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 © 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.
I mean, I’d believe that too. I’m pretty far from it and avoid the strip as much as possible, so I’ve never had the “pleasure”.
Didn’t the cab companies interfere with that? Or at least lobby hard against it?
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.
This is just my guess (I must solidly highlight that I haven’t played the game), but in normal D&D conditions its because you don’t survive Illithid tadpole implantation. Within about an hour or two you’re dead, and even if you kill the parasite before it completes its job you’re left pretty much brain-dead without a higher level Restoration or Heal spell because they directly eat gray matter.
They don’t just plug into your brain, they eat the gray matter and perform some sort of biological grafting between themselves and your nerves, then generate some sort of alien chemicals/hormones to morph the body over a week or more. So, despite BG3 letting you live, likely due to some sort of plot complication I’m unaware of slowing things down, killing the host isn’t likely to drive the parasite out of the body until its finished chowing down on your brain matter. (Even wild tadpoles left unattended eat brains until they grow into monsters.) Either way at this point you probably can’t actually be resurrected with Revivify, you’d need higher level Resurrection because your body isn’t fully intact anymore. (I mean, maybe you could but at best you’re in a brain-dead vegetative state with 1HP because Revivify doesn’t replace lost parts.)
Also a good chance the creature only abandoned the other host because they were already close to being out of brain food or something weird. Like them psychically being forced/ordered out of the host.
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.
I fully expect Starfield was going to be disappointing, full stop.
Respectfully, I can easily see a shared workplace at least encouraging screwing over customers. To me its an even more intense instance of the shareholder problem. Shareholders are obsessed with the money they’re getting back with no real work but the risk inherent in the bet they made. The workers are working, for a livelihood, and of course will want to improve their quality of life. They’re even more motivated to do so. And some of the best ways to do that, in the “make monkey brain happy” obvious short-term are the same policies the shareholders are already pushing. Will there be some pushback? Definitely, but you only have to sell a bunch of people on short-term easy money. And the lottery isn’t popular because people are smart about this stuff.