ProfessorOwl_PhD [any]

This is completely standard, Paizo have always given the rules for free and made you pay for the stories and lore.
It’s not even a starter set, it’s the playtest, so you already need to be familiar with Pathfinder 2e in order to use the rules. Definitely not a place for a group to test the waters, they’re looking for serious dweebs to obsess over the maths and mechanics so they can refine it - the playtest adventure(s) are just playgrounds for them to do that it.

The political alignment is entirely relevant to Miles O’Brien.

Because western civilisation is not meant to exist there.

Yes, exactly - as I put it to my players, a “person” isn’t able to be inherently good or evil. They’ll have their own morals - particular things they always will or won’t do - but alignment is for things literally made of the concept of that alignment.

You know how the tarrasque constantly regenerates? Well what if you harvested it for meat?

The 3.x tarrasque became a joke, but that was a result of the extensive options combined with people’s system understanding - sure a single wizard could kill it, but that still needed to be played by someone who understood the system. It was a system that gave unlimited options, so if you worked out how to combine enough of them you could break the system wide open, and the tarrasque was a great yardstick for that.

Then you come to 5e’s tarrasque and it’s so badly designed that it’s obvious from a glance that a level 1 character with flight can just hover above it and plink it down with a bow. I’ve seen 3.5’s brought up in comparison to that, but not as an example of difficult fights in a vacuum.

No, equating alignment and morality makes them both meaningless. Morality should be tied to outlooks/philosophies etc, a personal matter of how the individual acts in a situation, while alignment with the forces of good/evil/law/chaos should be a matter of absolute determinism. It’s easy to look at D&D and say it’s wrong, but just because something’s bad in D&D doesn’t mean the idea itself is bad.

He reprised his original appearance in The Chats’ video for Dine n Dash, too.

Understandable - I prefer lovecraftian and fey creatures for alien thought processes, and use devils more as a foil/mirror to the lawful god of cities, merchants, and wealth, whomst I hate and will take any opportunity to drag.

I’d argue Devils, by their nature of being lawful as well as evil, are often interesting villains because of their “species”, but it’s kinda different when it’s a creature literally made from the primordial essence of Evil rather than just a bad dude.

Counterpoint: The overwhelming majority of curses are either crippling or a complete nonissue. Something like mummy rot will quickly kill a character, and curses that impose penalties on stats or rolls either affect something they use, making the character almost useless, or doesn’t, so doesn’t matter. If you don’t want the party remove cursing a specific curse, just make it more powerful than them.
Counterspelling is bad for a similar reason curses are bad, not remove curse - the overwhelming majority of counterspelling mechanics make it either too easy to too hard. Too hard and it’s just not worth trying, and too easy makes combat a matter of who has more casters.

You’re right on your interpretation of the word and to disagree with the poster. They’re just some lib psuedophrenologist.

removing their protection

Oh please, please do tell me about NATO’s defensive operations. I promise you it’s not a trick, there is at least one NATO operation that took place on the soil of a member state.
Then we can talk about all of NATO’s invasions of non-member states and take a look at how reasonable it is to demand that a group that have specifically designated you as their enemy withdraw from bordering states.

Uh, sure, but we’re not 6 year olds anymore, so you should be able to grasp the larger geopolitical implications of a specifically anti-Russian alliance continuing to further enlarge and spread into countries bordering Russia. Remember when the US innocently moved a few nukes to Turkey and it resulted in the Cuban Missile Crisis?

According to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg;

The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn’t sign that.

The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that.

So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.”

Transcript

I know you think you’re very clever for not buying into such obvious russian disinformation, but they don’t need to lie about stuff like this. Start doing a bit more research instead of taking news at face value.

The Good, The Bad, and the Weird (좋은 놈, 나쁜 놈, 이상한 놈) is a fantastic slapstick take on the classic western that has a lot of fun with the setting.
Trollhunter (Trolljegeren) is a great horror-mockumentary done in a found footage style.
Basically anything by Kurosawa.

Edit: TO COMMUNISTS, ANARCHISTS, OR ANYONE ELSE CALLING FOR THE OVERTHROW OF SOCIETY

THIS OBVIOUSLY ISN’T MEANT FOR YOU.

You’re asking why radical leftists reject your reformism. Who other than radical leftists are going to give you an actual answer instead of a pat on the back?

Anyway the answer is liberalism is far more violent, it just exports the violence overseas and commits it at an industrialised level. The infamous “Terror” in France only killed a few thousand people - the Iraq war killed over a million. While millions were killed in the cultural revolution, hundreds of millions were killed by the British Raj. Revolutionary violence is in fact far less violent than regular capitalism, so you’re hated for supporting its continuation.

I mean it’s meant to be illegal in Austria, but I still saw a fuckload of Nazis when I went to a football game there.

“Dead meat is hung, live meat is hanged.” Turns out most people’s grandma’s aren’t radical leftist english teachers.

Actually I jumped to conclusions based on the whole comment, as it makes them seem like they consider becoming a moral relativist to be speeding through maturity.