Mentat

A very good friend of mine was accused by his partner and mother of his child of psychological abuse. There were no witnesses to this abuse since, according to her, it would only happen behind closed doors when they were alone or alone with their daughter (who is a small child). My friend denied everything, and claimed that the accusation was simply part of the strategy in the custody dispute over their daughter. Ultimately it came down to a 'he said, she said' case. Four psychologists were called in as expert witnesses, of which three sided with my friend and one with his partner. Ultimately, the judge sided with my friend's partner. My friend got sentenced with community service and a restraining order, and lost the custody dispute. I don't think I agree with the sentencing, given there was no evidence beyond conflicting testimony, but it was not my call to make. I've known my friend since I was a teenager (I'm now 45), and I believe I know him well enough to trust what he says is the truth and disregard these accusations as false. Of course, I can't know with a complete certainty. I've done my best to support him and comfort him in what I know are very hard times for him, regardless. False accusations and miscarriages of justice have been around forever (the ninth commandment says Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour). It most certainly goes both ways, though. True accusations not being believed can be just as much of a problem (or more of one, if it happens more frequently). I also have no good solution to the problem, but I think getting involved via social media in cases where we really don't have any background knowledge is not helping. If two people give conflicting accounts of events I was not a witness to, I'm not aquainted with either of them and it's not my duty, job or responsibility to resolve the issue or conflict... then the correct response might simply be saying "I don't know. I don't know these people and I wasn't there" and letting the conflict be resolved through whatever channels it is meant to be.

That sounds like a lot of work in terms of house-ruling. I'd say most D&D levels aren't really all that significant. Some are, though, and I think that's where it's probably more worth an effort to make it a milestone moment from the storytelling point of view: - Acquiring a subclass. Some characters sort of start with one, but for others it should be an important character moment, kind of like Raistlin passing his wizarding test and becoming a red wizard or Sturm being knighted and becoming a Knight of Solamnia. - Attaining 5th level in a class. Getting 3rd level spells (Fly! Fireball!) or the Extra attack ability is huge in terms of character power. You've pretty much become a force to be reconned with. This should definitely be a milestone moment in a campaign. Other than that, it's maybe worth looking out for specially significant spells, powers or abilities and, if possible, have them manifest in dramatically appropiate moments close to level advancement. Ultimately, if it works in the story, it doesn't really matter that much how much actual sense it makes or what the rules say. It can be a mentor giving you an impactful lesson, the power of friendship, the blessing of a deity or powerful being, defeating a nemesis with a smite, a meaningful moment of character development...

Yes! I think you had to find a tutor or mentor and convince them or pay them to teach you the skills you hoped to acquire by leveling up. I also seem to remember in 3E (or 3.5E, or both) you had different level XP progression tables (fast, slow and standard). I'm not sure having to find a tutor or mentor to level up is a great rule. It messes up with a lot of stuff (whatever adventure you're supposed to be immersed in, the need to keep the party together, the fact the DM might not even want powerful tutor/mentor NPCs being around). Also, character levels in D&D really represent an increase in raw power, rather than experience, knowledge or anything that could be taught by someone.

Invisibility can be superior to stealth in some occasions, and viceversa. An invisible wizard might not be able to sneak past a sleeping ogre without waking it, but a very stealthy rogue probably couldn't walk past two guards watching over the palace door. A charmed humanoid regards you as a trusted friend. I wouldn't give a trusted friend my mobile phone, but I'd certainly lend it to them if they said they needed to make a couple of calls. You're right, of course, and I think this is really the key to the Martial/Caster balance. Swinging a sword proficiently is less powerful than casting Fireball. The fighter's advantage is that they can swing the sword as much as they want, while a wizard can only cast Fireball a limited amount of times per day. If it's often the case that the wizard is out of Fireballs while the fighter is merrily hacking away, then all is fine with balance. The wizard's power is balanced with the fighter's consistency. However, if the wizard's limited amount of Fireballs are enough to see them through the fights of the day before they need to rest, then balance clearly favors the wizard, who can use their actions to far greater effect than the fighter... and, though obviously this will vary greatly from table to table, experience shows it tends to. I agree. My point is not that the rogue isn't the best skill monkey in 3E (they are), my point is that succeeding at difficult skill checks tends to be less impactful in D&D than either dealing damage effectively or having access to magical powers that exceed what even the most skilled humanoid can do (flying, teleporting, clairvoyance, mind reading, etc). I kind of agree with Poobah here. D&D should hold on to its basic identity as a game, and that includes having character levels (amongst many other things, like being a d20 system, the 6 basic stats, some character classes, monsters and spells...). Other, different, games can experiment to their heart's content with different systems, and I'm sure some of them will be mechanically superior to D&D, and might eventually become more popular, and that's all well and good, but D&D shouldn't stop being D&D. Nostalgia and familiarity will always mean there are enough people willing to play it even if there are better games out there.

I'm not saying you couldn't, but succeeding at those skill checks wouldn't normally be all that impactful in the game unless the DM was leaning very heavily into it, and a 5th level wizard could probably do all those things better with a less intense character build investment (turn invisible to avoid being detected, charm a humanoid to "lend" them whatever was in their pockets, etc). If I remember my 3E correctly, you could interrupt a wizard by damaging them while they were casting a spell (thus, readying an action to attack the wizard as they were casting was a common strategy), but once the spell went off, it lasted for its duration. The limit of one spell that requires concentration at a time is pure 5E. In 3E, you could have a flying invisible wizard with stoneskin casting stinking clouds, or whatever.

The law itself can be read in two minutes here, for anyone interested. I don't find any real cause for concern, myself, though I agree that the language could be less woolly. This article on The Guardian about a proposed bill on rough sleepers outlines similar issues from another perspective. That said, writing laws which cover all the possible real life situations that can arise and offer unequivocal and clear guidelines for everyone involved to deal justly with every one of them is much harder than most people realise, if it's even possible.

I agree Skills is one of 5e's problems. Skills suck. There is no Skill in the game that can't be outclassed by a low level spell, and that makes any class ability related to Skills (Expertise, Extra proficiencies...) suck too. There should be a rule that allowed characters who were great at Skills to produce Spell-like effects through sheer heroic competence by passing a high Difficulty Check. I think 5e did two very good things to limit spellcaster power compared to previous editions: it limited the amount of spell-slots per day casters have (a Wizard won't get his second 6th level spell slot until level 19!), and it introduced the Concentration mechanic, which limits the amount of buffs and/or debuffs a Spell-caster can have active at the same time (this became ludicrous in 3E and Pathfinder 1E). The martial/caster divide still exists, but limit the amount of spells with a casting time of a reaction/bonus action, make concentration checks harder (or limit access to Constitution save proficiency for casters and advantage on concentration checks), move some of the more egregious utility spells to higher levels (Invisibility, Fly, Teleport), and give martial characters more useful/powerful abilities at the mid/high levels and you're almost there.

I think it isn't as much an emphasis on the upkeep of tourist areas (even if there is some of that, naturally), but decentralisation, and the power (and especially the funding) of both regional and local governments. This both helps regions from being left too far behind (to an extent... the less populated and largely agricultural regions still struggle) and gives local governments the means to provide quality basic services like street cleaning and maintenance, pest control, water supply and sewage, etc. I strongly believe this is important for quality of life in Spain. Of course, the other side of the coin is several sets of complex regulations emanating from different levels of government and the excessive bureaucracy that leads to the problems you mention. It has been slowly getting better, but still has a way to go. I also think being in the EU helps Spain a great deal.

Telecinco is (or was...) a Berlusconi owned media outlet considered to be pretty far to the right politically and not extremely reliable when it comes to news (though not what you'd call a tabloid, either). They are supposed to know their gossip, though. In the article they're very careful to attribute the news to the individual journalist Concha Calleja, who claims she has a reliable source and has been covering the ins and outs of the British Royal Family for 27 years. I'd never heard of her before today, but then I don't really follow this kind of news.

I recently read 'The Crisis of Democratic Capitalism' by Martin Wolf. He had several things to say on the subject of immigration which I found thought-provoking: - On a macro-economic level, both the positive and negative effects of immigration tend to be greatly exaggerated. They're actually pretty negligible. - On a micro-economic level, immigration has a strong positive effect on the immigrants and their families. - Immigration cannot possibly offset the effects of low birth rates at its current level. You'd need levels of immigration several orders of magnitude greater than they are now. Martin Wolf doesn't believe this would be politically or socially sustainable. - There's a strong correlation between levels of immigration and both political polarisation and support for right-wing parties.

It also helps that (unlike some other outlets) The Guardian doesn't feel beholden to any economic or political interests. They may have a clear left-wing bias, but their agenda is their own. They often disagree with and criticise Labour.

I think it's more a question of rationality than of science. Science is a process. A devoutly religious person who performs experiments rigorously and reports their results accurately may excel in any field of science (and indeed many notable scientists, such as Mendel, have been devoutly religious). The specific tenets of any major religion, though, are not based on rationality. The belief that Allah is God and Muhammad is his prophet of a Muslim and the belief that God is the Holy Trinity of the Father, his son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit of a Christian have the exact same rational basis (which is to say none), but I'd expect a devout Muslim to belief the first is true and the second is not. The belief that an all powerful creator of the universe much cares about our head-gear, what food we eat or what day of the week we work is, to me, to put it kindly, fanciful, yet this is something all major religions share to an extent. I've always found this argument weak. On one hand, though most all religions will claim their God is "good", their actions as portrayed in different holy texts often seem anything but (lawful neutral at best), so we're forced to understand this goodness backwards (what God does or allows to happen is good because God does it or allows it to happen, and any moral judgement you might make opposite to this is wrong because you don't know better than God). On the other hand, we tend to brand as "evil" things that happen to us (death, injury, sickness, old age...), things that happen in general (natural disasters, famine...) and things that we purposefully do to each other (war, crime...). Yet a world devoid of all this would be extremely strange and boring, and we probably wouldn't even exist in it (would an omni-benevolent God have allowed a meteorite to wipe out the dinosaurs?). Without adversity or competition (which lead to "evil" things such as death, winners and losers, inequality...) the world might be an endless calm sea full of lazy immortal amoeba with no incentive to evolve.

The amount of serious crimes Reacher commits (up to and including several first degree murders) is staggering. He's basically a Chaotic Neutral vigilante with absolutely no qualms about killing others. That he managed to thrive in the army is quite surprising, and that NYPD is willing to overlook this because of some vague suspicions of wrong-doing elsewhere shatters my suspension of disbelief completely.

Thank you very much for that, it was extremely informative. I'm not sure I'm 100% convinced by everything (even if an effect of taxation might be to increase currency demand and moderate inflation, surely this is not how it's thought of in terms of policy... even if the treasury or the federal reserve might be able to issue currency, the state as a purveyor of public goods and services is mainly made out of lower level administrations or departments that can't), and as the video itself explains this might not be aplicable to a good amount of countries... but it challenged my conceptions and taught me some important stuff I didn't know, so again, thank you. Also some good follow-up reading recommendations. I'll add Stephanie Kelton's book to my (far too large) reading list.

I mean, technically, but surely the trust in this ability (as pertains to economic actors on a state level, such as other states, international organisations, large multinational corporations and banks, etc) mainly depends on the value of their currency, their ability to borrow at a reasonable rate and their expected revenue. Alas, I think you're right. I tried a Google search and came across this from 2021 (the comments are more interesting than the actual tweets), but it sounds like the economics equivalent of quantum physics to me. I'm simply not knowledgeable enough in the field to process it. If it's non-fiction rather than a strictly academic text, I might give Mazzucato a try after I finish 'The Crisis of Democratic Capitalism'.

Sure, national governments can issue both currency and/or debt in order to spend more money than their revenue and either devalue their currency or run on a deficit (and they can do the reverse, if they want to increase the relative value of their currency or if they have available liquidity to pay off debt), but that's not really the same as saying taxes don't pay for government spending. Can you explain this one to me? Other than through taxes levied on the consumers/producers of water, food and energy, how do these pay for government spending?

Okay, but that graph, if I understand it correctly, is showing total Debt vs anual GDP, rather than how much of the anual budget was financed through debt. According to the House of Commons Library, in the 2022/2023 financial year, the UK spent 1.155 billion pounds, of which 1.018 were financed through revenue (taxes) and 137 through debt.

While I've never been an advocate for austerity, I've always believed taxes do indeed pay for government spending. I work in Spanish local government, and yearly budgeting is a big part of my role. Most of our budget comes from local taxes and central government contribution to our budget (which is allocated to us from and in proportion to government tax revenue in our area). If taxes don't pay for government spending, what does? Debt?

The right to generally have a cat, no. However, if this person already has a cat, and if they don't have a way to ensure the cat is well taken care of should they stop caring for it themselves, then that could constitute animal cruelty or a dereliction of one's specific duty of care towards another living being. While most major religions care little about animals, there are plenty of (admittedly minor) animistic/pantheist religions which could consider this a breach of conduct. Being a cat lover myself, I agree with kissdbyfire that, should no other considerations exist and if the person making the decision has enough discretion over the matter, the rights of the animal, and of this person who cares about it enough to have kicked up some serious fuss, should be respected. ETA: I found this fun/useful link: https://hraf.yale.edu/the-wild-world-of-cat-beliefs/

I read the Monarchies of God by Paul Kearney (all 4 books), which was recommended on this board. I found it a good yarn and well worth the read, but I thought the ending was far too abrupt, solving a conflict that had been growing for the better part of three books in a couple of hundreds of pages, and every single female character was poorly served by the narrative (only having importance as the wife or lover of a male character). The preponderance of werewolves made me remember I had actually read another book by Paul Kearney before: the Wolf in the Attic, which also has werewolves in it. Though this is a far shorter book, lacking the epic of the Monarchies of God and more Young Adult in tone, I found it a warmer story.

Fun fact: that film was actually called "Los Siete Magníficos del Espacio" (The Magnificent Seven of Space) in its Spanish release!

He has, and quite frankly, it's pretty impressive. The main toll he has had to pay is an amnesty law (which is impopular and has all the right wing parties riled up, demonstrating in the streets and having confrontations with riot police in front of the Socialist's headquarters), transfering short and medium distance train management to Catalonia and a big debt pardon for money owed to the state through a Region Financing "Rescue" Plan. A committee will discuss the future of Catalonia within Spain, but Sanchez has already said he's not willing to step outside the Constitution, so this will most definitely go nowhere (which might spell problems down the line for Sanchez's coalition). It will be a weak government (a very loosely knit coalition with the right wing controlling the upper house), and it will cost Sanchez quite a bit of political currency... but it will be a left wing government in Spain, which is a good thing. This is far right wing drivel, in my opinion. I'm personally in favor of the amnesty law and don't find it problematic from a rule of law point of view (and it's hardly Hungary or even the EU's business).

I've watched 30 Coins. I saw the first episode quite a while ago because the showrunner (Alex de la Iglesia) is an ubernerd and has directed quite a few movies I've enjoyed, but I wasn't convinced. The first episode felt indulgently long and had this B movie that takes itself too seriously vibe, so I stopped watching. After two friends whom I trust insisted it was great and I just had to see it I picked it up again and finished it. Though I stand by my appraisal of the first episode, it does get better, and it feels like one of these series where the whole is more than the sum of its parts. By the end I was definitely hooked. I'm now watching the second season and enjoying it.

Not only does she play it, she's great at it. She breathes real life into PCs. Being too obvious is indeed something you shouldn't be afraid of. There's a huge information imbalance between the DM and the players, and players not catching something you thought would be obvious to them tends to be a problem far more often than the reverse. Always be more explicit than you feel you need to is generally a good rule for DMing.

While I mostly agree, in a one off session within a convention where the adventure needs to be concluded within a certain (usually brief) timeframe, I can be more understanding of the DM more or less gently steering players away from ways to deal with the situation which they think will be long-winded, useless or counterproductive. I agree the DM in Toth's anecdote seems to have been too blunt and unwilling to improvise or entertain how the player's ideas might be effective or fun. They might have designed an adventure based on combat or infiltration rather than social skills and just weren't good enough at DMing (DMing is by no means easy) to adapt on the fly. Finding a group where you gel with the DM and (just as important) the other players, is not easy (but it's very rewarding when it does happen!).