackin' Goram so-called "refined" NY palates. They don't even carry it at the distributors up here. They don't know what they are missing. Boo! Rant of the day over.
*cries with ZeroCharisma*

On the bright side, I discovered that Spaten Optimator (a double bock from Germany) which we have on tap at the restaurant where I tend bar, tastes a little like I remember Shiner tasting, and with the lights low, and Patsy Cline playing on the sound system, I could almost convince myself... But it is like trying to replace a lost lover with a one night stand... It just ain't the same, and it makes you miss her more.

Thanks for the sympathy Lilith!

P.S: Superbowl Prediction: Patriots 27 Saints 20... Sorry, N'awlins fans... Consensus among us Jets fans is that it will make our season seem less shameful to have been eliminated by the Superbowl Champs, so I am busily praying to the powers that be that despite a tight game, New England will pull it off in the last few minutes. If all goes well, I will be drinking a Shinermator (my new pet phrase of self-deception) as the clock ticks down and NE takes the trophy.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Daigle wrote:
Aberzombie wrote:


Sebastian wrote:
Why is it that those who say life is sacred don't mind the fact that tens of thousands of innocent people are dying in, among other places, Iraq?

Or that those who are against the death penalty can be in favor of abortion.

Or that those who are against abortion can be in favor of the death penalty?

I don't think that analogy works.

Sure it does. The contradiction is artificially manufactured through lazy reasoning in each instance. Look at the original argument:

You can't be anti-death penalty and pro-choice.

The logic underpinning this argument seems to be 1. if you are for killing babies then 2. you must be for killing people in general. Given 1 and 2, the fact that you are against killing convicted criminals, the most worthy of death, and yet for killing babies, the least worthy of death, is a contradiction.

I suppose on talk radio that's a contradiction, but in reality, the two principles stem from different lines of reasoning. People are typically pro-choice because the emphasize indiviudal liberties and freedoms for the woman and minimize or disregard those of the unborn child. People are typically anti-capital punishment because they don't believe the state (a different entity from the individual) should be killing people, or they believe the process of convicting somebody of the death penalty is inherently flawed or biased. In no event is the person holding these philosophies pro-death, which is the "logic" supporting the contradiction.

You can make the same simplistic argument on the other side of the coin. 1. People who are pro-life believe all life is sacred; 2. Prisoners are alive. Given 1 and 2, people who are pro-life cannot say that babies' lives are sacred and criminals' lives are not. Ta-da! Contradiction. Of course, those who hold these two simultaneous beliefs can also reconcile them through arguments based on guilt/innocence, the effect on society, etc.

My point is that both arguments are intellectually dishonest and laughably simplistic. Their sole purpose is to make people who are on the opposite side feel morally superior about their beliefs because they can trap the other side in a contradiction.


Aberzombie wrote:
A lot of stuff about a wedding.

I know it's not the first time you've mentioned it on Paizo, but still: Congratulations, Mr. Zombie. Here's wishing you the best, and (provided it matches your intentions) many happy, healthy (er, does that work?) zombie children. :)

Scarab Sages

Sebastian wrote:
Daigle wrote:


Or that those who are against abortion can be in favor of the death penalty?

I don't think that analogy works.

Sure it does. The contradiction is artificially manufactured through lazy reasoning in each instance. Look at the original argument:

You can't be anti-death penalty and pro-choice.

The logic underpinning this argument seems to be 1. if you are for killing babies then 2. you must be for killing people in general. Given 1 and 2, the fact that you are against killing convicted criminals, the most worthy of death, and yet for killing babies, the least worthy of death, is a contradiction.

One of the principle arguments of the pro-choice movement is that life does not begin at conception, therefore the unborn are not equivalent to those that have been born. If the unborn are, by that logic, not people, then your number 2 assumption that pro-choicers are in favor of killing people in general seems faulty.

Certainly, however, it can be reasonably argued that someone who is actually guilty of a vicious crime and sentenced to death is more worthy of that death than an unborn child who has done nothing but come into existence.

Sebastian wrote:
People are typically anti-capital punishment because they don't believe the state (a different entity from the individual) should be killing people, or they believe the process of convicting somebody of the death penalty is inherently flawed or biased.

But could it not then be argued (from a pro-life assumption that life begins with conception) that if the state sanctions abortion, and the state is the ultimate responsible authority, then they are allowing for the termination of life. This would, in effect, be giving the death penalty to an unborn child.

Scarab Sages

Saern wrote:
Aberzombie wrote:
A lot of stuff about a wedding.
I know it's not the first time you've mentioned it on Paizo, but still: Congratulations, Mr. Zombie. Here's wishing you the best, and (provided it matches your intentions) many happy, healthy (er, does that work?) zombie children. :)

Thanks Saern! I appreciate the sentiment. Actually, the Missus and I have had limited discussions regarding children. She wants to get a Masters degree and put off kids for at least 5 years. That would put me near to 40, but if my brother could do it, then so can I. And if we do have a kid, I hope its a boy. I have two nephews who look like their fathers so far, so any boy of mine stands a good chance of being equally blessed with my own good looks.

bends to pick up the rotten ear that just fell off


Considering I've never really given a rat's rear about football until the last month (and even then it's only marginal), and I live in Indiana, I'll say that I am rooting for the Colts. But mainly I'm hoping that Prince's half-time show won't suck and that the commercials are better this year than last.

There's been some talk about what a lot of people consider the Forbidden Subject (but since when have citizens of Paizonia cared about boundaries?): Abortion.

So, here's my view on the whole thing, since I just know you all were loosing sleep for lack of knowledge about my opinion:

Abortion isn't inherently evil. Abortion should be used for medical reasons, to preserve the health and safety of the mother, and it should also be allowed in cases of pregnancies from rape. Also, some parents just shouldn't raise kids. That's right, not everyone should be a parent. I'd rather those people use contraceptives to begin with, but if the abortion will save an entity from a sucky life, then so be it. And, some people just aren't ready to have kids. Once they get their lives together a bit more, they may be great parents, but at the time, it's just not a good option for anyone, so an abortion is the best thing available. Again, contraceptives should have been in play, but things don't always work the way they should.

Abortion shouldn't be a form of birth control. I find that a reprehensible act.

Also, I don't consider the fetus "human" until very, very late in the pregnancy.

Abortions naturally occur from time to time. We all know that. Also, if a mother uses fertility drugs and ends up with a lot of embryos growing inside of her, for the safety of the babies-to-be and the mother, the medical practitioners selectively abort certain fetuses. No one seems to be upset about that.

On quasi-related notes- Stem cell research. What the hell is with all the furor? The eggs would just get thrown out, anyway. A pile of cells isn't human, and if it can be used to save the life of someone with a debilitating or fatal illness, go for it. Trust me, God won't smite you. God hasn't seemed to be big on the smiting thing for the last few centuries, at least.

Similarly, I believe that contraceptive measures should be mandatory. I don't have any illusions that this would ever happen, but as I said, some people just shouldn't be parents. It seems far more logical to me that one should have to work to become a parent, rather than running the risk of it accidentally happening. I know that it's extremely impractical and would never work, but it's just my vehicle for saying that dumbasses shouldn't have kids.

But, on to the heart of the matter of this post: Adoption. Why the hell isn't this more common? I'm adopted. I never felt ostracized or like I "didn't belong." My parents didn't use me for child labor or stigmatize me because I wasn't theirs by blood. All that crap is just that: crap.

Why is it, however, that there seems to be more stigma over carrying and birthing a baby, and then giving it up, than there is over just terminating the thing before its birth? That seems screwed up to me.

I would like to see more support behind adoption, in the form of legislation. I would rather see parents who aren't fit to raise children give their baby to adoption, rather than copping to their own selfishness and aborting.

For the parents that would raise a good child, but just aren't ready for it, it can be more painful, but those people should especially see the benefit of giving their child over to someone who is willing to raise the baby, so that the child can grow up to have a fruitful and enjoyable life.

Also, being adopted, I feel fairly confident in speaking for others in a similar situation about another issue: The question of "Who Am I?" I grew up knowing I was adopted, and it never bothered me, but that question still came into my mind from time to time, and it was very compelling.

For that reason, there is a high probability that, at some point in the future, the adopted child will seek out its biological family, as I did, so the birthparents shouldn't feel that giving their child away is the absolute end of the line for their relationship.

Asking "Who Am I?" also entails a lot of wondering how much of oneself comes from genetics. What little ticks and idiosyncracies do I have that were passed down to me from my parents, and what ones are purely unique to me, and what parts are purely developed out of my environment?

The answer, in my case, to "How much of me is genetic?" Very little, to tell the truth. Sure, there are plenty of minor things here and there that I've found I have in common with my blood relatives, but as for "me," I am, as one would guess, an individual, with mostly individual traits.

However, those questions are also the types of things that one has to answer for themselves. Even if someone else tells you that, "Most of you doesn't come from your birthparents, but is more a product of your unique history," that's not good enough. It's the type of answer that can only sink in when you've experienced it first hand.

And yet, there is deffinately a link between the birth family and the adopted child. Whether this is purely a construct of the psyches of the two parties or is somehow biologically or even spiritually based, I don't know, and it's probably irrelevant. But it's certainly a good thing, and it provides a complete sense of self, community, and close to those nagging inqueries.

One final word on that subject- For adopted people wondering about their birth families. Know this: There was a reason you were given up. If you are lucky, it's gone. The parents just didn't have the money or residence of something like that, and decided it would be best to give you up.

But that may not be the case. There's a good chance that whatever problem existed at your birth still does.

The one "bad apple" in my birth family happens to be the woman who spawned me (see my rants about ten pages back on this thread) (I used the word spawned intentionally, because I think it better describes the birthing process of fiends). You know the queen alien from the second Aliens movie?

Yeah, that gave birth to me.

So it's always good to approach the situation with some caution and not be too dreamy eyed, because it can sting like hell if the reality doesn't match the dreams you had. (But, there will typically be at least some relatives, if not a whole lot, that also want to welcome back an adopted child and forge close personal bonds, so don't despair!)

There. That's my rambling, train-of-thought that got spurred by the word "abortion."

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Aberzombie wrote:
One of the principle arguments of the pro-choice movement is that life does not begin at conception, therefore the unborn are not equivalent to those that have been born. If the unborn are, by that logic, not people, then your number 2 assumption that pro-choicers are in favor of killing people in general seems faulty.

Agreed. But the original statement presented was that you cannot be pro-choice and anti-death penalty. The common principle that would make those positions contradictory is a disregard for human life. Without that common princple, there is no contradiction in those positions.

Aberzombie wrote:
Certainly, however, it can be reasonably argued that someone who is actually guilty of a vicious crime and sentenced to death is more worthy of that death than an unborn child who has done nothing but come into existence.

Yeah...that statement is so loaded with assumptions that it's not really worth a response. Not being divine, it's difficult for me to determine who "deserves" death. In the case of criminal justice, that decision making process has been delegated to the courts. They could operate better, and to the extent that deliver death disproportionately or mistakenly, it might be better to forgo that punishment altogether. In the case of a person's own body, I defer to them and their morales.

Aberzombie wrote:
But could it not then be argued (from a pro-life assumption that life begins with conception) that if the state sanctions abortion, and the state is the ultimate responsible authority, then they are allowing for the termination of life. This would, in effect, be giving the death penalty to an unborn child.

I suppose, but I would then argue that if the state is assuming the responsibility of bringing unwanted lives into the world then the state should therefore take responsibility for the health, welfare, and well-being of such persons. In fact, I would argue that if the state is concerned with causing death through inaction, the state should also provide food, shelter, and health care to its citizens, since the failure to provide these supplies can also lead to death.


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

"What - you played MERP? Or even Rolemaster? With all those complicated critical tables?"

You cracked me up with this one-glad we can razz each other a bit!

Actually, I was referring to playing D&D in Middle-earth, which worked wonderfully once we tweeked the rules a bit to reduce the magic & such (different strokes), however, also played MERP a couple of times. You were right on this one, too "crunchy" for me.

At any rate, take care & hope you're having good gaming!

The Exchange

Sebastian wrote:
Aberzombie wrote:
One of the principle arguments of the pro-choice movement is that life does not begin at conception, therefore the unborn are not equivalent to those that have been born. If the unborn are, by that logic, not people, then your number 2 assumption that pro-choicers are in favor of killing people in general seems faulty.

Agreed. But the original statement presented was that you cannot be pro-choice and anti-death penalty. The common principle that would make those positions contradictory is a disregard for human life. Without that common princple, there is no contradiction in those positions.

I think alot of people are against the death-penalty because they don't want see an innocent person killed for something they didn't do or because they stand behind God and say "he/she will be judged, it isn't for us to pass judgement.

On the 1st issue..... I don't have any figures excepting a few blurbs I have heard in the new BUT I would be willing to bet that more people have been by "friendly fire" in the last 3 years then have been put to death wrongly by our government in the last 100 years.
On the 2nd issue..... Yes, God will judge them, but I don't want some monster running around for 50 years and I don't want to feed, clothe, house, and entertain a monster for 50 years. Instead of trying to stay "pure" and "holy" how about you take some responsibility for society as a whole and protect the interests of the innocent instead of the guilty. God will judge them and I would like it to be sooner rather than later.

FH

Paizo Employee Director of Game Development

Saern wrote:


Also, I don't consider the fetus "human" until very, very late in the pregnancy.

As the Reverend Bill Hicks once said, "You're not a person until you're in my phone book."

On a serious note....good rant. Both of my wife's parents were adopted. While her father turned out to be a real scumbag, her mother is a saint - truly. My wife is extremely interested in genetics and the characteristics that get passed through DNA, but she can only trace things back a single generation (which is better than heaps of people get). I have a stacks of paper from my grandma and aunts that have the name of everyone that begat a Daigle in our line back to the late 1600s, so I feel bad sometimes. Though while she wants to know more about her genetic make-upand family history, and I wish I knew less, we both know that a person makes the person and that's what's important.

As far as kids go, we're both fertile and childless, yet if we were to raise a child we have already decided that we would prefer to adopt rather than create a new consumer of resources.


My Rant: Dragons! I know their pretty cool but enough already! I don't need dragon gods, people painting dragons on their bodies, people finding all kinds of new and fascinating ways to turn into a dragon. I am sick of having to tell PCs time and time again that no they cannot play their half dragon/ half whatever. Why can't the play it? Because its too powerful, would overwhelm whatever I put in a campaign no matter how much tinkering I do and also because to pt it plainly... THEY SUCK! I am sick of in each of the far too numerous supplement there is yet another way to turn into a dragon or become more like a dragon. I think that D&D should go to just a few PC races all with LAs of +2 or under. Do I want a stone giant sorcerer in my campaigns? No, absolutly not. Do I want an Mind-flayer? No! Do I want a pixie rogue buzzing around like a gnat spending all of her time invisible so I have to come up with yet another lame excuse why monsters can see her? Im sure you can guess the answer. What do you do when you need to add a new element to D&D to liven the game up? You come up with yet another lame PC race, presitige class or template. What I want to see is a new, creative world campaign setting in which not everything is preplanned so a DM can show a little creativity. I still do enjoy the game immensly allthough I do put considerable limits on it with my PCs. Well it felt good to vent a little before I killed someone.


Arctaris wrote:
...I am sick of having to tell PCs time and time again that no they cannot play their half dragon/ half whatever. Why can't the play it? Because its too powerful, would overwhelm whatever I put in a campaign no matter how much tinkering I do and also because to pt it plainly... THEY SUCK!

I'm with you :)

As far as wierd PC choices, we use a 28-point-buy for attributes IMC. Players have to stay within an ECL range (no exception), and any non-standard racial choices only get 25 points to build a character. It's my way of making planetouched half-dragon ninjas with lycanthrope bloodlines rare.

Just say no to the freak show -- core races forever! :)

Regards,

Jack


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
What - you played MERP? Or even Rolemaster? With all those complicated critical tables?

I loved MERP and ICE's Rolemaster system -- but it was so tedious we only played once or twice at a time before going back to D&D (or whatever).


Daigle wrote:
As far as kids go, we're both fertile and childless, yet if we were to raise a child we have already decided that we would prefer to adopt rather than create a new consumer of resources.

Thank you for the support. One couple down, 1,000,000 to go... :)


Arctaris wrote:
My Rant: Dragons! I know their pretty cool but enough already! I don't need dragon gods, people painting dragons on their bodies, people finding all kinds of new and fascinating ways to turn into a dragon. I am sick of having to tell PCs time and time again that no they cannot play their half dragon/ half whatever. Why can't the play it? Because its too powerful, would overwhelm whatever I put in a campaign no matter how much tinkering I do and also because to pt it plainly... THEY SUCK! I am sick of in each of the far too numerous supplement there is yet another way to turn into a dragon or become more like a dragon. I think that D&D should go to just a few PC races all with LAs of +2 or under. Do I want a stone giant sorcerer in my campaigns? No, absolutly not. Do I want an Mind-flayer? No! Do I want a pixie rogue buzzing around like a gnat spending all of her time invisible so I have to come up with yet another lame excuse why monsters can see her? Im sure you can guess the answer. What do you do when you need to add a new element to D&D to liven the game up? You come up with yet another lame PC race, presitige class or template. What I want to see is a new, creative world campaign setting in which not everything is preplanned so a DM can show a little creativity. I still do enjoy the game immensly allthough I do put considerable limits on it with my PCs. Well it felt good to vent a little before I killed someone.

Amen to all three counts! (Too many dragons, too many races with the option of being played, and too many supplements)

I personally think that the supplements were more or less complete with the Completes. The rest of them have both hit and miss elements (like the PHB2). I wish I could turn back time and compile all the "hit" parts into just a few book, and take all the reams of paper with "misses" printed on them and turn them into adventures instead of supplemental rules.

Here's hoping for that model in 4E (or a fairly big change in 3.5)!

Liberty's Edge

I think with regards to the supplements/ hit and miss/....
each supplement has a core audience.
I love the Book of Nine Swords,
and looked at Magic of Incarnum and said, "meh..."
I'm sure someone else out there loves MoI and uses the BoNS as a doorjam, because their brain doesn't work like mine.
Heck, I know someone who...(gasp)...ONLY uses the core 3 and says, "if you can't make up what you want with these three books, you're some kind of husk creature zombie from Dark Crystal who had his soul sucked out." Well, he didn't say that, but...

Liberty's Edge

Why is the only alternative to the conservatives a bunch of liberals who want to tax 3/4 of my income for b. s.?

Grand Lodge

That's what you get with a two-party system. It is no accident that democratising countries worldwide have consistently opted for party systems unlike the American and British ones.

Liberty's Edge

Yeah. It's like the republicrats. I can't tell who is who anymore. Al Gore is oil money, and he never lifted a finger to do anything as V.P. to protect a single blade of grass, and then he makes a movie.

Liberty's Edge

3.5e. has 745 prestige classes.


Heathansson wrote:
3.5e. has 745 prestige classes.

You know, I get the sneaking suspicion that this is somehow...excessive. Correct me if I'm wrong. And is this counting OGL material or purely WOTC printed stuff?

Liberty's Edge

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/lists/prc
It's on the index at WOTC. All WOTC stuff.
Only I looked again, and some PrC's have 2 or three entries.
So I'd estimate it's actually only about 500 or so PrC's.


Heathansson wrote:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/lists/prc

It's on the index at WOTC. All WOTC stuff.
Only I looked again, and some PrC's have 2 or three entries.
So I'd estimate it's actually only about 500 or so PrC's.

Still. Good lord. 500 of them. And GROWING. It's not zombies we have to worry about; it's prestige classes. Once they start multiclassing...it's game over, man. Game over.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Development

Heathansson wrote:
Why is the only alternative to the conservatives a bunch of liberals who want to tax 3/4 of my income for b. s.?

That's precisely our problem. Leave the left-right paradigm to die as it should have long ago.


652 prestige classes, with 80 "base" classes (levels 1-20). That's not including several of the latest releases, either. :O

This is the reason why I'm limiting the number of books in my next campaign.

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

Vattnisse wrote:
That's what you get with a two-party system. It is no accident that democratising countries worldwide have consistently opted for party systems unlike the American and British ones.

So true! And i've read somewhere that in some US states it is legally not possible to get another party, besides the current ones, on the ballot.

Basically a two party system is just one step away from for example China, the former USSR etc.

Comforting thought heh?


Freakin &%&*^%&%^$#&%(*&^(*^%$$## wifes and this whole separtation thing; ACK I feel like Bill the Cat after a long night just thinking about it and how it drags on like I am living in a Pink Floyd song. Nuff ranted; I feel better now wheres my fiber supplement (going for the full purge :)

The Exchange

Valegrim wrote:
Freakin &%&*^%&%^$#&%(*&^(*^%$$## wifes and this whole separtation thing; ACK I feel like Bill the Cat after a long night just thinking about it and how it drags on like I am living in a Pink Floyd song. Nuff ranted; I feel better now wheres my fiber supplement (going for the full purge :)

Hang in there, brother. Act like nothing bothers you and she will stop trying to kick you for a reaction (eventually). It'll all be over soon one way or the other. People can be really evil to people that they supposedly cared about.

D&D will pull you through!

FH (with you, brother.)


Ok; gaming rant; I am starting to really hate the trend in the game that I too am begining to fall victim to, specifically, this whole epic thing. Used to be you just played one of the basic character classes and fit it to your character concept; which was fine; but now everyone is picking character classes based on the prestige class they want to play; which really seems to get in the way of roleplaying as they can't start being that guy they want to be until they get their prestige class; until then, they are just a wannabee in training. Now add epic stuff and this gets even worse. Now peeps are working designs to get all their basics in by the time they get to epic so at epic they will have all the abilities they feel their characters need. It is all getting to be a freaking mess. Players are now spending more time working out character diagrams for feats, skills, classes and stuff for the perfect combination for their supposed character concept that I really feel it is dragging the game down into the nether regions. Used to be people talked about the game and their characters interactions with pcs and npcs and the game story, which still happens; but moslty talk is now mostly moved to all this complexity of character generation and level growth; This is not good for the immerions feeling we all want from the game; ack; it bad; bad; bad.

Somebody opened Pandora's box and hundreds of D&D books fell out and is infecting our gaming sessions; run for your lives.

end of gaming rant; hehe sure helps me forget my previous rant for a bit :)


Thank you FH for the gregarious inclusion; I do appreciate it.

Fake Healer wrote:
Valegrim wrote:
Freakin &%&*^%&%^$#&%(*&^(*^%$$## wifes and this whole separtation thing; ACK I feel like Bill the Cat after a long night just thinking about it and how it drags on like I am living in a Pink Floyd song. Nuff ranted; I feel better now wheres my fiber supplement (going for the full purge :)

Hang in there, brother. Act like nothing bothers you and she will stop trying to kick you for a reaction (eventually). It'll all be over soon one way or the other. People can be really evil to people that they supposedly cared about.

D&D will pull you through!

FH (with you, brother.)


Valegrim wrote:

Players are now spending more time working out character diagrams for feats, skills, classes and stuff for the perfect combination for their supposed character concept that I really feel it is dragging the game down into the nether regions. Used to be people talked about the game and their characters interactions with pcs and npcs and the game story, which still happens; but moslty talk is now mostly moved to all this complexity of character generation and level growth; This is not good for the immerions feeling we all want from the game; ack; it bad; bad; bad.

Somebody opened Pandora's box and hundreds of D&D books fell out and is infecting our gaming sessions; run for your lives.

Damn straight Valegrim.

What more D&D players need is apathy - no-one in my group cares about being the most powerful or maximising anything, and we've never even got to epic levels. Epic? Meh. Who cares?

Everyone in our group just picks what options they feel like they want or that fits their PC at the time, mainly because they can't be bothered weighing up 10,000 different paths. Who cares if you accidentally cut off one of your options by choosing the "wrong" feat? Its a game! You play it to relax and have fun! Anyone would think from the way it seems many people play that it had somehow become possible to "win" D&D and everyone is trying their hardest to do so. I was not aware that that was the case. You can't win, I just don't get why people don't let their characters develop organically like a real person living a life. It's SO much easier, and more fun because your PC might not be perfect and they end up with unusual combos. The feeling you get when something you thought was a bad decision/skill selection pays off is just awesome.

I guess my point is that when I left school I didn't go and deliberately do everything I've done just to prepare me for what I'm doing now - I responded to events at the time which changed my options for the future. That's life, and I (and my fellow gamers) have always approached RPGs as a much more interesting life where you can do dangerous heroic things without risk. I honestly can't see any other reason to play. You can't "win".

How is planning everything from level 1 and sticking to it any fun at all? You may as well make a 20th level character, sit down with the MM and have fights. no story. A story where none of the characters deviate from their proposed path and everything goes according to plan is a pretty bad story.

I know some people like playing to a close plan, but this is a rant dammit and I just don't get it!

The Exchange

Grór wrote:

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

"What - you played MERP? Or even Rolemaster? With all those complicated critical tables?"

You cracked me up with this one-glad we can razz each other a bit!

Actually, I was referring to playing D&D in Middle-earth, which worked wonderfully once we tweeked the rules a bit to reduce the magic & such (different strokes), however, also played MERP a couple of times. You were right on this one, too "crunchy" for me.

At any rate, take care & hope you're having good gaming!

:-) You too, Fluff-Meister.

The Exchange

Vattnisse wrote:
That's what you get with a two-party system. It is no accident that democratising countries worldwide have consistently opted for party systems unlike the American and British ones.

Hmmm. It's more a facet of the first-past-the-post electoral systems in the US and UK that drives the two-party system. Join a minority party, and you guarantee being powerless, even if the opposition fail to get 50% of the vote. In proportional representation systems, you virtually guarantee coalition government, and the proliferation of minor parties.

That said, I like the first-past-the-post system. Coalition governments spend more time trying to placate the minor parties and buying them off because their two members of parliament hold the balance of power. This seems to me a recipe for rule by the minor, minor minority rather than the party most people actually voted for.

I appreciate there are more issues to it than that, relating to specific proportional representation systems and political cultures, and that coalition government can work well (and winner-takes-all can work badly on occasion). Ultimately, it boils down to what you feel comfortable with, which is often more about cultural preference.

Also, the coalitions don't really go away in a first-past-the-post system, but are internalised within the parties. In the US (I'm generalising here) the Republicans will range from the religious Right to free market libertarians. In Germany (another generalisation) they would be in different parties.

In terms of parties seeming similar, I can't comment about the US. But in the UK, the big issues are really dead (nuclear weapons and war with the USSR - Iraq doesn't really impinge on day-to-day lives in the same way) and what we are left with is how to manage the country effectively. More over, the divisions between a socialist left and a free market right have largely dissolved into a general consensus about monetary and fiscal management. So, it's really about who is the better manager. Yawn.

Scarab Sages

Ah well, my poor, but personally beloved, Saints have fallen. They had a good run, but in the end, they collapsed like a caslte wall undermined by dwarven engineers. Better luck to them next year. As for the big game, I'll be switching to my fall-back team and cheering for the Colts.

As for discussions of the American political system: Sure it isn't perfect, but it has worked pretty well so far. The one thing we have really failed to do, in my opinion, is guard against the ever-growing bureaucracy. Not an easy thing to do, of course, and there are people with a vested self-interest in seeing it perpetuated, but I think we could do better if we tried. When I see the growth of our Federal Government, I like to remember two of Frank Herbert's books - Whiiping Star and the Dosadi Experiment. One of the organizations in the books was the Bureau of Sabotage, whose express purpose was to slow the growth and advancement of government. I always considered it one of Herbert's more interesting ideas.

And before I forget...GO COLTS!

Liberty's Edge

Bummer. Now I gotta figure out who I hate the least.


Aberzombie wrote:
And before I forget...GO COLTS!

Aha, something we can agree on. :)

Scarab Sages

Saern wrote:
Aberzombie wrote:
And before I forget...GO COLTS!
Aha, something we can agree on. :)

Well, with the Saints out, the Colts are the next best thing for me, since Peyton Manning is from New Orleans, and his dad Archie played for the Saints back in the day.

Scarab Sages

Heathansson wrote:
Bummer. Now I gotta figure out who I hate the least.

Pick Da Bears to hate. Then you could have a Lovie/Hate relationship with them. Get it! Ha ha ha!

Liberty's Edge

Bla bla bla Peyton Manning bla bla bla bla bla he's so great bla bla bla bla bla P.M. NEVER BEAT THE GATORS bla bla bla
Go Bears!!!

Liberty's Edge

Or...do I hate the bears more than the remainder of how much I like Tony Dungy minus how much I can't stand Peyton Manning?!?

Scarab Sages

Heathansson wrote:
Or...do I hate the bears more than the remainder of how much I like Tony Dungy minus how much I can't stand Peyton Manning?!?

Wow! The depths of your hatred for Manning must be greater than the Abyss itself. Of course, there is the very real possiblity that he will fold like a portable hole when put under the pressure of "The Big Game".

Nevertheless, I'll cheer for him. GO COLTS!

2,101 to 2,150 of 3,910 << first < prev | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Place Your Rant Here All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.