PK htiw klaw eriF

You know the details? I looked it up and couldn't find anything substantial.

How many roubles? Price of mail order, escort service, or how much plastic surgery it look?

I want to go to Moscow, simply to call bull****.

****ing logic, how does that work? Well.... 1. LGBT gets equal rights 2. ????????? 3. Destruction of Religious Liberty, Order, and America

Lookout, Obama's gunna take ur guns and make ya gay marry an illegal immigrant in a muslim ceremony.

No. A wall can't use a PC. You have a problem with me assuming the power level of a dragon by referring to the common usage of dragons in fantasy? Fine. Except you did the same thing..... You don't know if a fictional creature in this setting is mortal, yet here you are making your argument using an assumption, just like I did. Again, you can go making justifications on how a normal group of people can accomplish amazing things forever, but it doesn't ****ing matter because PE will not be populated by "normal" people. It will be populated by people who can use magic, call upon the power of their souls to perform superhuman feats, and by non-humans who have special abilities. If you want a hyper-realism game, go play Age of Decadence or something, because PE will not be for you. And just because I couldn't resist... In EVERY IE game HP was tied to level and class in addition to CON In EVERY IE game there was a focus on stat inflation(attack, AC, HP, etc) What you are proposing is different than what has been in ANY IE game

Yes. Just because a weapon can break through a well crafted suit of armor doesn't mean it will harm a Large magical flying lizard who can incinerate creatures by breathing, has great magical power, is highly intelligent and physically powerful. Of course you could pull justifications on how a normal person could defeat a dragon out your ass until PE is released, but that doesn't change the fact that the PE setting is not realistic. Unless being able to tap into the power of your soul to break the laws of physics is realistic.

A normal person could not kill a dragon, unless the dragon was a komodo dragon. For one, they DON'T EXIST, and even if they did their physiology make them virtually invincible to medieval weaponry, even if they are struck in the eyes. To get back on topic: I want a power level/progression to have characters be superhuman(closer to Spider-Man than Superman though), but what is more important to me is that it is explained. I want there to be some in-game, lore supported reason why a fighter is able to withstand fireballs or other powerful spell. Thankfully, PE's souls can be used to explain that so I don't have much to worry about.

Oh noes, teh gheys are destroying religious liberty by getting equal rights and protection under the law.

That may be true, but I think that 3.xE/Pathfinder Multiclassing just works great. And multiclassing seems easier to keep up with, YMMV.

Too late for that. Trashy's gone into Game_Exile(or whatever his name was) level of hostility.

When you play, feel free to play by house rules if you do not like a particular rule or feel there should be a rule governing something. Above all, make sure the game fits the audience, some people want to do dungeon crawls, some want combat simulators, some want to role play, often most want to do some mixture of the three. Take in to account what the players like to do when you start a campaign.

But the problem is that once they're voted into office by and large they serve only the interests of corporate lobbyists. Sure, if the public makes enough stink they'll act to avoid being called out during the next election, but day-to-day they're far more interested in who's giving away dollars. Oh I completely agree. Far too many of our representatives suck at actually representing the people who vote them in office. I just don't know what would be a better system. I mean I'd love to limit lobbying powers, but there already is quite a bit on the books to do that, and yet big business still finds a way. As for a true democracy, it's just unfeasible. I don't have time to sit on committees and read through a bunch of federal stuff to make informed decisions on public policy and budgeting. Unfortunately the people we vote to do that don't seem to have the time either Well, we could always decrease the monetary rewards for elected officials, institute term limits, and crack down much harder on lobbyists and corporate influence. Most likely will not happen though, because the ones who could do those things are the ones who would be negatively impacted by them.

Sorry, I disagree with the idea that there's both micro and macro perspectives of tyranny. If you get one person that is all "boo I hate our government," that is not a reflection of the government being tyrannical. Tyranny requires some level of large scale consensus. Some guy that goes "I can't murder people without the government getting pissy! What a tyrannical hell hole I live in" is a poor indicator as to whether or not the government is believed to be tyrannical. Social contracts exist for a reason. The word becomes meaningless if someone wants to thump their chest and go "we live in a tyrannical police state" because they're an anarchist and the overwhelming amount of people that live in said state completely disagree with him. It's straight up fear mongering because these people realize that it's the places like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union that were police states, and if they can convince people that we're just like those states, then they can help gain momentum for their movement. I was commenting on the perception of tyranny from the point of individuals. A better worded version would be: To some individuals the government existing is a form of tyranny, and anything it does is in some way oppressing them. To the average person, the government is not tyrannical until it starts actively harming citizens, strictly limiting rights, etc. The former are wrong.

Would this mean that any level of social contract indicates a police state? To certain Individuals, yes. To the average person, no. To some people, ANYTHNG the government does is tyrannical.

Obviously what I posted went straight over your head. Not surprisingly. The fact is that you see bogeymen around evey corner and make mountains out of molehills. Have fun with the fear porn!

I read somewhere that it was confirmed that there won't be multi or dual classes. What?!?!? I just checked the wiki and it says there multiclassing is still bring considered.

I don't understand why we are even using real life situations in PE. IRL, a knight could not call upon the power of his soul to heal himself, strengthen his attacks, or move at greater speed, unless I missed something.

No.

Somehow I think that Americans are a bit better off than Russia(where you can be imprisoned for public demonstration) or China(where the government controls everything). Unless I missed the part where some tea baggers went to prison or where my Internet is censored.

I'm opposed to them being unbeatable, because I feel that it would be an arbitrary limit slapped on. I have no qualms with them being extremely powerful and difficult to defeat, but no invincibility please. Firstly, I didn't say they would be invincible, just that it would take an army with siege weapons perhaps to defeat them. I don't know how powerful spells are in PE, but unless there are superpowerful spells, then it would be almost impossible to defeat them with only a handful of people. Also, it's not an arbitrary limit, some things are not physically possible, and some things are. They can be beat if humans have the numbers and planning. Perhaps you can lead an attack on a dragon in the game with a small army at your disposal. My mistake, I took " shouldn't be beatable" the wrong way I guess.

Most of the folks you'll find arguing in this thread are very indoctrinated in that way of thinking, and do not see the forest through the trees.Tip: In the upper left corner of your reply box is a button to use BBCode Mode. That will allow you to use the old format of quoting.And you're right on tariffs. Those would solve a lot of problems. Yet that's a taboo subject and you'll get labeled a tinfoil hat wearer or an old fuddy duddy when a large majority of the population is brainwashed into thinking 'free trade' is all that, and a similar number brainwashed into thinking change is always for the better. We don't call it 'change' much anymore though, that's passe, and isn't as good a word as others in the battle for minds. Use words like 'evolution' and 'innovation' that way the opposing argument sounds bad right off the bat. Oh please, nobody would call you a tin foil hat wearer or fuddy duddy. We prefer "bat**** conspiracy nut" these days. Sorry our Illuminati indoctrination prevents us from seeing the truth presented by the prophet Alex Jones, Mother Russia, and Ron Paul.

@AGX I agree with your points, but I have to correct you on the 2nd Amendment. It actually says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". You missed two commas, whose inclusion really turn the amendment into a garbled cluster****. You were closer than most right-wingers though, they seem to be allergic to "regulated". On libertarians: I think it is funny as hell how they talk like they are the most patriotic and loyal 'mericans EVAR, but end up agreeing with Russian propaganda most of the time. Any one else see a bit of humor in that.

Well this has been a fine bit of information. Woedica sounds quite inspired.

I'm opposed to them being unbeatable, because I feel that it would be an arbitrary limit slapped on. I have no qualms with them being extremely powerful and difficult to defeat, but no invincibility please.