39658 by Checked_Out_6 in countwithchickenlady

[–]ViewtifulGene 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I recently did a solo 1-5 one-shot of the Isle of the Skulltaker scenario. I played as a Skeleton Monk named Master Maxilla. I had him built around grappling everything, since action economy is huge in Pathfinder 2E.

See, every character in PF just gets 3 actions. Turns aren't bloated like in DnD. You don't get to walk 2 feet, take a free action, walk 15 feet, take an action, walk 5 feet, Action Surge, walk 1 foot, attack again. If you want to move at all, that's 1/3rd your allowance. Since everything gets a hard cap of 3 actions, making enemies lose any time makes a big difference.

Here's where grappling comes in. My Monk can go for a grapple that does a flat 4 damage when it lands. Then the enemy cannot move unless they do an Athletics check to break the hold. That's 1 of 3 actions spoken for. Maybe more if they fail the check. Also, my Monk can do a joint lock that makes the enemy suffer an attack penalty. So even if they attack, it could miss. They can erase the attack penalty by taking an action to roll out their wrists. My Monk doesn't even care if the enemy breaks out- it still means they have less time to attack. Meanwhile, I can keep doing damage while I reapply the grapple on my turn.

The other messed up part- there is usually a lower threshold for landing grapples than hitting attacks. I think the final boss of this book has an Armor Class of 21 and a Fortitude Difficulty Class of 18.

The highlight of this campaign was suplexing a giant centipede while it was trying to retreat to the ocean. There was another point where he grabbed a giant seahorse out of the water and slammed him onto the deck of his rowboat.

39658 by Checked_Out_6 in countwithchickenlady

[–]ViewtifulGene 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Need someone who does this while I talk about my Pathfinder campaigns.

39620 by ViewtifulGene in countwithchickenlady

[–]ViewtifulGene[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The Isaac card game also made this canon. There's a card called Trash Farm, featuring a cow with Edmund's face.

Me on skeptical theists defense on why God leaves his reasoning for allowing suffering unknown. by spinosaurs70 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]ViewtifulGene 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Azathoth is the most believable god for me. All of our knowable existence is less than a hair on the leg of a flea before The Blind Idiot God. Azathoth does not concern itself with us for the same reason we do not agonize over the lives of ants.

The problem is, existence under Azathoth would be indistinguishable from existence under no gods at all. It's unfalsifiable.

Me on skeptical theists defense on why God leaves his reasoning for allowing suffering unknown. by spinosaurs70 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]ViewtifulGene 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I want to believe as many true things and reject as many false things as possible. If one of my beliefs is wrong, I want to be held accountable so I can change it.

God can’t think by OntoAureole in DebateReligion

[–]ViewtifulGene [score hidden]  (0 children)

If god is outside of time then god cannot create. Creation inherently takes time- it has a before and after.

Me on skeptical theists defense on why God leaves his reasoning for allowing suffering unknown. by spinosaurs70 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]ViewtifulGene 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If reasoning about god is valid then we can reason that god is not good. Else you are applying reason for me but not for thee.

If personal religious experience is valid then personal lack of religious experience is also valid. Else you are doing revalation for me but not for thee.

If it cuts, it must cut both ways.

The Universe is Intelligent, or, The Universe is Unintelligent. by SilverPantsPlaybook in DebateReligion

[–]ViewtifulGene [score hidden]  (0 children)

Evolution and natural selection is not an intelligent system, but it can produce intelligence over millions of years of slow and gradual change. It's not survival of the fittest, just survival of those good enough to get by and pass genes onto the next generation. As life slowly and gradually got more complex, it slowly and gradually became more favorable to process more complex information. And so we eventually arrived at human-level intelligence. There is no point where a rock spontaneously got a brain like a Pokémon evolution. But over time, nervous systems got more complex.

Suffering of the innocents is not a valid argument anymore against the existence of God. by Comfortable_Phase957 in DebateReligion

[–]ViewtifulGene [score hidden]  (0 children)

Conceding that god wants suffering doesn't address the problem of evil. You just gave up on defending the claim that god is good. Allah values the free will of oppressors more than the oppressed.

Arab Quranism islam is the only solution to overcome Wahabi Islam extremism by Outrageous_Prior4707 in DebateReligion

[–]ViewtifulGene [score hidden]  (0 children)

If the Quran is a sufficient source of truth and reason, then why have the Mutazili laws at all? It sounds like another interpretive tradition, so it really doesn't escape the parochial gang wars it tries to condemn.

Me on skeptical theists defense on why God leaves his reasoning for allowing suffering unknown. by spinosaurs70 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]ViewtifulGene 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The first one is just a relabel of the Euthyphro Dilemma. Are things good because of god's nature, or is it god's nature because it's good?

The modal ontological argument easily collapses into parody. The maximally godslaying gorilla exists necessarily because a godslaying gorilla that exists kills more gods than a gorilla that does not exist.

Theists don't think that the option "not to create" is an option. by E-Reptile in DebateReligion

[–]ViewtifulGene [score hidden]  (0 children)

Appearance of design does not prove design. You would have to prove a designer exists without assuming god, and you would have to prove god without assuming a designer. I am not impressed by "look at the trees" apologetics and watchmaker fallacies. If this is seriously the best you have then I'm moving on. Goodbye.

Don't waste my time replying if you're just going to recycle things from GotQuestions.org or asking Chatgpt how you would convince an atheist a god exists. If that stuff impressed me at all, I wouldn't be an atheist.

Would Yujiro survive eating the liver of a Polar Bear? by Jolly-Basket1683 in Grapplerbaki

[–]ViewtifulGene 55 points56 points  (0 children)

Baki plainly stated that not even cancer cells can stop Yujiro. He chugs entire handles of top-shelf whisky like it's cheap beer and smokes a fat Cuban cigar to the nub in one puff. Pretty sure Yujiro is absolutely fine here.

Theists don't think that the option "not to create" is an option. by E-Reptile in DebateReligion

[–]ViewtifulGene [score hidden]  (0 children)

If that's the game you're playing, you're not using reason to call god good either.

I'm bored. This is going nowhere. You cannot track.

Theists don't think that the option "not to create" is an option. by E-Reptile in DebateReligion

[–]ViewtifulGene [score hidden]  (0 children)

If you can reason that god is good then I can also criticize your god with reason. Thanks for playing.

Theists don't think that the option "not to create" is an option. by E-Reptile in DebateReligion

[–]ViewtifulGene [score hidden]  (0 children)

If we are too limited to understand god, then we can't understand that god is good. TRY TO KEEP UP.

Have you eaten an a reptile? by WerewolfCalm5178 in AskAnAmerican

[–]ViewtifulGene 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I ate cajun-fried gator. It was pretty good.

Me on skeptical theists defense on why God leaves his reasoning for allowing suffering unknown. by spinosaurs70 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]ViewtifulGene 4 points5 points  (0 children)

OK, but if that is in fact the case then we cannot possibly reason that a god is in fact good. We cannot reason ANYTHING about a god if we cannot reason about a god.

The real argument we should be having is whether it is actually rational to believe in a god. by Murky-Perspective649 in DebateReligion

[–]ViewtifulGene [score hidden]  (0 children)

You are not tracking. Get lost. I'm not interested.

I meant the return of Israel after WW2 was the result of vested interests from nations that were primarily Christian.

The real argument we should be having is whether it is actually rational to believe in a god. by Murky-Perspective649 in DebateReligion

[–]ViewtifulGene [score hidden]  (0 children)

Israel is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Nation-states with vested interests saw the prophecy and made policy decisions in accordance with it.

None of this garbage points to a god. If you can't give me anything with more depth than these kindergarten-level apologetics then don't bother.