We have created the term here. It is ours. Let us use it for the betterment of all.
Or to make fun of others that don't share our opinion...
...that is the Paizo forum way, right? :p
(I jest, of course)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it because it's bright, shiny, bouncy, has no sharp dangerous bits, plastic, gets swatted around by hot people in swim suits, pops under pressure and blown away in strong gusts of wind.
Your are especially not allowed to take them to the cricket... Security will come and pop the ball and kick you out of the grounds.
I will never understand Cricket.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will never understand the draw to Doctor Who.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will never understand the draw to Doctor Who.Moffat says it quite succinctly...
“When they made this particular hero, they didn’t give him a gun, they gave him a screwdriver to fix things. They didn’t give him a tank or a warship or an x-wing fighter, they gave him a call box from which you can call for help. And the didn’t give him a superpower or pointy ears or a heat ray, they gave him an extra heart. They gave him two hearts. And that’s an extraordinary thing; there will never come a time when we don’t need a hero like the doctor.”
- Steven Moffat
And then Moffat began screwing things up. But still.
|
I can argue that! Is it good to allow your enemies to regroup against you so they can slaughter more of your people? History shows this is the most likely scenario when you allow your enemies to survive. The fact we are in a world with goblins, orcs and ogres, I suspect this would be even more true!
Without going into the politics of it too much, there are numerous real life examples of a people allowing an enemy to survive led to massive deaths of there people, and in a few cases an entire populaces extermination. That sounds bad, real bad.
I consider protecting oneself and then ones family as the highest moral priority....so yeah, I never saw it as not good, I actually consider it the highest good.
And now I need to go find new deities for my Torag worshipers. Thanks Paizo for ruining something else for me this month!
One of the first numbers of Dragon I brought had an interesting article about the speed at which population numbers recover after a disaster. What matter is the number of female alive after the disaster and the speed at which the new generations mature.
If applied to a world with intelligent races with a short and a long lifespan the results are pretty terrific for the races with a long lifespan.A Dwarf will start reproducing after 50 years of life, a Human after 20, an half orc after 16. If there is enough food population growth is exponential. If (for ease of calculation) we assume that with enough food every generation will double the number of the previous generation 2 dwarves will become 8 in a century, 2 humans will become 64, 2 half orcs 128.
With that difference the dwarves have a strong incentive in slaughtering the female orcs as it is the only way to keep the orc population in check. Even if the orcs were NG after a time there would be a problem as people need to eat and the NG orcs would be forced to wage war to expand their territory and find more food.
Malthus push us toward the LE alignment.
"Fortunately" the orcs mistreat the females, children and weaker elements of their society, reducing their numbers an keeping their population in check.
It is a pretty horrible line of thought but one that has a effect on our game world.
Years ago I did read a timeline of the world of R. E. Howard. After the time of Conan the civilization collapsed when a priest of Mithra taught to the barbarian tribes advanced medicine techniques, especially about childbirth and care of pregnant women, starting a population boom in the barbarian tribes.
They did overrun the civilized nations with sheer numbers.
Teaching that to orcs tribes could have the same result.