The Campaign Builder's Guild

[blockquote Atsisodhi]...crossbows' bolts would just stick in plate, but longbows' arrows would go through.[/blockquote]

I was under the impression that the opposite was true.
Recurves, longbows and other bows that required the
archer to have sufficient strength to pull the string
back.  This naturally limits the amount of poundage you
could place upon the arrow.  In contrast, a winch-powered
crossbow allows the archer to provide a greater amount of
force, and as such provide a greater force upon the projectile.

[blockquote Atsisodhi]...the Arms and Armour Journal has done some tests that disagree. According to Sword Forum International forums, their tests were done with harder arrowheads than used when longbows were used, and a sheet of steel instead of a breastplate (whose curvature and ribbedness would perhaps deflect an arrow).[/blockquote]

Considering the case-hardening techniques utilised for later-period
armouring techniques, any metal softer than a high-carbon steel alloy
is likely to be softer and more easily pierced.  This effect is further
exacerbated when combined with arrow heads that have been hardened
further than we have seen any evidence for.  

As such, if this test still fails to pierce steel plates, can we not
further extrapolate this to suggest that the arrow heads in question
could not pierce a breastplate, considering that was often harder,
and were also shaped in a way that also increased deflection?

Early guns on the other hand were much better.  They could project
lead shots with much more force (many, many times as much) and rather
than trying to pierce it with a sharp point, the shot only acted as
a medium for transfering the force to a small area.  I'm told that
realistically a lead shot wayed a similar amount too.

This extra force was particularly useful against opponents wearing
plate, in that its innate rigidity, thinness and high-carbon case-
hardened composition made it more susceptible to having large holes
punched through it.  Hence later developments in armouring used
softer, thicker steel that was designed to absorb and disperse the
force of the shot.

I like alignments. Then again, as a servant of Baator, I would.  They represent Law!  Besides, I can think of a certain class (cough*paladins*cough) that could do with a good smiting, becuase just smiting people for being different (evil) shows intolerance, and intolerance can ultimately leed to tyranny, and that would be doing the devil's work, leaving me out of a job.
 
 [blockquote Kapn Xeviat] But detecting evil was an issue in some campaigns. When I played a paladin back in 3E, my DM and I had a discussion about this. We established that things with weak auras are usually a low-level person with an evil alignment, but they also cling to someone who is currently plagued by evil thoughts, or just commited a minor evil. They deserve a talking to, and maybe suspcion, but not a good smiting.

If someone is walking around with a strong evil aura, then they're either a priest of an evil deity, a very powerful evil person, or an actual evil creature. These must be watched, suspected of terrible things, and potentially smited.
[/blockquote]

I whole-heartedly agree.  I would have thought it the duty of good-aligned paladins and clerics to try and redeem those starting on the path to damnation, not send them to the afterlife.

I've a little idea coming along, and this will be a god send!

Has anyone considered actually splitting neutrality into different leanings or something akin to a spectral band? Most neutral character alignments could show sympathy with their relative extremes, but may not condone all actions.
 
An example of this would be a somewhat benevolent tyrant.  They still have the interests of their people at heart, but if the system of government requires them to still be alive and in office to provide stability to the people, they could certainly make a case that disposing of oppositions is in the people's best interest, not his. After all, such actions are likely to increase the number of people seeking his overthrow.  Thus, through their own percpetion and the perceptions of many of their people as well, such things are morally condoneable to maintain the status quo.

For example a neutral character who has less moral inhibitions and an "ends justifies the means" personality could fit into either an evil alignment or a neutral alignment, depending upon the motivations behind their actions.  For the purpose of a detect evil spell, they would probably register register only a faintly evil aura, and would also require a marginally lower save to overcome a protection from evil spell if their motivation is less closer to neutrality than evil.  This would give the DM discretion as to whether a spell or ability will affect the targetted creature, and to what degree.  

Also, this option may cause paladins or other classes of extreme alignment to have to think through whether someone of a faint opposing alignment is truly worth smiting, whether they are beyond redemption and whether such actions may action break their own codes of conduct.

Er, hello from the southern hemisphere?

I'm from Tasmania, so things tend to reach us here a bit later than the rest of the world, so please excuse any confusion I may express, like what on earth is Gurps?.  Looking at starting either a batchelor of Science or Agricultural Science next year.

Alignment: Lawful Evil, verging on Lawful Neutral - Havelock Vetinari is the ideal ruler; an organised, benevolent and public minded dictator maintains efficiency, security and prosperity

Gaming systems you use and general gaming history;

D&D, 3.5.  I relatively new at only a year and a half.  D&D does not seem to be a common passtime in this state of Australia, so finding other people to play with can be challenging.  I was introducced to the system by a friend who was a DM of the local group in college, so my experience has largely been shaped by her.  
I've tried DMing myself a couple of times, but whilst the encounters have apparently been memorable (like being upstairs in a wooden house whilst the zombies burnt it out from under you), I still feel I need more experience and planning, as I am not good at giving answers on the wing.

What published settings have you used/do you like?

I guess I'm most familiar with Faerun and the Forgotten Realms, but have never really been attracted to Eberron.  Otherwise, most of it is home brew.  Faerun is good for it's depth, but I just feel something is lacking...

Strengths and weaknesses in game design
I consider some of my strengths my ability to have ideas (or plagiarize them if necessary), get them down and work through the bugs, especially with politics, scullduggery and scheming.
Weaknesses and drawbacks include little time available, inexperience, and the lack of a prestige class like mystic thurge to merge the shadowcaster with the incarnate.

Major influences on your world-building
Raymond E Feist - Riftwar et al. and Kelewan (Empire) Series
Terry Pratchett - Discworld
C.L.Werner - Mathias Thulmann Trilogy
Niccolo Machiavelli - The Prince
Laurell K Hamilton - Anita Blake, Vampire Hunter

Personal likes and dislikes
Likes - D&D, Science, European History, Science, Politics, Science, Philosophy, music (most types; excl. country, western, rap and hip-hop), Science
Dislikes - Essays!, also endless hack-and-smash dungeon delving (no scheming required)