Simple rules that can describe almost every situation are also rules that over-generalize characters to the detriment of options (everyone's noticing the same things, instead of perception allowing more observant characters to do what they could do), over-include the player's capabilities in place of the character's. (Players conversational skills failing to match with those of the character they intend to play), overly abstract what they describe (a monster's "power" or a character's actual abilities meaning something in adjudication but nothing consistent/concrete enough in-world), or demand a DM adjudicate without reinforcement or restriction (In the absence of rules every corner case ruling risks the danger of turning the table into a debate between PCs and the DM, inviting rapid ends and either producing embittered DMs or embittered players* - especially under the "pack it up" approach the video suggests - and helping to increase combative tables in the future.)
The games that OSR takes inspiration from did a lot right in their mortal power-level, reasonable growth, real risk of danger, and humanistic tones but if you're trying to sell me that the growth of rules that followed aren't a direct result of weaknesses in those games? I don't think we'll agree.
*The "Dorkness Rising" problem, for a slightly more light-hearted allusion.
Ah, see, I was preaching to the choir. You're on top of it already. =P
That sounds insanely dangerous for like a bunch of reasons. Like "that's a Planescape campaign by itself" dangerous. So, yeah, let us know what happens when you get there. Sounds like fun. =P
Killing him altogether seems pretty epic level, like level 25+, given that he's a deity. (But your DM could be ballsier than me, lol. Killing an aspect of him to weaken him for a bit seems more my speed.)
Alternatively you could try shifting goblin worship in localized communities to another deity. Maybe someone like Kikanuti (since I imagine getting them to worship someone like Tymora immediately might be too much of a jump?) or some other goblin. (Were Konsi to be more arrogant, I'd suggest her. =P) Kill him slowly, death by 1000 cuts of lost faith style.
My love for the first two games is sortof why I'm avoiding it. I mean, I even didn't like the concept of the proposed Black Hound game being called Baldur's Gate 3. So I'm going to come in with opinions and just ruin it for myself even if its as good as some say, and that's assuming WoTC having decades to ruin every scrap of coherency in the setting's lore hasn't impacted things negatively. (One thing I really appreciate about Larian's handling of BG3 is that they gave me enough info to come to that conclusion first.)
I mean, that's arguably incredibly conservative. "The old ways" and all that.
Thank you, I think that helps parse out where I was unclear. There's specifics in the language at play. It makes me wonder how often bad actors prevention of even small distinctions being discussed has made it muddier and harder for everyone else.
I guess my question's always been that since gender is (to my incomplete understanding) a social construct and can change, and transgender people seek to change to a gender that feels more appropriate, how did you (a) know what felt right, (b) that what felt right wasn't completely appropriate for your gender and the active definition of gender needed to change, and (c) where does chemical and surgical transition factor in for a gender based thing when attempting to find for comfortable self? Because that seems like a sex (in the clinical terminology) thing as much as a gender one (which of course there's probably a connection, I guess I'm just not clear where the line really breaks.)
To be clear, I think my questions are entirely too "rationalizing a deep emotional and person thing" so I don't really expect an answer, I've just never been invited to address the question to anyone before.
Sowing and reaping hope keeps you young.
Devil: There are RULES, we had an AGREEMENT. I can't just lie about those!
Demon: Sure you can!
The two get into a fight in the Sigil tavern. Harmonium soldiers come in to detain them, a fight ensues, both are slain. . . . Eternal blood war continues unperturbed
It is worth noting that the -Con score was a 3.X house rule but Pathfinder 1e raw. It was just -10 otherwise, which could get pretty punishing if you were dropped by bad luck.
5e's up-and-down approach to unconsciousness isn't really an ideal resolution, although making them gain levels of fatigue almost makes it functional.
Remember everyone, doppelgangers can read minds, including the minds of someone they capture before killing. So learning to act like you convincingly is more a function of time, and the fine details of manipulating your friends is then reinforced by reading their minds. Their biggest hangup is probably how lazy and selfish they are. They know what you'd do, they know how convincing their acting job is on your friends, and they may have even watched you, but they still aren't all that motivated to do it all the time. And I mean, hey, if they get caught then they just kill the person who confronts them if they can and run if they can't.
But yeah, a doppelganger would never pick Konsi to imitate for very long. She works too hard.
I mean, your argument is "we can't ever be perfect so we should never even aspire to be good", which is sortof putting the cart before the horse. That we can even recognize the distinction of not being special already places in a position where we can try and do a little better. What is better, how much, or how? What even is good or morality? All of those questions are at necessity to even define good, let alone become it. Before even glancing at perfect. Sure it might be an eternal inane treadmill, but just as fish have gills to breathe, we by chance of fate have the organs necessary to think. And that's just as much in our nature. The fish doesn't consider how long it has to swim, it just does it towards a target it can see/sense. By the same mechanism that means we aren't special, why shouldn't, why wouldn't, we do the same thing? Just because what we can see/sense may be artificial, imagined, or drempt?
I hadn't heard the Wolf's wife part, but I'd always heard said that it was a "Fox's wedding". Which is pretty similar. I've heard sunshower and that "The Devil's beating his wife" but the fox one was more fun so it stuck with me.
Marrow isn't really meat. Its more like complex fat.
Okay, chad faced joke aside (which is what I was going for there and couldn't undercut it with =P) I do prefer more simulation based ruleset which sortof demands that at least some basic rules of physics are able to be mapped between reality and the gamestate. Abstractions can exist, and explanations can be provided (like the idea of a potion only being a mouthful/shot in quantity and/or size), but strain of an increasingly divorced rulest from the actual narrative is always a problem and should be avoided, imo.
On top of some of the commentary here, I'd like to add that I think there's a real chance that WoTC's put some money behind getting it heavily reviewed/boosted, and so more articles about it and wider attention. That is not to undercut its quality, just that I think its a layers of support. (I'll admit there's more than a little bit of my distrust of WoTC in that. Like after all their other scandals they need a win to try and suck newbies into the game after so much messing up. And I don't even mean in the last year or something, their release quality for 5e has been abysmal for a long time.)
Additionally Larian played the early access thing very well. Not only did they listen to their ongoing players, and even netted some "tried it didn't like it" people back, it gave time for everyone who was perhaps too into the older isometric BG1&2 titles (like me) to realize the game didn't seem quite like it was for them and not pick it up. So you get clear, mostly good(if outdated) information out there for people to use in researching if they wanted to buy it, helping to avoid a lot of the knee-jerk hate that stuff like Fallout 4 and 76 got from misplaced expectations that could dull the release.
I mean the first two parts are definitely true.But then we stayed for 10+ years attempting to rebuild some form of stability, decided to finally pull out after more than a decade, and what was built broke down disappointingly in the face of the first threat.
Tmu, the reasons for that are varied, although some of its definitely on us. We approached the entire region's politics wrong apparently and with a very modern western mindset of a country held together with an idea of some unified identity that doesn't seem to really hold true for the region (or any region at first probably). I believe station/position abandonment in the fracturing nation was problematically common as people rushed back to their homes/families, or just to generally flee, instead of actually being a larger regional barricade against the threat, as an example.
IIRC, there was a similar problem with even the First Continental Army and Congress early on actually. With regional interests often superseding national goals in the minds of individuals and representatives.
So far as power vacuums go, as I alluded to, they had an elected government (there's probably some debate on the accuracy of those elections while being occupied by a foreign government of course) and a standing military that was actively deployed. A not insignificant number of them tried to hold out, to not undercut their efforts, but its also true it wasn't a truly unified defense in the end. Whether or not they would have been a more effective void-filler if we'd stayed longer or left sooner are just huge what-ifs.
There also seems to be a bit of weirdness even surrounding what "conservative" means. It used to mean an intent toward preservation of certain existing institutions/trends and preexisting stability, with a distrust for new institutions that may upset existing social calm. Which often is at odds with beneficial change but isn't inherently against it, favoring instead that it be slow and precise. When I think of myself as conservative that's the concept I have.
The problem is that "conservative" now can also include a group of people for which preserving an existing state (as in condition/mode of being ) is no longer acceptable, the demand either a reverse or entirely new directions.
As an example that's a little less hot button - vouchers for private schools. That's an active novelty and a change from an existing institution, rife with potential long-term impacts on both culture and stability that could be negative, and yet some positions push for it (often without addressing those problems). That's not a conservative position. That's a progressive one (maybe not in the direction someone on the left would want obviously).
Conservative got irrevocably linked with Right due to some preexisting social constructs and the urge to preserve them, but realistically it should hold just as well that a conservative would seek to preserve left-wing establishments as much as right-wing ones, or at least advise any changes to them be slow and incremental to avoid pop-up problems. Admittedly things like technology complicate that due to the speed with which it changes and demands response.