OK, everybody, I am having WAY too much fun here. Thanks to all of you for your input and opions; I have thoroughly enjoyed reading all of them. A personal note, then, what will be my last comments on this subject. For now. :)
Now back to the thread...
Are we trying to hard here? Are we looking TOO hard for 'this'? "If you look hard enough for something to offend you, you will always succeed."
I agree that people notice things according to their personal experiences, filters, and biases. We don't just see what we're looking for, we see what we're in the habit of noticing and we disregard examples that contradict our beliefs. (Confirmation bias.)
Sometimes you have to look; sometimes it slaps you in the face.
...There is simply no way under Heaven that George could have contemplated or conceived of ALL of the differing thoughts and opinions that ALL of us who have ever seen, or will see, these movies will come up with! Some of these ideas that we think we see in his work were simply never meant to be there!
Absolutely true. He put the story together in a way that "worked." It made sense on not just a literary level, but on an intuitive "this is the human condition" level. Actually, Luke Skywalker is frequently used as an example of that Hero's Journey archetype. All the elements are there. But these elements are repeated over, and over, and over in literature, comic books, theatre, cinema, life, even video games (Legend of Zelda, anyone?) That's a major clue to their archetypal nature.
George Lucas obviously didn't sit down and say, "Based on the writings of Joseph Campbell and the ideas of Carl Jung, I'm going to write an example of the Hero's Journey." Instead, he wrote a story. And in writing that story, he re-wrote the same story humans have been telling themselves for eons. He tapped into the Collective Unconscious, much like epic writers before him (Homer, Virgil) and pop culture contemporaries (Stan Lee).
Back to personal filters, biases, and experiences...
However, I was raised in a conservative Christian household, with the belief that certain things are right, and others are wrong....
We all look through at the world through our own set of lenses. How ever your beliefs and religio-spiritual identity have evolved over time, those deep-seated beliefs color your worldview. More mundane beliefs also color how we see the world. One of Garfield's filters is the belief that Mondays are inherently bad. One of feminism's filters is that the balance of power in a relationship is ALWAYS an issue. In my field, I am often required to adopt a theoretical stance when conceptualizing a case. The template I choose structures, defines, AND limits my choices.
I have a pair of glasses with red lenses. When I wear them, everything looks red and black. When I wear them, I am aware I am wearing them, and I am aware that they are literally coloring my world, just as you are aware of how your life experiences color your world. I have no idea how intentional or aware these authors are of the lenses (beliefs, biases, filters, and opinions) they are wearing in regards to sexuality and the role of women. Individually, it may be nothing seriously negative in most cases. But taken as a whole, I am noticing a pattern of objectification, violence, sexual exploitation, fear, and degradation of women that I find disconcerting. Again, I don't know how pervasive it is in other Paizo work, and whether there is more or less than in the culture at large. My guess is more, simply because the audience is overwhelmingly male. (Look at how the advertising in the Sports section of your newspaper compares to the Front Page or Features sections.)
I submit for your consideration that we are looking deeper and harder for hidden meanings than this particular subject may actually require....But I do not believe that you should go looking for deeper, hidden meanings in these things.
Actually, a big part of my job is to look for deeper meanings in things. It's something I do well (and now often do by habit), and it is one of my biases. Is this really real? And is this what it claims to be? Are the content and the message consistent, or are there mixed messages here?
I am not going to impose my personal standards of behavior on others, least of all some publishing company. I can vote with my feet, my pocket book, my remote control, my mouse. In an environment of equality and consent, people can do what they want whether or not I personally approve. It becomes problematic when it is exploitive, harmful, or violates basic human rights and boundaries.
But am I looking too deeply?
-IF these roles roles were reversed, for example if we were given a Male Runelord of lust, my reaction would undoubtedly be different. Being a straight male, I would possibly be uncomfortable with finding naked statues of this being lying around instead of the ones depicted in the material.
It's that gut reaction you had when you first imagined a male Runelord of Lust. Something's wrong with this picture. Would I really want to participate in something like this? I had a gut reaction to the image of the Evil pregnant goddess -- an image I can partially identify with. I wasn't looking for it; it slapped me. I had a physical reaction to it.
But more importantly, (To me) how would it change the way the game (was intended) to play and feel?
There's no doubt it would feel and play differently. And the characters would likely respond differently, gender being such an essential piece of our identity and our view of others.
Personally, In my limited experience, females have so much MORE power than the male when it comes to sex. Males may be (in general) stronger physically...
Maybe Nature imbued us with an inherent sense of Game Balance. If women can't out-perform men physically, maybe they can be equipped to better navigate socially/relationally so that they don't have to compete on a physical level. :)
Hey, thank you again for your input. For the rest of y'all out there, I wonder where your Significant Others would stand on what's misogynistic (or at least gut-reaction "ugh") and where the line is drawn for them? And...are they ever afraid of being attacked by a guy?
Does she sell lollypops? :D
Like Dreamer, but to a far lesser degree my job can involve trying to find the meaning behind things. I'm not always very successful, but I try. It can vary from "why is this child unhappy?" to "what is this scene for in this play?" to "what does this character mean when he says this?".
I agree that there is no intention behind this pattern in Paizo products (to which I would add the constant portrayal of EVIL as well-organised and all-pervasive vs. the efforts of the player characters which are always going to be only vaguely effective - see Crown of the Kobold King, Shackled City) but the pattern is still there.
Well, as long as we're all rolling out the really long examinations of the subject, I feel like I'm not holding up my end of things if I don't put forth a better effort. And, honestly, I'm one of the most long-winded typists I know...though, Rags can certainly keep right up there with me...and I mean that in the most sincerely friendly way. ;-)
Who is the target audience here?
I think you nailed the consumer base for Paizo products (and RPGs, in general) fairly well. But the question of who is the target audience is probably a bit more driven by the marketplace factors that sell products. That's what any business is going to address first...and of course, they'll tailor depending on whatever demographics they can measure among those who do indeed wind up buying their products. I believe James Jacobs, Erik Mona, and others have stated this mindset in the past when questions have come up regarding the portrayal of women, the level of violence, or mature subject matter.
So, what sells? Sex, obviously. So there's some of the explanation for the bikini-clad babes straddling dragons and the hot, seductive villainess that seems to appear in every adventure...whether it's the main antagonist or one of the lesser minions. It doesn't really matter since the publishers (and by extension, the authors and artists) are going to play that up to make sure the product sells. Pornography is available on the internet at the click of a button. Sex is pushed in every aspect...including entertainment news, music, movies, commercials...you name it. The prevalence of sexually-charged material has changed a lot of how society views such content...to the point that it's practically expected in any product someone's trying to sell now.
What else sells? Violence. It's no secret that the generations of today are becoming more and more inured to violence...accepting of it...and even entertained by it...and to levels previously unheard of just a couple of decades ago. It appeals to the younger gamers of today. Not as much to the older ones, but they too are more accepting of it now than in the past, simply because society as a whole has "progressed" to that point...and so the usual social mores that would be in effect as a result of their upbringing aren't pinging away at their consciousness anymore.
So, given all of that, who IS the target audience? It's the majority of people who have accepted the higher levels of sex and violence that's hit every multimedia outlet in existence. Paizo is following that revenue stream because it sells. Pure and simple. And if a return to puritanical values suddenly occured and everyone reverted back to being outraged by such content, they'd adjust accordingly. As a result, you can't just hold Paizo responsible for these depictions. You have to hold society as a whole accountable for it...for not decrying it...for giving into temptation...or however you want to phrase it.
Unfortunately, our culture and media do more to reinforce the link between sex and violence, objectification of women, and negative masculinity, than to encourage mutual respect, understanding, and "heroic" ideals.
That's true. And mostly because they've just gotten lazy. A story that includes characters and elements that encourage mutual respect, understanding, true love, and other heroic ideals can be appealing too. It just takes more effort, creativity, and talent to create than slapping another hot babe on the cover and indulging in a misogynistic fantasy within the written content. The latter product WILL sell in today's marketplace because of society's acceptance of it. The former COULD sell if done well. And if you blend in at least a few elements of sex and violence (perhaps not quite as overtly) it would become MORE likely to sell well.
There was a brouhaha last summer about the paucity of females as main characters in Pixar films.
Have you also noticed that the vast majority of leading female Disney characters (Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Ariel, Belle, Pocahontas, etc.) only have fathers and no mothers? That's kind of an interesting trend there, too. Such stories strip away the closeness of an actual mother-figure to render the heroine more vulnerable (for rescuing by a prince!) or more independent-minded (for rebelling or plausibly taking direct action). Very few of Disney's lead female characters break from this mold.
By requiring the Prince to be a hero, he is required to embody those positive masculine qualities. If she has to rescue him, he's never going to rise to his potential, and she's going to spend the rest of happily-ever-after continuing to rescue him, take care of him, and pick up his dirty stockings off the floor because he never had to be capable or responsible!
I think Mulan does a good job of showing the difficulties of a heroine trying to embody those positive masculine qualities in a male-dominated culture...and succeeding. Ultimately, she's directly responsible for saving everyone and outwitting a very evil masculine threat. But she goes through a good portion of the story literally masquerading as a man to discover herself so she's confident enough to do it.
So where is the line drawn? It's when there is a pattern of objectifying or dehumanizing females; glorifying violence, especially sexual violence; and when it is an attack not on a character in a game, but on femaleness.
Some of that's in the eye of the beholder. Is it always the purposeful dehumanization of females? Or is it simply trying to break the traditional male villain archetype by making it female instead (and to sell more product, too, if they can make her sexy as well as evil)? And is it glorifying violence? Or is it defining a plausible demonstration of truly monstrous evil opponents in a way that drives the PCs into a truly justified sense of horror and determination to mete justice upon such creatures rather than mindlessly participate in genocidal combat just to earn XPs? I understand the point you're making, but these are the counterpoints offered by Paizo when questioned on this subject during the Hook Mountain Massacre discussion.
but when it's consistently twisted in the same direction, and you have example after example of the Evil Woman, the Crazy Woman, the Wrathful Woman, the Sex-Addicted Woman, with no balance (where's the Good Witch? The Wise Woman? The Nurturing Woman? The Virtuous Woman?), and no redeeming qualities, the message becomes, "Women are bad and must be destroyed, overpowered, or controlled."
I would assume that Paizo would point out the Good Witch, Wise Woman, Nurturing Woman, and Virtuous Woman roles are provided for in two different ways. One, via NPCs such as Mayor Deverin, Shalelu, Ameiko, and sundry other female characters roleplayed by the GM as Sandpoint (and the PCs attachment to the town) are supposed to play a central part in the entire adventure path. Secondly, such roles can also be filled out by female PCs who will participate in a much greater part of the story (virtually every scene) over the course of the adventure path. Now granted, not every adventuring party will include female PCs, much less female players to more accurately portray them. But I believe this is where Paizo thinks they're leaving room for such depictions.
I agree that to be compelling enemies bad guys should be Evil....However, they also have to have a compelling reason for it.
I think this depends. For you, they have to have a compelling reason for it. That's because your preferred playstyle (and mine) in an RPG is much more focused on storytelling. And, as such, you want to exercise your "willing suspension of disbelief" in a credible manner backed up by motivations of the NPCs and the overall plotline. But not everyone plays RPGs with that style. In fact, I think storytellers are becoming a minority in the RPG consumer base these days. So again, a publisher can sell product by appealing to its audience. And, if the majority of that audience doesn't need the compelling reasons for evil bad guys...and it grooves on hot, lusty female villains...and it loves opportunities to engage in gratuitous violence for entertainment purposes...Paizo is going to fill it by publishing mature-themed content. I happen to think they still weave some pretty good storytelling elements into it...presumably in an effort to please "most of the people, most of the time" so they won't lose the audience that loves credible storytelling, too. But they're walking a fine line. No doubt. And anytime someone gets bent out of shape over how far they've "pushed the envelope" they go back to the mantra that GMs are always free to adapt the material to their (and their players') tastes. And they're right on that point. But if they push things too far, some GMs (and players) won't find the effort to adapt the material worth their while. And until that starts happening (and Paizo loses such customers), there won't be a large enough impact for them to alter course in a time when most of society continues to embrace these things.
...the problem is not with the individual instances, but with the sum taken as a whole.
I agree. Paizo is using a certain model for successful adventure writing on a micro-level. And I don't think they've paid enough attention to the macro-level and the overall impression left by their products. But maybe they're okay with operating in that vacuum? After all, it's individual products they need to sell. And I'd conjecture that most subscribers aren't pulling in all of their material. So many of their consumers might not even be exposed to the summed whole...
I think this is part of the problem with Lamashtu as pregnant half-jackal. She is very feminine, very sexual, and very evil. Put together, it implies that females, through their sexuality (i.e., being irresistable to males), quite literally bring evil into the world.
I'm not sure I can back you up that far. I can understand that you (or others) might interpret it that way. But honestly, for me, I didn't take Lamashtu as anything more than an interesting explanation for a truly evil demon-inspired goddess with a pregnancy schtick to explain how monsters came to be in Golarion. The in-house Paizo folks (especially James, I think) prides themselves on colorful, in-depth detailing around demons, deities, etc. And I didn't perceive Lamashtu as a direct, intentional jab at women so much as an attempt to creatively define the mythology of a powerfully evil being in their new campaign setting. That's all.
Now that still doesn't excuse them for not realizing how it might be interpreted differently by a considerable portion of their audience...especially when lined up with everything else as you and Dreamer have pointed out. And I think they made the same error in judgement with regards to how Nick Logue's Hook Mountain Massacre would play. It's the role of a Lead Designer, Editor, what-have-you to provide guidance and adjustments to products to avoid those kinds of potential problems. But, in this instance, I don't know that they cared. The old adage about "all press is good press" may apply here. Even as some people decried this kind of content, others will be drawn to it. And the net result of all that may wind up generating higher overall sales anyway. And no matter how good-intentioned any publisher might be, they're all still slaves to the mighty dollar.
When taken outside of a real-world social/religious context and plopped into a fantasy context full of made up races and relationships, the archetypes lose their archetypal mojo....This presents problems because, even though they appear in stories and myth as people, archetypes are not meant to be confronted directly.
Not necessarily. I hear what you're saying here. But I think it depends on how in-depth you go in roleplaying the characters in the game. Most gamers only superficially scratch the surface, so I think on the whole, you're right. The archetypes aren't confronted directly by the PCs. But, in a full-fledged, story-driven game with truly dedicated roleplayers who are all about demonstrating a transformation of their characters over the course of their experiences during the adventure, I think they can still confront those archetypes. It's all in how you play the game really.
What really gets me is that there is no purpose being served by much of this extraneous sexual imagery.
For you and the purposes of how you play your game, I agree...there's no purpose being served. But for Paizo and the purposes of selling products to a mass-audience already seeped in social acceptance of this sexual and violent imagery...there's a purpose being served. They're selling products...and quite well beyond their expectations when they set out to produce Pathfinder. Unless that gets jeopardized somehow (or society radically changes its views on such subject matter), I don't think you'll see it abate anytime soon.
I agree that it is the DMs responsibility to act as a filtering agent that shapes the adventure to the tastes and expectations of the players.
That's what Paizo wants you to do. And frankly, so do I as one of your players. And I intend to do the same while running these adventure paths for my tabletop group. I get the sense that we're all adults in this particular game. We certainly have a higher-than-average maturity factor going for us in how we interpret and react to stuff presented within the game. So I don't think we'll have any trouble adapting to how you filter or shape the material. The important thing (for me) is that you derive enjoyment as the GM in how you choose to tell this story...with all of us participating as the actors and living vicariously through them along the way.
"m interested to see if they will attempt to turn it around or continue down this path.
Well, they've already acknowledged that they'll adjust some things going forward. James conceded that Hook Mountain Massacre was definitely as far as they'd eer push the envelope again. And if you've read up on Curse of the Crimson Throne yet, they've toned down some things. But there's plenty of misogynistic interpretation still in play for the primary villain in that adventure path (as well as her lesbian lover). ;-)
But, are we looking too hard for something that wasn't MEANT to be there?
I think this question is completely relative to whomever is doing the looking. Whether Paizo meant to include such material or honestly didn't realize how it'd be interpreted, isn't as important as how it's received in the end. If enough people perceive something, it can become the accepted "truth" about a subject. Another component of literary criticism isn't just the Jungian archetypes or writer-injected bias drawn from his or her psychological experiences. There's also the psychology of the reader at play and their accumulated life's experiences, too. So, you're right to suggest we may be bringing some of our own "baggage" to an assessment of Pathfinder's content.
This is FANTASY, a place where we can safely explore those things...
Exercise caution here, though, Rags. Often times, you are, what you think. Or put simply, if you dwell on such things as constant sexual imagery or incredibly abusive violence, you will become numb to it...less affected by it...and eventually, more accepting of it. You may not go out and perpetuate it, but rest assured, you will be affected by it over time. And, as a result, your children may as well...and perhaps to a higher degree...if they perceive that you are...or if you don't take the time to explain its moral complexity to them. And, meanwhile, even if you do take steps to do all that, there's going to be others who won't exercise your restraint...who aren't as psychologically stable...and, by indulging repeatedly in this kind of thing, will start to emulate it. News stories are full of such people these days. From Columbine to sexual predators and on down the line...
If women can't out-perform men physically, maybe they can be equipped to better navigate socially/relationally so that they don't have to compete on a physical level.
Yin and yang. I'm a firm believer that the natural mental and physical development of both men and women are purposefully designed (by God) to complement and reaffirm each other. Women have always held the edge in understanding social relations, love, and commitment. Particularly in a sexual sense. And that's why rape (and the physical dominance included when a man forces it upon a woman) is such an utterly jarring, hateful act. Men may have been blessed with an ability to outperform women physically, but they need to honor a woman's strengths as well...and never seek to abuse either of them.
Just my two-cents,
--Neil
Neil, 2 Cents?!?
Looks more like 2 DOLLARS to me!
(At LAST! SOmeone who can keep up with me in verbosity! Now I can REALLY pull out all the stops! Bwahahahaha!)
;P
Spent almost 3 hours to write that last over-winded post, so instead of doing another "She-posted, He-posted" , I will just go out on a limb and say once more that all of your observations are well thought out and interesting to read. And make me think, thank you for that! And that, in general, I agree (to varying degrees, some more than others obviously) to ALL that is said! And that is interesting, because I am usually more of a one-standpoint guy.
(Dang, I hate getting all old and mature and stuff,...)
So heck with that! :D
And JSL, your doing a great job. I am enjoying the heck out of it. Thank you for all of your hard work to make this so enjoyable.
And to the participants!
And now, let's participate! ON with the show! :)
I hope I haven't spoiled anyone's fun.
Yep, getting dumped in a pit of acid or smashed under a collapsing wall or impaled by falling spikes is Mal's idea of a jolly good time. ;)
My post was eaten. Forgive me if it shows up later.
I was just wondering about the use of metals in D&D. What's special about "cold iron," and does it differ from other forms of iron? And how do mithral and adamantine compare to real-world metals? Are they pure ore? Composite? Is there a story about how they're obtained or worked? It seems to me it would be pretty difficult to work a nearly indestructible metal.
Forgive me for intruding, but I have been reading this.
My wife's take on Lamashtu is that she/it is an embodiment of all her fears as a mother: deformity, being a bad mother, and so on. She also felt that this is a shared fear among women that evidences itself in dark mother archetypes thorughout world literature.
She took umbrage at several other things you wrote but I don't really want to stir anything up here because you are entitled to your opinion.
But she did ask me to post the above.
My post was eaten. Forgive me if it shows up later.
I was just wondering about the use of metals in D&D. What's special about "cold iron," and does it differ from other forms of iron? And how do mithral and adamantine compare to real-world metals? Are they pure ore? Composite? Is there a story about how they're obtained or worked? It seems to me it would be pretty difficult to work a nearly indestructible metal.
I'm not an expert on metals, but here goes what I knows from this game and comics,...
D&D coinage uses all real world metals, Copper, silver, and Gold. There used to be Electrum, which was a composite of Silver and gold, but I believe that has been dropped in 3E. (Or have I just been not paying any attention to my loot at ALL?!?) ;P
'Cold Iron' in mythology is what affects Fairies and such in literature. (As I'm sure you already knew, being a fellow geek!) Actually, I believe that in Literature, The fairies are actually affected by ANY form of iron, whether roughly worked 'Iron', or highly refined iron,'Steel'. I believe that the designation of 'Cold Iron' was a D&D creation, because the designers needed/wanted to use this as a weakness for Fae and other Outworld creatures, but it's hardly a weakness if EVERY hero has a steel weapon on his belt! Ergo, 'Cold Iron', a special process used to temper iron that allows it to affect these creatures.
I do not believe that Mithral and Adamantium have real-world equivalents (Though I'll bet the military wishes there were!)
Mithral is supposed to be mined from the deepest, most dangerous, hard to reach places by Dwarves. It is supposed to be its own mineral, like Iron or copper, but descriptions tag as being like highly polished silver, but stronger than steel. It is workable like any other metal, just a little more difficult.
Adamantium is only supposed to be found in rare deposits, supposedly left behind from meteors that crashed to earth. It is the same as the adamantium used in the Marvel comics for Captain America's shield, and Wolverine's claws. It is extremely difficult to work. Working it in D&D requires magic I believe. While in Marvel comics & movies, they have explained that it can be worked fairly easily with modern technology, but is required to be kept super-heated, because once it cools, it is 'set' and indestructible.
It is worthy to note that that in previous editions of the game, items (weapons and armor) made of 'normal' metals could only hold enchantment "plusses" of up to +3. If you wanted a +4 weapon you needed Mithral, and +5 required Adamantium.
My wife's take on Lamashtu is that she/it is an embodiment of all her fears as a mother: deformity, being a bad mother, and so on. She also felt that this is a shared fear among women that evidences itself in dark mother archetypes thorughout world literature.
Good point. I can see how that would work -- especially on that archetypal level. On a personal level, motherhood certainly isn't all warm, fuzzy feelings and Hallmark cards; it can bring up deep feelings of fear, inadequacy, and anger -- the things we don't dare say out loud.
At the same time, I sincerely doubt that the guys writing this are coming from that perspective. Of course, I could be wrong, and I don't believe that any one example alone is a problem. This discussion, for me, was an interesting, and enjoyable, intellectual exercise in trying to figure out, "Is it just me, or is there something wrong with this picture?" And I thoroughly enjoyed reading others' perspectives, both within and outside our merry band of adventurers.
In expressing my view (yes, very much colored by my work with surivors of abuse and assault), my goal wasn't to convince or make anyone agree or disagree; but I am happy it made people think.
I think you are quite right that it's not where the Paizo guys are coming from, after all they aren't mothers, but archetypes persist in our subconscious minds sustained by all manner of psychological forces, and in Lamashtu I think they have brought up a particularly powerful one.
I think all of us who have had mothers, men or women, are capable of creating such a literary monstrosity, which they certainly did. Most men can say something about being warped by their mothers, most of us understand our mother's fears, and most of us have heard our mothers describe themselves as terrible. We carry this ideation within us as sons, too. Now, like you I am disturbed when I see a endless stream negative tropes... whether or not Paizo is doing that is arguable (and has been argued)... as long as nobody walked away angry, I think that is fantastic. Also, it's certainly good to let Paizo know what you are thinking because they will consider it.
Is it just me, or is there something wrong with this picture?
I tend to subscribe to the view that there is something wrong with all of us, so on your question above, when it concerns me anyway, I assume both.
...colored by my work with survivors of abuse and assault...
It just so happens that we have this in common, although my experiences are equally personal and work related. I also studied English literature at the University of Alberta in Canada, a feminist strong department to say the least, and a lot of your arguments ring familiar. My experiences have not colored my opinion of Paizo as they have with you, though.
Anyway, it's not about me, I regret not participating earlier (yet I do not). I'm just glad you're in here feeling comfortable enough to say what you think because that's fine by me. Enjoy the game, there are some great people on this thread.
I do not believe that Mithral and Adamantium have real-world equivalents (Though I'll bet the military wishes there were!)
Titanium, baby: the stem on my mountain bike. Forged for the kruel man by the dwarf lords (okay, germans made it... i admit it) - lighter than steel, and nigh unbreakable even at suicidal velocities on mountain trails.
I do not believe that Mithral and Adamantium have real-world equivalents (Though I'll bet the military wishes there were!)Titanium, baby: the stem on my mountain bike. Forged for the kruel man by the dwarf lords (okay, germans made it... i admit it) - lighter than steel, and nigh unbreakable even at suicidal velocities on mountain trails.
Hm. Ok, I'll buy that!
ALthough I suspect that Titanium would be closer to Mithral than Adamantium,... ;)
I believe the the metal in D&D is 'adamantine' as distinct from 'adamantium' of which Wolverine's skelington is composed.
I am King Picker of Nits. I am here all week.
So as not to violate copyrights, I'm sure. ;)
I first came across adamantine in Paradise Lost, although I'm told there are references that precede it (I'm not sure I believe it, though).
So really, that's the original. Marvel just put a little twist on it.
More trivia on fictional substances:
mithral
adamant
adamantium
Ahh! Wikipedia, what an incredible font of peculiar information!
JSL
Tolkien describes Barad-dur as the "tower of adamant". And of course we still use it to describe an inflexible position in an argument such as "I'm adamant that I will never play 4E because it shot my puppy"
Tolkien describes Barad-dur as the "tower of adamant". And of course we still use it to describe an inflexible position in an argument...
That could be more metaphoric too; representing Sauron's unwavering devotion to conquest and the fact that the tower contained his spirit and power. I'm remebering being described somewhere as being forged of iron, but I'm not 100% sure about that.
...such as "I'm adamant that I will never play 4E because it shot my puppy"
"...
So I grabbed Wizard's leg and they grabbed my esophagusAnd I bit off their ear and they chewed off my eyebrows
And I took out their appendix and they gave me a colonic irrigation
..."
No-one like Tolkien for the power of language and association. It is described as a fortress of iron as well, you're right. Again, images of iron will etc. That's why I think he was an awesome writer and academic.
No-one like Tolkien for the power of language and association. It is described as a fortress of iron as well, you're right. Again, images of iron will etc. That's why I think he was an awesome writer and academic.
A great man, Tolkien. An undeniable genius.
Arctaris:
** spoiler omitted **
I like the Heartstone! It's a nice, simple item that's also cool and useful (especially for lower level character).
Interesting item. Nice and simple, but not overpowered. Limiting it's usefulness by making it explode if it takes too much damage is a nice touch. And still very useful if you know you're facing a heavy hitter. (Like a certain mutant goblin?!?)
Swingy is going to be my word today.
"You know, things wouldn't be so swingy around here if it weren't for all the numpties in the way!"
It's Monday. 5130 as of today.
Let's get through that door. Do we have a marching order still with the new room and corridor sizes?
I like the Heartstone! It's a nice, simple item that's also cool and useful (especially for lower level character).I'm glad you like it. I'm not happy with the price point as I don't consider it quite as utilitarian as a +1 weapon. I'm trying to be as consistent as I can with item prices, though.
I used the formula 360 x CL x Spell Level x Daily Uses then doubled it for immediate activation and halved it for potential breakage. So it worked out much better than it would following strict RAW and using a Quickened spell.
The immediate activation is definitely 4e flavor. I do hope they fix pricing, though. I honestly consider this about a 1,000 gp item; i.e., roughly comparable to Vesh's dagger, or Ehlissa's sword.
I am curious, though, what sort of items Mal would go for. So far you have declined both the hide armor and this. Though I think you'll like the armbands, once you figure out what they do. :)
I like the dragon-hide armor, but if I remember correctly, it applies a penalty to Tumble which is one of Mal's more important skills. Should we ever venture into the water, he'll use it. I only declined the stone because it sounded like something of a Varisian treasure. Since Vesh doesn't want it, I'll keep it.
|
I know we have a ways to go before our characters level-up, but have you guys put some thought into what your next steps in character development will be? Any interesting multiclass option out there for anyone?
I'm not sure what I'm going to do with Vesh. I'll probably keep him firmly in the Spellthief class, but it's hard not to notice that he has yet to actually steal a spell. His role as the party rogue is cool, but I'd like to make him a little more versatile on the battlefield. I like being the party archer, but I'd also like him to be more mobile so that he can backstab more effectively.
This is one of the few times that I've sustained a 3.5 character for almost four levels. Without using flaws and our craft-point system, waiting for feats to come as infrequently as they do would be maddening. Some folks are down on the class powers in 4E, but I can't wait to see them. Even the PRPG is going in the right direction in that regard. And, this is from someone playing a Spellthief--a post-chock-full-of-nuts/let's-try-4E-design-philosophy-now 3.5 character class!
Next level - paladin. If we do go 4E, I think she's going to be warlord/paladin multiclass. Probably paladin and pick up the warlord multiclass feat.
I think your RP'ing is great Sant, but don't be afraid to swipe one or more of Sli's spells if we need them! (Not that I need any more excuses to OVER-react to something!)
With where we are heading into, Sli is/was planning to use the scroll of 'people switching' to trade places with Veran. Or even better, trade Veran for Zieke. Can you imagine the priceless look on the critters face?!?
But I'm thinking that the lil Imper will be expecting something like that. and it hasn't seen VESH cast yet, so it wouldn't be expecting a spell from him. So Sli may pass off the scroll to Vesh so that the initial switch will be a surprise.
Sidetracked,... OK I'm back! :)
I understand Vesh's reluctance to use his powers, especially on his friends, but I promise I won't hold it against you if you want to actually have a little fun and USE the powers your character has! ;P
Also, you may be getting a chance soon anyway. With all the tweaking that JSL has done to this module, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if the Imp was a Wizzie. The only thing that might surprise it more than the 'Thief' casting a spell, is the thief casting one of IT'S OWN spells back at it!
As far as my plans for Sli, 4th will be another level of Wiz, then if we continue (OH PLEASE!!!!!) he'll need to add another couple of levels of Sor to qualify for that juicy super-caster class, "THE ULTIMATE MAGUS!!!" :D
Tell me about it. In our RL game we were 3 2nd level characters and we were getting thrashed. We should have run away really.
Tell me about it. In our RL game we were 3 2nd level characters and we were getting thrashed. We should have run away really.
So true. 29 rounds of futile combat. It was a kind of barmy war of attrition. Our DM admitted quasit girl should have just flown off, but for some reason we all just sat there and slugged it out. Mistake on all parts I feel.
Or, you could have used the a Quasit Croissant +2. Who knew French pastry could be so deadly to demons? And, tasty too, no? Wi!
I know we have a ways to go before our characters level-up, but have you guys put some thought into what your next steps in character development will be? Any interesting multiclass option out there for anyone?
Zieke is already multiclassed as heavily as possible. His next level will be spent in continuing the Monk tradition...but I'll probably break from that to return to Fighter after that...and pick up another level or two in Wilderness Rogue in time for Hook Mountain Massacre. His primary class will continue to be Fighter, though. No particular prestige classes in mind for him...
--Neil
I know we have a ways to go before our characters level-up, but have you guys put some thought into what your next steps in character development will be? Any interesting multiclass option out there for anyone?
Mal will keep mixing Swashbuckler and Rogue, probably taking Swashbuckler next level (I do love Insightful Strike) and then go mostly Rogue.
|
|
Seriously, how do you feel about the spell-stealing thing?
So far, I don't have much of an opinion. I'm gonna sit on Spellthief for a while b/c I want to see how it shakes out after I can cast a few of my own spells (next level).
I think there are some ways it could be useful between Vesh and Slidell. E.g., because Sli only loses the spell for a minute and Vesh can hold it for an hour, if you steal a sorceror spell like magic missile, a couple of minutes before a fight, you can both cast it on the first round.
See, it's a little more of a bummer for Slidell than just not being able to cast that spell for a minute. He losses the slot (Sorcerer) or the prepared spell (Wizard) as though he cast it. There may be some cases when stealing his spells is needed, but I want to be selective--especially at low levels. It becomes less about using Vesh's abilities and more about using one of Slidell's until he gets to a level where losing a spell or two won't matter much to him.
But using it in combat (against enemies) is never going to be a consistent option. It kind of makes me wonder why they have it as such a central facet of the class. I think stealing defensive abilities like spell resistance or energy resistance will be much more useful in general. Consider that most creatures are immune to their own mojo, stealing fireball from a Pit Fiend won't get you anywhere. But steal its immunities, and it has a problem.
Mostly, I agree. Stealing spell effects and spell-like abilities could be interesting if he could zero-in on an opponent under the effect of, say, protection spells or invisibility (if he could hit it). But, it's a pretty specific set of circumstances that need to happen if he's going to pull it off. Fighting goblins and other non-spell casters isn't going to do it. But, as we progress, I figure we'll be facing more and more spell casting opponents. I just need to maximize ways to get spell casting opponents flat-footed or flanked.
Also, he'll be able to use stolen spell energy to cast his own spells. We'll see how that goes. Not that he'll be flinging fire balls or anything.
Note: he'll only get to steal magic resistance at 15th level. It's only energy resistance that he gets to steal now.
Gotta go. Kids flooding the bathroom...
Been there...like two hours ago. Good luck.
LONG day. Lots to catch up on. Where to begin? I'll have a post up before I go to bed.
Stealing spell effects and spell-like abilities could be interesting if he could zero-in on an opponent under the effect of, say, protection spells or invisibility...
Admittedly, I know nothing about the Spellthief class. I know I saw it once while skimming one of the splat-books in my FLGS, but I didn't focus on it for very long. Still, if Vesh has the ability to steal another creature's spell-like ability...especially if invisibility is covered by that...that could prove a major edge in the battle with Little Miss Quasit.
Can he do that now? What are the circumstances under which Vesh is able to steal spells? Does he have to sneak-attack her? Can he grab something as powerful as invisibility at his current level of expertise? If so, now would be a great time to showcase that talent and make a major impact with your character...
Just thinking out loud,
--Neil
Seeing as how I probably won't be able to post again until late tonight, I feel like maybe I ought to explain Salome's tactic here. Without an RPG background, I often don't know what I'm "supposed" to do, especially when I haven't had a chance to contribute for a while. So I took a risk.
1. First, I apologize for speaking for the group without consulting first. I knew I was doing it when I wrote the post. On the other hand, with an (admittedly) often-lame spell list, after healing, diplomacy is one of Salome's few "marketable" strengths in a situation like this.
2. I don't see Salome as "bargaining," per se. We're certainly not going to back down. Instead, she's just laying out the facts -- and hopefully delaying the confrontation to our advantage.
3. Is the quasit going to give up Veran without a fight? I sincerely doubt it. I don't think that anything Salome said is going to change the outcome of this encounter significantly. However, after looking at others' comments about fighting the quasit (and seeing that I only have three 1st or 2nd level spells left -- which represent my total healing capacity at this point), I thought I'd try something "outside the box" rather than do what everyone else seems to have done at this juncture: shoot first, take a beating, and limp out either successfully or unsuccessfully.
4. Zieke is right; if we can keep the thing talking and engaged, it may buy is time to pinpoint it (maybe even determine a weakness) and possibly even shorten the fight.
5. If nothing else, the boat is rocked and there should be some fun RPing today. I'm looking forward to catching up while I'm on-call tonight.