View Profile: Shasarak - D&D, Pathfinder, and RPGs at Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Monday, 21st May, 2018, 12:28 AM
    If I had to explain Half-Orcs then I may say, they happen when a Human and an Orc love each other very much. But I guess you could have a Human (or Orc) show genetic features inherited from an older generation.
    24 replies | 673 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Wednesday, 16th May, 2018, 07:39 AM
    I imagine that the defenders would simply use ritual magic to dispel the dome.
    26 replies | 785 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Thursday, 10th May, 2018, 01:31 AM
    What I have seen in this situation is that the majority of the time is spent with the rest of the players and that the player who does not go in to the Dungeon misses out.
    47 replies | 1500 view(s)
    0 XP
No More Results
About Shasarak

Basic Information

About Shasarak
Location:
Auckland, New Zealand

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
2,858
Posts Per Day
1.01
Last Post
Paizo News Roundup Yesterday 08:43 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
2
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 09:33 PM
Join Date
Saturday, 21st August, 2010
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Saturday, 26th May, 2018


Monday, 21st May, 2018


Friday, 18th May, 2018


Thursday, 17th May, 2018


Wednesday, 16th May, 2018


Tuesday, 15th May, 2018


Monday, 14th May, 2018



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tuesday, 17th October, 2017

  • 10:22 AM - pemerton mentioned Shasarak in post RPG Combat: Sport or War?
    I'd like to stress that when playing a 'grittier' RPG system, you have less freedom, in a way: Since combat is lethal, it's something that must be avoided at all cost. Players _must_ come up with ways to overcome their opposition by means other than open combat, otherwise your campaign is going to be short-lived.For me, this illustrates the point I've been making upthread, to Saelorn, Shasarak and billd91. In a genuinely grim & gritty RPG, ambushing someone with a sword, or a crossbow, should be (more-or-less) as dangerous as dropping a rock on them. It's purely an artefact of D&D's mechanics, which rates a sword at d8 or d10 but leaves the rating of a boulder to the GM, that results in a fighter being unable to kill someone in a weapon ambush but able- at least at the tables of those GMs mentioned - to kill someone with a boulder ambush. Which once again relates back to Aenghus's point, that the effectiveness of the boulder vs the sword turns primarily on end-running around the damage rules. It's entirely an artefact of mechanics, not of "narrative first". In a "narrative first" game involving people of "flesh and bone" (to quote Saelorn), an ambush with a sword or bow should be capable of lethality. (And in games like RuneQuest, Rolemaster, Burning Wheel, etc - ie with broadly simulationist action resolution mechanics - it is.) But D&D chooses to subordinate letha...

Friday, 7th July, 2017

  • 05:02 AM - hawkeyefan mentioned Shasarak in post Mearls on other settings
    ...terest them. This way, DMs can easily keep unwanted assumptions 100% out of their rulebooks and their games. In my own case, if the Great Wheel of Planescape and all of its polytheism was a separate expansion pack, while the Players Handbook made no mention to it, then I would be at peace and able to enjoy the game better. Different DMs are sensitive to different things, but we can all benefit from compartmentalizing the options. I disagree that it's WotC's responsibility to cater to the sensitivities of DMs and players. I think it's up to the DMs and players themselves to decide what material to use or not. I mean, I get the appeal of rule books written exactly to my personal preference...but it's simply not a realistic expectation. So Ravenloft was never meant to be a living setting in its own.? It's only visited from others? That's where my lack of history trips me up :) I thought it was a fully fledged setting that could host campaigns without needing outside support? As Shasarak said, the many realms that made up the Demiplane of Dread, the setting for the Ravenloft game, were each made for a particular dark lord. These realms were the domain of a dark lord, but also their prison as well. Each of these dark lords was taken from another world...Toril, Oerth, Krynn, or any number of unnamed worlds. Typically, the PCs in Ravenloft adventures are drawn through the misty barriwrs from their world and into the demiplane of dread. So the setting was its own, but it was conmected to the other worlds and interacted with them.

Friday, 23rd June, 2017

  • 05:32 AM - Yaarel mentioned Shasarak in post Why FR Is "Hated"
    @Shasarak and @Azzy You are kinda proving my point about ĎD&D peer pressureí to pretend to Ďworshipí Ďgodsí. If I told you, I hate Kobolds. I imagine your response would be something like. Thats nice. I dont care. But when I say, I hate polytheism. You guys seem as if unable to stop yourself from launching into some kind of reallife culture war about issues that I couldnt care less about. I enjoy D&D without Ďgodsí. I watch televisions shows where polytheism is irrelevant. I want to play games where it is irrelevant too.

Monday, 12th June, 2017

  • 02:30 AM - Hussar mentioned Shasarak in post Why FR Is "Hated"
    It's interesting that you bring up Caderly Shasarak. That's one of the few FR books I actually have read. Although, it was a LONG time ago and I don't think I read all of them. Wasn't there something about a killer yo-yo in those books? Anyway, think about what you just said though. Cadderly is the exception. Most of the priests don't adventure, and never did. Yet, funnily enough, there were higher level clerics than Cadderly at his temple. How did they gain levels? They specifically weren't adventurers, so, what did they kill or loot in order to gain several thousand xp points to go from 1st to, say, 3rd level. Just to roll this back to the idea of NPC's using PC rules. Lanefan spells it out pretty well. In AD&D, sure, you could use NPC rules for a humanoid (and only a humanoid - sorry, no class levels for your beholder), or, you could kinda sorta just bolt on some PC abilities onto an NPC, or, as was the much more common case, you could use a unique stat block. 3e changed all that. Not only did you have the option of...

Friday, 19th May, 2017

  • 12:34 AM - robus mentioned Shasarak in post To Post or Not to Post: An Ethics Question
    Something that is being ignored is fair use. I'm not saying that this is a case of that (I'm not a copyright lawyer) but it certainly sounds like the work is transformative (by recontextualizing the works) and there is certainly no impact on the "market" as the works have already been freely shared on the Internet. So the legality and the ethics are not as cut and dried as they may appear. And Shasarak is correct that an awful lot of stuff on the internet would be illegal if including others work was the only criteria.
  • 12:00 AM - LordEntrails mentioned Shasarak in post To Post or Not to Post: An Ethics Question
    Shasarak, I know where you are going with this. And I'm not going to have a debate with you about it. Suffice it to say in your country and mine what you are suggesting is illegal. In almost every ethical system what you are suggesting is unethical.

Saturday, 15th April, 2017

  • 01:41 AM - LordEntrails mentioned Shasarak in post We're Finally Mainstream! Now What?
    Shasarak, I simply can't follow your arguments. It seems like you are taking comments and arguments from anyone that doesn't side with you as being all in one pool, or something. But anyways, it doesn't matter. Labels are only as good as people are willing to agree upon them and use them consistantly. Which isn't happening here.

Tuesday, 14th February, 2017

  • 03:28 PM - Sadras mentioned Shasarak in post Whatever "lore" is, it isn't "rules."
    Simply having an opinion about a call is nothing to apologize for. Here is the thing though Max, doesn't a Onetruewayism zealot also state their opinion? It becomes increasingly messy to differentiate which unfavourable opinion of one's game is tolerable and which one is not. This might all just be a simple matter of etiquette. @Shasarak did the exact same thing with me in the other thread, calling me a lazy DM because I don't allow every character concept under the sun at my table when I DM. It ain't right either way. His style and my style are clearly different, but we shouldn't go around making disparaging remarks of each others preferences. Hiding behind it just an opinion doesn't give it a free pass. Sorry. EDIT: We cross-posted. Just saw your post above. ;)

Sunday, 12th February, 2017

  • 01:04 AM - pemerton mentioned Shasarak in post Whatever "lore" is, it isn't "rules."
    Imaro, Maxperson, Shasarak: Wizards Presents: Worlds & Monsters, p 62: [T]he design for elementals themselves had to change. . . . The elemental archons are a good example of a new creature born of this design approach. THey were created by the primordials to be elite soldiers . . . In the elemental hierarchy, they form the basis of world-scouring armies. The designers know that these are new creatures - they are not a reconcepting of Jeff Grubb's creation. It surprises me that this is even contentious. Again, contrast eladrin: from pp 40-41 of the same book: Some of the existing good-aligned monsters did incorporate neeat designs that we wanted to preserve and improve upon. Most of the eladrins fell into that category. . . . [W]e noted their generally fey appearance, and this led to a natural association with the Feywild. . . . Eladrins were already powerful magical beings in previous editions of the game. Now they have a very similar role, but as mysterious lords and ladies of the Feywild. When they a...

Saturday, 4th February, 2017

  • 04:20 AM - pemerton mentioned Shasarak in post Whatever "lore" is, it isn't "rules."
    what inherent value would you say it has for you to hew as closely as possible to what feels like the structural essence or foundation of the setting? I asked (a version of) this question on the other thread. Shasarak answered - roughly (but I hope not too loose a paraphrase) the answer was that the setting is a work of art, and departure from canon is a type of "affront" to the artwork. ("Affront" is my word, not Shasarak's - it's not quite right, becuase the artwork doesn't itself have feelings, but for present purposes hopefully it conveys the general idea in a comprehensible fashion.) Respect for my players. If I tell them I'm going to run Darksun, I feel obligated to give them Darksun, not some bastardized version.This seems to imply that one of the reasons you think that my decision to include the WoHS in my GH game was that it disrespected my players. If that is correct, it makes it even more odd to me that you haven't made any inquiries about the circumstances of the case. Is it relevant, for instance, that I started GMing that group as the outcome of a "revolt" against a prior GM whom the rest of us all agreed was terrible - and that it was on the basis of an offer to run a game ...
  • 04:04 AM - pemerton mentioned Shasarak in post Whatever "lore" is, it isn't "rules."
    ...s there are? Maybe they liked the extra magic sub system?Well they clearly liked the magic system, given that they engaged with it via PC building when they were under no obligation to do so. They also liked the story. (I think it's a fairly compelling one. That's why I put it into my game!) But some of them were certainly quite familiar with GH. And even those who didn't know it very well would have seen the well-known cover of Unearthed Arcana with its two moons. I think they simply realised that two visible moons doesn't preclude a third invisible one. I'm not saying that the 3rd moon is canon - of course it's not. I'm saying that adding it doesn't make the game cease to be a GH game. Any RPGing will mean that the setting takes on non-canonical features/elements.I think most Greyhawk GMs would agree with you there.Maybe. That said, this thread consists of a significant number of posts - from Maxperson, Imaro and maybe some other posters (eg I'm less clear about Shasarak on this poiint) - stating that my GH game is not really a GH game precisely because of addditional elements - like the 3rd moon, and the WoHS to go with it - that I have introduced. there's a differences between grabbing someone's work whole cloth and dropping it into your setting, slightly modifying someone else's work and using another's idea as inspiration to springboard off of for your own creation.This is not in dispute either. In my case, the WoHS are dropped largely whole-cloth into GH, with only as many changes made (Suel origins, astronomical details, relationships to other sorcerous traditions) as are needed to have them fit into their new home. My claim is that such a whole-cloth drop (with such slight modifications as are needed to make it work) doesn't make the game cease to be a GH one. as more material got published for campaign settings as well as in Dragon Magazine and in novels, there were a lot more players cropping up with passing familiarity in the se...

Tuesday, 31st January, 2017

  • 03:02 AM - Maxperson mentioned Shasarak in post Whatever "lore" is, it isn't "rules."
    But the only reason you have given for it being "alternative GH" rathwr than GH per se is that you, Maxperson, would have certain expectations disappointed. You have expressly eschewed offering any reason that is not individual and particular to you. Pretty much everyone has a line where settings stop being that setting. It varies from person to person, so of course I can't speak to anyone but myself. My line isn't your line. Your line isn't Shasarak's line. His line isn't Imaro's, and so on. The line does exist for everyone, though. How is that a reason for judging whether or not it is really a GH game (as oppposed to, say, a game that you want to play in).I didn't say I wouldn't want to play in it. I said I wouldn't view it as Greyhawk.

Saturday, 28th January, 2017

  • 08:01 AM - Sadras mentioned Shasarak in post Do you care about setting "canon"?
    ... if you're playing canon, the setting of Krynn doesn't cater for those races, however we have a PHB and now Volo's Guide riddled with additional races and classes which do not have a history in that setting. Now If the intention of the DM is to create a game within the parameters of setting are you saying that is not allowable? Similarly, I have my own limitation for my setting, I don't permit monks at my table for whatever reason for my Mystara game. The players know this beforehand. We have been playing within this setting for the last 20 years and they're very much aware of this ruling. It is not as if they are coming every week to my table with a character sheet and I'm going "No, not happening" Not pre-adding everything that a player could possibly want to your campaign setting, and telling a player you won't add in a specific something they like under any circumstance are worlds apart. The former is fine, not at all lazy, and not what was being discussed. The later is what @Shasarak called "lazy". Sorry no you're very much misrepresenting him. @Shasarak has very much outed his intentions by neither responding to my post or @Caliban's. He firmly said that all should be allowed otherwise it's lazy DMing. I'm assuming this is because he still carries the scars of a bad DM or his players have limited (lazy) imaginations and can only play one-trick ponies.
  • 07:49 AM - AaronOfBarbaria mentioned Shasarak in post Do you care about setting "canon"?
    [MENTION=6701872]Apparently Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman were lazy because they did not allow Tieflings, Orcs, Half-Orcs, Drow and Lyncathropes in Krynn.Unless you have anecdotes of those two refusing to work something out with a player wanting to play one of those things, you've created a false equivalence. Not pre-adding everything that a player could possibly want to your campaign setting, and telling a player you won't add in a specific something they like under any circumstance are worlds apart. The former is fine, not at all lazy, and not what was being discussed. The later is what Shasarak called "lazy".
  • 06:58 AM - Sadras mentioned Shasarak in post Do you care about setting "canon"?
    However, I generally do try to work together with the player, but not always. There are some races that simply don't fit, or I'm simply not willing to deal with. That's my prerogative as a DM. AaronOfBarbaria doesn't follow that line of reasoning, neither does his head-scratching friend Shasarak. The former posted his reasoning in the Capricious Home Rules and DM Pet Peeves thread. The latter is so entitled that he casually calls the rest of us lazy. Apparently Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman were lazy because they did not allow Tieflings, Orcs, Half-Orcs, Drow and Lyncathropes in Krynn. Lazy DMs those two. How about all the other world builders who didn't include Kender. Lazy! And now with Volo's Guide, well you just cannot imagine how many Lazy DM's are out there these days. Its an epidemic I tell you!
  • 02:38 AM - AaronOfBarbaria mentioned Shasarak in post Do you care about setting "canon"?
    I also don't like to eat liver. It tastes horrible to me.Using your analogy, and attempting to explain what appears to be Shasarak's view that you just don't seem to be getting: Not eating liver because you don't like the taste makes perfect sense. I don't eat liver either, interestingly enough. But when you say "No dragonborn at my table." it doesn't sound like you are saying "No liver for me, thanks." so much as it sounds like "No liver for anyone eating at the same table as me."

Thursday, 19th January, 2017

  • 09:56 AM - pemerton mentioned Shasarak in post Do you care about setting "canon"?
    ...au trope, and it makes the ancient empire trope carried by the Suel pick up stupid backage. All the Suel and the Scarlet Brotherhood have going for them is that they are workings out of these pulp tropes, so once you dilute them you just get less compelling stuff. *The inclusion of a cult of Chauntea in module OA7 - which introduces needless and distracting FR-isms into an otherwise very good module that, more than any other OA module except perhaps OA3, actually makes tropes around the Celestial Bureaucracy, immortality, peachling children, etc central to play. Look, this thread is 163 pages of people mostly trying to explain to you why canon is important to them. At some point you just need to accept that it is a concept you don't understand. I think you're misunderstanding me, or underestimating me, or both. I can read the posts. I can draw inferences from what is said. I'm inviting posters, though, to actually articulate the value that is moving them to care about canon. Shasarak has done this not too far upthread. But some other posters seem to shy away from it: eg they feel like they need to advance instrumental reasons (eg "players will get confused if canon changes") when it seems transparently clear that their concern is not instrumental; or they try and defend blanket claims about the importance of adherence to canon, yet in doing so put forward examples where canon has changed rather markedly (eg what, if anything, differentiates D&D orcs from JRRT's, or D&D orcs from D&D hobgoblins). I think some notion of "integrity of a body of work" is probably in the right neighbourhood for a number of posters other than just Shasarak, but the criteria by which integrity is judged could probably bear more elaboration. For instance, what sorts of trade-offs between thematic integrity and "factual" integrity are permissible (eg can we get rid of earthbergs to get something that is more fitting to the themes of Norse mythology - ie foster thematic integrity - even t...

Wednesday, 18th January, 2017

  • 09:16 AM - pemerton mentioned Shasarak in post Do you care about setting "canon"?
    ...ively gambling that the people who find the change to be positive will be larger than the people who find the change to be negativeWhat is the nature of the gamble? Clearly, it is a commercial gamble: if people don't like what you write/publish, they won't buy it. But you seem to be implying that the gamble has some other dimension as well. Which relates to "THIS IS IMPORTANT TO PEOPLE". The idea is that it matters to some people that WotC publishes a story (about gnolls, say) that contradicts some other story they once published about gnolls. And this is where I ask Why? Why is the existence of the new stuff, that you don't like and so don't want to buy, a burden on your enjoyment of the old stuff that you do like? And if the only answer is "Because it's hard to change", then I'm just not seeing it. TwoSix has just reiterated the reasons why. I think the answer must be something non-instrumental, but I haven't really seen it articulated in this thread (other than by Shasarak in a recent post). I'm a Banana has talked about "brand identity", but that's something for WotC to care about, not something for a customer to care about. What is the value, to the individual D&D player, of coherence over time of published story elements? The language of "invalidation" almost suggests that people feel that their love of some story is put under some sort of cloud if WotC decides to publish a different, inconsistent story. But that seems very odd to me: why is one person's aesthetic judgement hostage to WotC's commercial (or even artistic) decisions?

Monday, 16th January, 2017

  • 05:06 AM - pemerton mentioned Shasarak in post Do you care about setting "canon"?
    And when, new players come into D&D and hear troll, most are not thinking Poul Anderson's version which is the basis for the D&D troll. They hear the world troll and are probably are thinking of the troll in "Billy Goats Gruff", the war troll from The Lord of the Rings movie, or the trolls The Hobbit movie which are completely different from Poul Anderson's version. So, by the same token, perhaps we should rename the D&D troll to something else. The next version of D&D shouldn't just exercise lore, it should exercise the monster names as well! Remathilis, your post doesn't address Greg K's point. The D&D troll doesn't help new players orient themselves in the gameworld. I remember finding it weird (and not very Billy Goat Gruff) 30 years ago. I don't think Anderson's work is any more familiar today. So my question is - why are you, and billd91, and Shasarak, insisting that the reason you value lore is because of the epistemic function it serves? Whereas examples like this show that in many cases there is no such epistemic function. Likewise, the fact that module writers don't feel beholden to it undermines its supposed epistemic function (eg players of RttToEE can't infer that they won't meet any blue dragons, and hence don't need to memorise lightning resistance spells, simply because they are not entereing into a desert). Despite these cases where lore apparenlty doesn't serve any significant epistemic function, you nevertheless still seem to value it! Why not articulate those reasons, instead of setting out a purely instrumental account of its value which doesn't seem to do justice to your evident passion for it? (A conversation that TwoSix tried to kick off not too far upthread.)

Friday, 9th December, 2016

  • 01:01 AM - pemerton mentioned Shasarak in post Do you care about setting "canon"?
    Imaro, Shasarak, Elderbrain I am utterly baffled. You are now arguing that it is a house rule to play a character with the 4e Good alignment with the same personality and outlook as a 2nd ed AD&D character with the CG alignment, even though the description of Good clearly encompasses the description of CG. Presumably, it follows that you think that no character before AD&D could be played identically with an AD&D character because the prior alignment descriptors were different. Presumably, it follow that you think that every LE monster that, in 4e, was relabelled "Evil" was fundamentally changed. This is just bizarre. Utterly bizarre. Why do you think the label is more important than the actual personality, motivation, moral outlook, etc - which have not changed one iota!


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
No results to display...
Page 1 of 100 123456789101151 ... LastLast

Sunday, 27th May, 2018

  • 11:23 PM - JEB quoted Shasarak in post Paizo News Roundup
    It sounds like from Erik Monas comment further up thread that yes that is what their statement ment. If Paizo intends to edit or remove Folca in both print and PDF the next time they do a print run for Book of the Damned, then they should specifically say so. Thus far their statements have been in vague or general terms and lacked such specifics.
  • 08:09 AM - JEB quoted Shasarak in post Paizo News Roundup
    They did make a statement months ago when the issue was first raised. What further statement is needed? When did they make a statement specifically saying that they would update Folca the next time they did a print run for Book of the Damned? Depends on the rules mistake. What action are you wanting them to make? The action they should take is to either remove Folca, or edit it into a form that no longer evokes child sexual abuse. This would demonstrate that they took the complaints seriously and wish to make amends.
  • 06:43 AM - JEB quoted Shasarak in post Paizo News Roundup
    I am sure that they will update it the next time they do a print run for the Book of the Damned. I believe that is when they usually incorporate their errata. 1) If that's the case, an official announcement would be nice. We haven't heard anything about this issue in about six months. 2) Correcting the Folca issue is only as much a priority as, say, correcting a rules mistake?

Saturday, 26th May, 2018

  • 01:06 AM - JEB quoted Shasarak in post Paizo News Roundup
    I assume that we are supposed to conclude that they gave an appropriate response to the situation at the time and then just got on with the job of creating PF2. It seems like the only logical conclusion given the facts presented. PF2 wasn't such an all-consuming task over the last six months that Paizo couldn't get someone to edit a few paragraphs in a finished book layout. No, the Folca material is still in Book of the Damned because they didn't think it was important to remove it. And if they didn't think it was problematic enough to remove... how sincere were those apologies?

Friday, 25th May, 2018

  • 06:41 AM - Charlaquin quoted Shasarak in post Looking At The Pathfinder 2 Wizard Class
    I think that if spamming firebolt over and over is your idea of magic then it looks like you are going to be in luck with the Pathfinder playtest. Because as you said what is the difference if your 4.5 damage per round comes from a crossbow bolt or shooting "magic". Iím pretty sure making fire appear spontaneously out of thin air is magic by just about any definition, but go ahead and No True Scotsman miraculous phemona that flip the bird to the laws of thermodynamics if thatís what floats your boat, I guess.

Thursday, 24th May, 2018

  • 12:18 PM - Aldarc quoted Shasarak in post Looking At The Pathfinder 2 Wizard Class
    To be honest I would much rather play a Wizard that conserves his spells and fulls back on his Crossbow then one that can shoot an infinite amount of fire bolts. Because after all Gandalf was not constantly spamming fire attacks.He also wasn't spamming crossbow bolts either. (I also think that Gandalf is more Druid than Wizard.) But I understand that you have to adapt to the video game generation.:hmm: This sentiment is a bit condescending, if not inaccurate. This is less about video games and more about changing prevailing norms and tastes. For example, even outside of the spell conservation, the d4 HD wizard is gone. I don't think video games are to blame for that. Cantrips have increasingly become more basic combat functional across D&D editions so it is not surprising to see Pathfinder 2 follow suit. Sure Gandalf doesn't constantly spam spells, but other fantasy wizards and mages in literature do. "Hello, Wheel of Time" to name an obvious example. And D&D's power fantasy vastly ou...
  • 07:22 AM - Charlaquin quoted Shasarak in post Looking At The Pathfinder 2 Wizard Class
    Sounds like a person who wasn't here during the Edition Wars. Mellored was a very prominent poster on the WotC forums during the 5e playtest, so I think itís safe to assume they are well familiar with the Edition Wars. To be honest I would much rather play a Wizard that conserves his spells and fulls back on his Crossbow then one that can shoot an infinite amount of fire bolts. Because after all Gandalf was not constantly spamming fire attacks. But I understand that you have to adapt to the video game generation. D&D and its ilk havenít been Lord of the Rings for a long time, and I donít think video games are to blame. At least not solely to blame. Tolkienís fingerprints will always be there on the genre, but it didnít take long for people to start craving a world that was more fantastical, where magic played a big part in everyday life. For as long as there have been people roleplaying as wizards, there have been people wishing that they could be doing magic instead of using weapons ...

Sunday, 20th May, 2018

  • 02:55 AM - Riley37 quoted Shasarak in post Harassment Policies: New Allegations Show More Work To Be Done
    It is a real shame to see the on-line harassment of the minority author Larry Correia that caused the Origins Game Fair to exclude their "Guest of Honor". I doubt you would have seen this happen to a white author. I listed some points of disagreement. Point B is arguable, though only if you treat a sliding scale as if it were an on/off toggle. Point C is hypothetical. Point D is an specific counter-example to the second sentence. It has already happened, earlier this year, to a white author. The (sic) are a few fake facts here. Are you perhaps building your resume, in case there's a job opening which involves calling facts "fake"? It's an expanding field, these days. Fake birth certificate! Fake fossil record! Fake measurements of ocean levels! In this specific case, however, John Ringo has already said that yes, this happened to him. You sure you wanna call him a liar? He was a soldier, an elite soldier, and if he decides that you're insulting his honesty... Not sure how this pertains ...

Saturday, 19th May, 2018

  • 01:28 PM - Jeanneliza quoted Shasarak in post Harassment Policies: New Allegations Show More Work To Be Done
    This is the exact type of disgusting harassment that should not be tolerated, especially against minorities. I am not clear on which harassment here has you upset?
  • 01:20 PM - Nylanfs quoted Shasarak in post Harassment Policies: New Allegations Show More Work To Be Done
    This is the exact type of disgusting harassment that should not be tolerated, especially against minorities. Other than some of B, stating verifiable facts of actions can not be harassment.
  • 01:03 PM - Mallus quoted Shasarak in post Harassment Policies: New Allegations Show More Work To Be Done
    This is the exact type of disgusting harassment that should not be tolerated, especially against minorities. You mean facts?
  • 09:28 AM - Riley37 quoted Shasarak in post Harassment Policies: New Allegations Show More Work To Be Done
    It is a real shame to see the on-line harassment of the minority author Larry Correia that caused the Origins Game Fair to exclude their "Guest of Honor". I doubt you would have seen this happen to a white author. I disagree three ways: (A) You assume that online harassment caused Origins to disinvite Correia. Correia's history of trying to game an awards process, and when he failed, trying to *destroy* the awards process, was a significant concern for a con which holds an awards ceremony. You can read the initial plan at Correia's site, which is overtly about (1) getting him a Hugo and (2) the joys of inflicting suffering on people Correia doesn't like. It took two or three more years for the process to devolve into just trying to burn the Hugo awards to the ground; but start with Correia's own words. http://monsterhunternation.com/2013/01/08/how-to-get-correia-nominated-for-a-hugo/ (B) Correia is white. Yes, there was a time when the Klan targeted immigrants from Southern Europe, in...

Friday, 18th May, 2018

  • 03:03 PM - mellored quoted Shasarak in post Monsters & Backgrounds: New Pathfinder 2 Updates!
    Personally I would hope not. If it was then the 'hero' would have a 1 in 4 (25%) chance of winning two fights in a row, a 1 in 8 (12.5%) chance of winning three fights in a row and a 1 in 16 (6.25%) chance of winning four fights in a row. That would be incredibly deadly.So don't do fight a bunch of people equal to your level. Fight creatures lower than your level, or have your full group fight a single creature of your level. But yea... there's no way to say where the balance point is right now. Though personally, I like the idea of monster level equally matching character level. It makes NPC's with a class easy to match up.
  • 12:28 PM - pemerton quoted Shasarak in post Pathfinder 2's Armor & A Preview of the Paladin!
    I believe it was you.Last time I checked, I was a private citizen in Australia, not the US government! I was pointing out that the view that all killing of civilians in warfare is evil is contentious, and in fact widely denied.
  • 12:18 PM - pemerton quoted Shasarak in post Pathfinder 2's Armor & A Preview of the Paladin!
    You could blame the guy for many things, but posting on a forum after he has died?Who do you think posted on this forum that the atomic bombing of Japan was good?
  • 10:39 AM - Yaarel quoted Shasarak in post Monsters & Backgrounds: New Pathfinder 2 Updates!
    Personally I would hope not. If it was then the 'hero' would have a 1 in 4 (25%) chance of winning two fights in a row, a 1 in 8 (12.5%) chance of winning three fights in a row and a 1 in 16 (6.25%) chance of winning four fights in a row. That would be incredibly deadly. A 50% survival rate is, of course, highly lethal. But sometimes it is appropriate, maybe a climactic battle. Normally, the DM would send lower level threats to challenge the team. The beauty is, the DM has a clearer measure for how to calibrate an encounter. It is easier to dial the amount of the challenge.
  • 09:53 AM - pemerton quoted Shasarak in post Pathfinder 2's Armor & A Preview of the Paladin!
    Well we already have someone claiming that use of an Atomic bomb is a Good actHarry Truman, you mean?
  • 05:21 AM - D1Tremere quoted Shasarak in post Pathfinder 2's Armor & A Preview of the Paladin!
    That is interesting. I was listening to a former CIA agent talking about obtaining information from people and the effectiveness of torture. What decision did you come to in the end? That was a long while back, but i believe the party ended up deciding to bribe the Drow they had captured into telling them where the person who hired them was.
  • 04:15 AM - D1Tremere quoted Shasarak in post Pathfinder 2's Armor & A Preview of the Paladin!
    I must admit that I do feel foolish in trying to discuss Alignment without first checking that everyone understands what the difference between Good and Evil is. In 20+ years of running games the one thing i can say is that no one is ever clear on why some things in the game may be good and others not lol. "Why is the town paying us to kill the Goblins but making orks citizens?" "Does having the evil subtype mean i can torture it for information and its ok?" "If he is undead does that mean he is property?" So many weird discussions lol.
  • 03:35 AM - D1Tremere quoted Shasarak in post Pathfinder 2's Armor & A Preview of the Paladin!
    Well we already have someone claiming that use of an Atomic bomb is a Good act so yeah, people got to justify their actions. The first step is claiming that there are no objectively good or evil acts. The idea of objective good/evil is itself a positive claim. In order to make a positive claim you must have evidence to support it. There is no evidence to support objective good/evil.


Page 1 of 100 123456789101151 ... LastLast

0 Badges

Shasarak's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites