And yes, I do believe that in general someone who is specialized in ancient history is a more credible source for historical information
You'd be wrong. Unless they made the discovery themselves. Any sucker in a history class is equally credible. The only difference is the person with a PhD spent several years learning to collect and sift through other people's work.
But the point of the matter is, no matter what one person espouses in a educational context, one can find equally qualified people espousing quite the opposite. Your argument is therefore unimportant.
I've had published history phds espouse the scientific and historical evidence of ley lines. The phd doesn't make them any less b#%!#@* insane. There may be truth in her writting; there may not be. She is no more or less likely to be biased by her views than others. Some of the things that get by peer review are laughable, and since you only linked to 1 small portion of her writting which does not show how she came to her conclusion, it must be taken with a grain of salt.
Obviously, this is true. But she is not the only one who holds the view mentioned above. And in doubt, I rather trust historians than psychologists when discussing history. And being published by Oxford and Cambridge does lend her views some credibility.
I've had published history phds espouse the scientific and historical evidence of ley lines. The phd doesn't make them any less b#%!#@* insane. There may be truth in her writting; there may not be. She is no more or less likely to be biased by her views than others. Some of the things that get by peer review are laughable, and since you only linked to 1 small portion of her writting which does not show how she came to her conclusion, it must be taken with a grain of salt.Obviously, this is true. But she is not the only one who holds the view mentioned above. And in doubt, I rather trust historians than psychologists when discussing history. And being published by Oxford and Cambridge does lend her views some credibility.
Hardly. But that's another matter.
You'd be wrong. Unless they made the discovery themselves. Any sucker in a history class is equally credible.
This is so obviously wrong I do not even know where to start.
The only difference is the person with a PhD spent several years learning to collect and sift through other people's work.
Your disdain for science does not make it worthless. If she spent several years reading material relevant to the topic, this actually does make her opinion more credible on that topic.
Why not? Sacred prostitutes even have a historical precedent.
No. Actually it's a myth.
Carry on.
Yes, in the culture I have grown up and live still, prostitution is frowned upon - though it is legal.
Do I have a problem with this in my game?
Hell no!
Let me give you a list of other things that are frowned upon and/or illegal in my country/culture:
There's more, but I probably missed some things, and others I did not mention intentionally:
All these things are things the Pathfinder Core Rules (and many other RPG rules) support:
Yes, I play RPGs. My characters kill sentient beings - some of them do it for fun. They dominate and enslave, use copious amounts of violence, they loot, desecrate, steal, lie, and act like nobody could stop them. And they make use of prostitutes.
Not everything at once, or all the time, and not every character even does everything on the list regularly, or at all, but it's all been done.
Does that mean I'm a whoremonger in real life? Nope. No more than I am violent, murderous, disrespectful for the departed or other people's belongings, or anything else on the list.
So what's worse about a book for advanced players having a single rule for prostitutes when the book for basic players have killions of rules for brutes and murderers?
I must say, looking at that list above, prostitution is the least reprehensible, with the possible exception of indecent behaviour, depending on what exactly we're talking about.
I'd rather pay someone for sex than pay someone to kill a person. I'd rather go to the brothel than steal stuff, or beat someone up because I feel like it, or make a person my possession and treat him accordingly, or take an expensive watch off a stiff I find lying in the woods. Not that I intend to do anything off that list, but if I were to start, I'd start (and stop) with prostitution!
Note that we're talking about prostitution in of itself. People deciding to make their money that way. If they're forced into it, it's not just prostitution, it's slavery. If the pimp beats the working girls, it's violence.
But apparently, there are people, even today, who chose this, and not because they're in dire straights.
Your disdain for science does not make it worthless.
Your blind acceptance of an single researcher's opinion as the be-all, end-all of the argument buoyed by an equally blind of acceptance of the peer review process does not make you a bleeding authority figure on what is right and wrong.
If she spent several years reading material relevant to the topic, this actually does make her opinion more credible on that topic.
..as would anyone else having researched the same topic.
What outrages me is the lack of rules for cocaine, including the DCs for cutting it properly using Craft (8ball).
How can you have hookers, and not blow? That's like peanut butter without chocolate.
Saving it for a later book, Sebastian. Gotta bring in all the suckers, tease 'em a little first with the hookers, then hook 'em later. Marketing, m'man, marketing;)
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean Paizo isn't selective. It's appeared before, and received no outcry against it, it fits in the game world, and doesn't overpower other traits. It's an element of the living society that they're trying to present, and it's not beyond belief that a character might have that as a background.
Between your absurd arguments that "stealth doesn't work", based on the premise that if a rogue marches right up to a farmer and his dog and then tries to steal a chicken, he will be spotted - how many hundred posts did that thread go to? There have been other problems you've had on the board, all which resulted in your continuing the argument without acknowledging the interpretations that 3/4 of the other gamers seemed to agree on, OR the explanations of the developers.
You don't like it, and you won't include it in your games. That's fine, and completely your choice. But that's not the same thing at all as "Paizo did a bad job", which seems to be your point here.
|
What outrages me is the lack of rules for cocaine, including the DCs for cutting it properly using Craft (8ball).
How can you have hookers, and not blow? That's like peanut butter without chocolate.
The drug rules are in the GMG, Paizo spreads this stuff out over multiple books to make you buy more and more books.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
What?!?! I have to buy 3 books to have the materials to build a lawyer (core rules for Profession: Lying Bastard, GMG for blow, and APG for hooker NPCs).
Crazy. Particularly when you consider that lawyers doing blow off hookers is the first form of recreation known to man. I know because someone who once took a history course told me so.
Paizo, please keep this moral conservatism suggested by A Man in Black out of setting neutral books. I can't make it any clearer than that.
Agreed.
Lini in the Sky with Druids!
Also, what is the DC to craft a bathtub meth lab?Where's the rules for riding the white pony?!?!?
And how much does a set of 10 syringes cost in gp?
Now we know the real reason for the alchemist class.
A guy who creates "magical" substances that alter you?
What outrages me is the lack of rules for cocaine, including the DCs for cutting it properly using Craft (8ball).
How can you have hookers, and not blow? That's like peanut butter without chocolate.
In another recent post about stealing, I mentioned that my character got stabbed to death by a CE halfling. What I didn't mention, because it wasn't relevant at the time, was that my character was passed out because with all the money I had stolen I bought a ton (well, a lot) of blow. My GM ruled that after I did a couple of lines my character fell asleep and couldn't be waken...
I didn't say anything at the time, but it was pretty obvious to me that the GM didn't know much about cocaine!
For the record, I'm just fine with the rule as presented. I don't care one way of the other that it's in the book, and considering that the goal of the game is beating up people and taking their stuff, I'm not going to draw some moral line in the sand if it now includes hookers, sacred or profane, coming along for the fun.
But here's what bugs me about this thread:
1) Aligning moral equivalencies. One thing that has been a pillar of the dungeonesque adventure game since its inception is beating up people and taking their stuff. Period. If you are repelled by it, you should play something else. So using this as some sort of foil to the idea of something that has not been a pillar of the genre (like prostitution in whatever form), is disingenuous.
2) I'm really tired of the assumptions that the only person who could possibly be offended is one of those nasty uptight christians. For shame. Congratulations for taking the assumptions of the OP and darn near godwining them with your response. I didn't see a single "I'm offended because of my religion" statement once in this thread, but I saw a whole lot of defenders of the rule trotting it out and beating that nag for all they were worth. Argue the merits (or lack thereof) of the arguments. Making ad hominem attacks is really just the quickest way of saying "I give up"
So in conclusion: IMNSHO, the rule is fine, if you don't like it don't use it. If sacred prostitutes offend you so much, either remove them from the setting, or hey, maybe set up some non-sacred ones to provide a system of context and comparison for your pcs. Once they see Mary "no nose" streetwalker and compare her life to that of Sister Sally shags-a-lot, they might turn the campaign in a direction you didn't anticipate by cleaning up the town and getting Mary into the church.
Lasty...
Unclench. It's a game. Have fun.
Former slave (Cheliax): You worked as a slave and you have known long periods of hard work without food. You bear the marks of more than a few whippings. You gain a +2 trait bonus to resist non-lethal damage.
OH NO!
I do not understand the indignation concerning the sacred prostitute trait.
Gone to embrace my new slave life after it's been cast in such a positive light.
(Not actually in the APG)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What?!?! I have to buy 3 books to have the materials to build a lawyer (core rules for Profession: Lying Bastard, GMG for blow, and APG for hooker NPCs).
Crazy. Particularly when you consider that lawyers doing blow off hookers is the first form of recreation known to man. I know because someone who once took a history course told me so.
I just houseruled those all in before, but nobody liked my hooker skill challenges.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just houseruled those all in before, but nobody liked my hooker skill challenges.What?!?! I have to buy 3 books to have the materials to build a lawyer (core rules for Profession: Lying Bastard, GMG for blow, and APG for hooker NPCs).
Crazy. Particularly when you consider that lawyers doing blow off hookers is the first form of recreation known to man. I know because someone who once took a history course told me so.
They weren't bad compared to the hooker chase rules you put together. I mean seriously it takes at least a full round action to pull up your pants.
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
I believe that prostitution is an objective moral evil. There is an important distinction between assuming and believing.
+1 for your point.
An additional +1 for making it using one of the best quotes of all time.
These bonuses stack :)
Ok, task for you...what exactly is morally reprehensible about prostitution? If you could make ordered points so it is easier to reply to, that would be wonderful.I have no intention of discussing psychosexuality with random strangers under my own name on a Google-indexed public forum for an RPG. I do have a real life when I'm not fighting pretend dragons. The extent to which I am willing to go into my beliefs is that I feel that institutionalized prostitution is an objective social evil and should not be presented sympathetically.
Not only that, but with no moderation the forums are currently a piranha pool.
OK, so you are offended, bothered, whatever, by the inclusion of a positive portrayal of prostitution because you believe that prostitution is an objective social evil. But you won't deign to discuss why you think prostitution is an objective social evil.
So, as soon as someone disagrees with your starting belief, (which seems to be 65%-85% of the posters responding, so it can't be that objectively evil)the conversation has to slam to a grinding halt. And yet, this thread is huge...
Anyway, I'll do you one better--I know prostitution is unquantifiably awesome. And I refuse to discuss how I know that.
Edit: Not that I want to know your real name, but I just clicked on your homepage, and unless your paychecks are made out to A Man in Black, I can't see the problem with discussing "psychosexuality" online with random strangers.
|
|
They weren't bad compared to the hooker chase rules you put together. I mean seriously it takes at least a full round action to pull up your pants.I just houseruled those all in before, but nobody liked my hooker skill challenges.What?!?! I have to buy 3 books to have the materials to build a lawyer (core rules for Profession: Lying Bastard, GMG for blow, and APG for hooker NPCs).
Crazy. Particularly when you consider that lawyers doing blow off hookers is the first form of recreation known to man. I know because someone who once took a history course told me so.
I changed the rules now so that it's only a standard action, but you can get caught in your zipper unless you take the full round.
Hey guys. I think I found the solution to this thread!
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I changed the rules now so that it's only a standard action, but you can get caught in your zipper unless you take the full round.
You should allow them to make a Sleight of Hand check as a swift action to avoid that affect. Being incapacitated for 2d4 minutes is way too much. It's gotten to the point where my players have begun abusing the rules by hanging around latrines and catching bad guys with their pants down.
Thankfully, Paizo rarely puts latrines in their materials.
Hmmm...I wonder if that's why...
|
|
I changed the rules now so that it's only a standard action, but you can get caught in your zipper unless you take the full round.
You should allow them to make a Sleight of Hand check as a swift action to avoid that affect. Being incapacitated for 2d4 minutes is way too much. It's gotten to the point where my players have begun abusing the rules by hanging around latrines and catching bad guys with their pants down.
Thankfully, Paizo rarely puts latrines in their materials.
Hmmm...I wonder if that's why...
I'm still not sure about my ruling that a rogue sneak attacks himself if he fails a zipper check. If I used the called shot rules, they'd be all cut up about it though.
A guy who creates "magical" substances that alter you?
"In Soviet Russia--" wait, that's still true.
Former slave (Cheliax): You worked as a slave and you have known long periods of hard work without food. You bear the marks of more than a few whippings. You gain a +2 trait bonus to resist non-lethal damage.
(Not actually in the APG)
Legacy of Fire Player's Guide. "Freed Slave". +1 to Fort saves.
I've enjoyed this thread immensely, especially the random trollings. Despite some distractions, the community has not only established the OPs point, and coherently separated it, but also swung back and forth on the relevant social issue, including educating those who may not know that:
• Your argument without a source is weaker
• Having a source may not strengthen your argument
• There is always more than one approach, and infinite viewpoints.
I like the ups and
downs-- surprised that a certain
Law has not shown yet
The only thing that would make this thread better is an appearance from one of my favs, Mr.Fishy or the Stuffy Grammarian.
*Dons a top hat and monocle, wearing a jersey with "FISHY" on it, and waves a foam finger*
Your disdain for science does not make it worthless.Your blind acceptance of an single researcher's opinion as the be-all, end-all of the argument buoyed by an equally blind of acceptance of the peer review process does not make you a bleeding authority figure on what is right and wrong.
You imply way too much.
What I said was that in general, that is, in the absence of better specific information, the view of someone specialized in the topic is more credible than someone who isn't.
And I do know way too much about peer reviewing, thank you very much.
If she spent several years reading material relevant to the topic, this actually does make her opinion more credible on that topic...as would anyone else having researched the same topic.
Exactly.
But in this case, even positive reviews of Mrs. Qualls-Corbett's book on the topic complain about the chapter on history. It doesn't even matter, they are not the only ones who are researching the topic. While there seems to be a consensus that temple prostitutes existed, that's not the same thing as the high status, non-enslaved sacred prostitutes this was about.
Hey guys. I think I found the solution to this thread!
What I love most about this song is the non-sequitir that is the chorus after the verses.
Best part, for me, of this movie is when, in the middle of one fight sequence that is being broadcast on local television, Jesus turns up at another villain's home. When the villain doesn't understand how Jesus can be both on his doorstep and live on television, Jesus quips
before he proceeds to beat him up.
|
Hey guys. I think I found the solution to this thread!
A strange thread. The only way to win, is not to post.
|
|
Wow just wow that he quoted a movie?
Your disdain for science does not make it worthless. If she spent several years reading material relevant to the topic, this actually does make her opinion more credible on that topic.Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown.Wow. Just, Wow... :(
Graywulfe
Hrrm? OK I missed a Pop-culture reference there. Care to enlighten me?
Graywulfe
Being a prostitute sounds great if I can cast cure disease after every "encounter". :)
|
Hrrm? OK I missed a Pop-culture reference there. Care to enlighten me?
Graywulfe
yeah sure,
If you like Nicholson, or noir or Nicholson and noir you would want to see:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071315/
"Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown." is the closing line of the movie. Basically, "you know where we are, this isn't worth it" if I remember correctly, it has been a while.
Edit: Ninja'ed by AMiB
|
|
But you won't deign to discuss why you think prostitution is an objective social evil.
The baggage it takes to continue after ten hours to rage against this silly little fille de joie feat in a book about make-believe- when all the other heinousness that's part and parcel of the game is ignored- screams that somewhere along the line a sex worker of some sort did this poor dude some serious wrong.
And if I'm wrong? Who cares. This explanation makes the entire ludicrous thread all the more entertaining.
|
|
I changed the rules now so that it's only a standard action, but you can get caught in your zipper unless you take the full round.
You should allow them to make a Sleight of Hand check as a swift action to avoid that affect. Being incapacitated for 2d4 minutes is way too much. It's gotten to the point where my players have begun abusing the rules by hanging around latrines and catching bad guys with their pants down.
Thankfully, Paizo rarely puts latrines in their materials.
Hmmm...I wonder if that's why...
I just started statting all my NPCs with the 'iron balls' feat to avoid that issue, it's a life saver.
Rarely have I've been entertained so much for so long! Brilliant!
Now I must add my piece as well....
"These are not the droids you are looking for" *waves my hand at aMiB in a Jedi-like fashion...
Carry on...
|
|
I just started statting all my NPCs with the 'iron balls' feat to avoid that issue, it's a life saver.I changed the rules now so that it's only a standard action, but you can get caught in your zipper unless you take the full round.
You should allow them to make a Sleight of Hand check as a swift action to avoid that affect. Being incapacitated for 2d4 minutes is way too much. It's gotten to the point where my players have begun abusing the rules by hanging around latrines and catching bad guys with their pants down.
Thankfully, Paizo rarely puts latrines in their materials.
Hmmm...I wonder if that's why...
That's what you worried was getting zipped up? I must be playing wrong then.
Edit: And that feat doesn't work against adamantine zippers. They bypass DR.
