ProfessorOwl_PhD

Yeah, it's named after the luminiferous aether, the invisible medium light waves were theorised to move in. Turns out photons just do that instead.

Couple of small issues with that idea: can't hide from the big fiery sauron eye, and nazguls on pteradactyls.

who thought that getting a cheesy splatter film director was a great decision?

Honestly on paper that sounds pretty good, Borderlands should really work as a bit of a campy gorefest. Just... not Eli Roth.

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.

Using spices doesn't mean making spicy food, especially if you're using spicy to mean containing capsaicin. They are mostly used to enhance the main flavour of the dish, they don't need to be overpowering.

And sure it adds umami, but if that's all we wanted we could just use the fish sauce it's based on. The spices add additional flavour that add more than just a generic umami flavour profile. Garlic is umami too, but that's not its entire flavour.

Kinda funny that foreigners always bring up baked beans as an example of us not using spices when we bake our beans in a spiced tomato sauce. And then we cover them in Worcestershire sauce, which is largely concentrated and fermented spices.

Like we do actually have loads of foods that don't use any spices - butter pie, sausage and mash, smoked kippers - but people seem really attached to the appearance of baked beans.

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

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.

It is definitely a lot easier than it used to be, and the horror stories tend to be the attention grabbing ones, so are more often seen. I think we'll see a lot more acceptance for the new generation of teens and young adults discovering themselves now it's genx/millennials raising kids rather than boomers/genx.

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.