Ragadolf |
DSXMachina wrote:IIRC, that was how I ate it in elementary school and I loved it. It looked so awful but tasted so good.Treppa wrote:Celestial Healer wrote:Ragadolf wrote:Have you ever had well-prepared brussels sprouts? I hated them until I ate them cooked by somebody who knew what they were doing.I'm sorry to hear that.
If you all enjoy them, I'm happy for you.
But I strongly maintain that while brussel sprouts may or may not be the source of all evil,... they are most certainly not food! ;P
At least, not in my house,.... ;P
Wee cabbages are delicious! You don't have to do much with them beyond a light (but thorough) steaming and a little drizzled butter. Of course, you must select young, tender sprouts, not the ancient croquet balls.
But the pineapple/maple you mention sounds intriguing, especially with a hint of anchovy paste.
Nope, do it the British way. Get the old yellow-y ones, that are slightly peeling and have brown dotted bits.
Then boil then in normal water until you get rid of any remnants of taste and turn the consistency to mush. Then serve....
*Blink, Blink*
BLeeeaaah!
I mean, Id be willing to try it either of the other ways. (I'll try almost anything once, twice if I like it. That's what gets me in so much trouble!)
But,... Boiled to mush?!?
Bleeeaaah!
;P
Bitter Thorn |
Bitter Thorn wrote:Actually for someone 6'6" every dress will be rather on little side...Freehold DM wrote:I reckon it's a challenge to find a little black dress when one is 6'6".Bitter Thorn wrote:She was dressed to kill too, but I could tell it was a struggle for her to find clothes. Her makeup was AWESOME, I should have told her as much.Freehold DM wrote:I also met a woman who was easily 6'6".Wow!
:)
196 missed
F%!!!
My weekend sucked dog ass!
It started with the Fellnight group getting canceled at the last minute due to child care falling through for the DM, and it went way way downhill from there.
Bitter Thorn |
So how many PCs do I have to kill before the feeling bad about it goes away? I'm guessing more than one.
I've killed more than a few since I started DMing in the 70's and I still feel bad when it happens, but if players know you will never kill them it changes the game in ways you can feel it.
It's like watching a movie and knowing that all the good guys live because you've seen the sequel.
Bitter Thorn |
Mrgh. Still in the hospital. They're pretty sure he's got some kind of viral infection. Still getting high fever, but Motrin takes care of that. His heart rate is still higher than it should be, though.
They took X-ray of his chest to check his heart and lungs. And they want to give it until 24 hours after his first symptoms (which would be later tonight), to see if his blood culture shows anything new.
If nothing bad pops up from all that, they may let us take him home. I'm hoping that's the case because he really wants to go home.
:(
Icyshadow |
What's your new lizardfolk like Icy?
I haven't nailed ideas down, but I wanted to make at least one sub-species that has gecko traits and another that look more like chameleons with abilities associated with them. Seems the default lizardfolk are partially aquatic and really look like iguanas for the most part. I'll need to come up with a setting-specific name for all the different lizardfolk variants, though.
Aberzombie |
Charlie seems to be improving. They had to pull his IV last night because it was leaking, so they gave him antibiotics orally instead. Then his fever spiked a bit (only 101 this time), but he drank nearly an entire sippy cup of water. This morning his mother tells me he ate a pack of fruit snacks, then asked for bacon! I'll be going over in a little while. Hopefully we'll be able to bring him home today.
Orthos |
And I just had the pleasure of running into someone who thinks all necromancy is evil again...
*Hits head on desk*
Did they call you a hipster too for daring to play a Good necromancer? That's essentially the rant I got from someone on these forums on that subject. At least, that's my best interpretation of it - they never did answer my question about what the term they used meant.
EDIT: Found the exact quote: "dude stop coming up with "the exception has become the rule" examples just because you want to be alt." Anyone ever seen that term defined in that context?
Freehold DM |
Icyshadow wrote:And I just had the pleasure of running into someone who thinks all necromancy is evil again...
*Hits head on desk*
Did they call you a hipster too for daring to play a Good necromancer? That's essentially the rant I got from someone on these forums on that subject. At least, the that's my best interpretation of it - they never did answer my question about what the term they used meant.
EDIT: Found the exact quote: "dude stop coming up with "the exception has become the rule" examples just because you want to be alt." Anyone ever seen that term defined in that context?
seen it before. The guy who insists on playing the good necromancer, the guy who insists on playing the samurai/ninja because they are inherently superior to the fighter/rogue, etc.
When it comes to something like good necromancers, it's depends on the motivation of the person playing the character. Some people are doing it just to be special snowflake annoying. Others do it because there is a genuine character concept. The player and the dm have to sit down together and come up with some ground rules or, if those are too cloying, common ground to work on. Second ed rules supported a good necromancer in theory, I can honestly say no one's attempted to bring it up to me in years.
Orthos |
Orthos wrote:Icyshadow wrote:And I just had the pleasure of running into someone who thinks all necromancy is evil again...
*Hits head on desk*
Did they call you a hipster too for daring to play a Good necromancer? That's essentially the rant I got from someone on these forums on that subject. At least, the that's my best interpretation of it - they never did answer my question about what the term they used meant.
EDIT: Found the exact quote: "dude stop coming up with "the exception has become the rule" examples just because you want to be alt." Anyone ever seen that term defined in that context?
seen it before. The guy who insists on playing the good necromancer, the guy who insists on playing the samurai/ninja because they are inherently superior to the fighter/rogue, etc.
When it comes to something like good necromancers, it's depends on the motivation of the person playing the character. Some people are doing it just to be special snowflake annoying. Others do it because there is a genuine character concept. The player and the dm have to sit down together and come up with some ground rules or, if those are too cloying, common ground to work on. Second ed rules supported a good necromancer in theory, I can honestly say no one's attempted to bring it up to me in years.
The character in question in my case was a Medium. She actually used/uses Divination as much as Necromancy, since all the good "talk with things" spells are in Div, and was always extremely respectful to the dead (often more so than the living), using speak with dead and similar effects to actually ask permission before animating a corpse, and even then only in dire circumstances (never "Welp need another cannon fodder/meat shield, let's reanimate the dude we just killed") and with severe apologies for "interrupting your rest".
The original version was a Necromancer Wizard, but I have her on the back-burner to play again as a Bones/Haunted Oracle.
Icyshadow |
Freehold DM wrote:Orthos wrote:Icyshadow wrote:And I just had the pleasure of running into someone who thinks all necromancy is evil again...
*Hits head on desk*
Did they call you a hipster too for daring to play a Good necromancer? That's essentially the rant I got from someone on these forums on that subject. At least, the that's my best interpretation of it - they never did answer my question about what the term they used meant.
EDIT: Found the exact quote: "dude stop coming up with "the exception has become the rule" examples just because you want to be alt." Anyone ever seen that term defined in that context?
seen it before. The guy who insists on playing the good necromancer, the guy who insists on playing the samurai/ninja because they are inherently superior to the fighter/rogue, etc.
When it comes to something like good necromancers, it's depends on the motivation of the person playing the character. Some people are doing it just to be special snowflake annoying. Others do it because there is a genuine character concept. The player and the dm have to sit down together and come up with some ground rules or, if those are too cloying, common ground to work on. Second ed rules supported a good necromancer in theory, I can honestly say no one's attempted to bring it up to me in years.
The character in question in my case was a Medium. She actually used/uses Divination as much as Necromancy, since all the good "talk with things" spells are in Div, and was always extremely respectful to the dead (often more so than the living), using speak with dead and similar effects to actually ask permission before animating a corpse, and even then only in dire circumstances (never "Welp need another cannon fodder/meat shield, let's reanimate the dude we just killed") and with severe apologies for "interrupting your rest".
The original version was a Necromancer Wizard, but I have her on the back-burner to play again...
My Necromancer character always cared more about the side of necromancy focusing on souls.
I could go into actual details on her whole story and such, but I don't have the mental power for that right now.
She's a Half-Fiend (Half-Devil to be exact) Elf Necromancer, who's alignment is somewhere between Chaotic Good and Chaotic Neutral.
Celestial Healer |
Treppa wrote:Celestial Healer wrote:Ragadolf wrote:Have you ever had well-prepared brussels sprouts? I hated them until I ate them cooked by somebody who knew what they were doing.I'm sorry to hear that.
If you all enjoy them, I'm happy for you.
But I strongly maintain that while brussel sprouts may or may not be the source of all evil,... they are most certainly not food! ;P
At least, not in my house,.... ;P
Wee cabbages are delicious! You don't have to do much with them beyond a light (but thorough) steaming and a little drizzled butter. Of course, you must select young, tender sprouts, not the ancient croquet balls.
But the pineapple/maple you mention sounds intriguing, especially with a hint of anchovy paste.
Nope, do it the British way. Get the old yellow-y ones, that are slightly peeling and have brown dotted bits.
Then boil then in normal water until you get rid of any remnants of taste and turn the consistency to mush. Then serve....
You will love this, DSX... I was reading my book on British cooking, and the forward (written by someone other than the main author of the cookbook) was laying out all of the hilarious stereotypes about British food (which the cookbook author then goes on to debunk). One of my favorite bits was the author of the forward talking about being invited to a dinner party of traditional English fare. "Fortunately, we only set the date for the dinner two weeks in advance, so the hostess would not have time to give the vegetables a full English boil." Hilarious.
(The vegetable recipes in the book are all fantastic, I should point out.)
Celestial Healer |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Boiling to mush is great way of serving beans and peas... But brussel sprouts? I am unconvinced...
I actually like my vegetables rather under-cooked. For example, people seem enamored with my green beans. The secret? I boil them for 2 minutes. That is all. They are crisp like raw green beans, but hot.
Celestial Healer |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, count me on the side of "why is all necromancy evil?" Life and death are two sides of the same coin, and it confuses me that the cure spells aren't necromancy for that reason.
I mean, yeah, reanimating Grandma is bad form, but not all necromancers do that.
The better question to me is, why did all the spells that deal with "life" get shoved into Conjuration? When you move the "life" spells out of Necromancy, all that is left is the "death" ones.
I think that is why, as FHDM pointed out, good necromancy worked better in 2e. They still had all the healing spells in the Necromancy school.
I think it can still be done in 3e/PF, but it takes more effort and creativity to pull it off than it did back then.
Icyshadow |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Scintillae wrote:Yeah, count me on the side of "why is all necromancy evil?" Life and death are two sides of the same coin, and it confuses me that the cure spells aren't necromancy for that reason.
I mean, yeah, reanimating Grandma is bad form, but not all necromancers do that.
The better question to me is, why did all the spells that deal with "life" get shoved into Conjuration? When you move the "life" spells out of Necromancy, all that is left is the "death" ones.
I think that is why, as FHDM pointed out, good necromancy worked better in 2e. They still had all the healing spells in the Necromancy school.
I think it can still be done in 3e/PF, but it takes more effort and creativity to pull it off than it did back then.
Actually, I should make this a canon thing in my homebrew setting.
Ragadolf |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Huh, I hadn't thought about it in years, but your correct.
Way back then, all of the healing spells were in Necromancy, along with all of the death and animation spells.
Wait, so what exactly is/was the justification for moving all the healing over to conjuration? I mean, I have no problem with the Necro book being all death spells, but how is healing conjuration?
I missed a leap of logic somewhere? ;P
Orthos |
Celestial Healer wrote:Actually, I should make this a canon thing in my homebrew setting.Scintillae wrote:Yeah, count me on the side of "why is all necromancy evil?" Life and death are two sides of the same coin, and it confuses me that the cure spells aren't necromancy for that reason.
I mean, yeah, reanimating Grandma is bad form, but not all necromancers do that.
The better question to me is, why did all the spells that deal with "life" get shoved into Conjuration? When you move the "life" spells out of Necromancy, all that is left is the "death" ones.
I think that is why, as FHDM pointed out, good necromancy worked better in 2e. They still had all the healing spells in the Necromancy school.
I think it can still be done in 3e/PF, but it takes more effort and creativity to pull it off than it did back then.
I already do, so I recommend it to anyone else looking at the idea. I've even already listed it among the houserules for the PbP I'm putting together: "Cure and other healing spells have been moved to the Necromancy school."
Orthos |
Huh, I hadn't thought about it in years, but your correct.
Way back then, all of the healing spells were in Necromancy, along with all of the death and animation spells.Wait, so what exactly is/was the justification for moving all the healing over to conjuration? I mean, I have no problem with the Necro book being all death spells, but how is healing conjuration?
I missed a leap of logic somewhere? ;P
Because Necromancy is Evil, is the best I've gotten. So all the "Good" stuff got moved out of it and into something that wouldn't look so bad.
I imagine the justification was more along the line of "Because you're Conjuring up positive energy to heal someone with". But if Cure spells are Conjuring positive energy, then why aren't Inflict spells Conjuring negative energy? The two work exactly the same, just with two different elements. "Because Necromancy is Evil, duh, and Evil characters cast Inflict spells" is, again, the only justification I've gotten.