Orogun01

Firstly, a realistic ruleset heavily favors ranged stealth builds not to mention the fact that mages would be way overpowered. Secondly, I find this discussion about realistic combat moot since I doubt of us has any actual medieval combat experience. Now if you excuse me, I"m going to buff my stats to prevent dysentery.

On the one hand I do like the idea of being able to make a few bucks from work. On the other hand mods get away with a lot of stuff because it's free, although people nowadays sell games on their alpha stage so maybe modders can get away with selling incomplete, buggy products. But seriously, ban copyrighted content; the first page is full of things from other games and you shouldn't be able to sell things that technically aren't yours.

I wonder why people think that it's the copied article fault that the forgery is bad?

Fun fact. Even though i never associated myself with GG nor do i ever intend to, but when i for example disagree with Anita's supporters, they always immidiatly assume that i am a GGer. And everything else that comes with it. And that frustrates me a lot. Because the world is not black and white, because there's no "us" and "them". If you think you're better than "SJWs", well then actually be better. Otherwise you're just as evil and inhuman really. You seem to be new to this discussion so I thought I would share some insight with you about what this thread is really about You are absolutely correct that using the term SJW is unhelpful to to a discussion about bias, but this thread is not about bias.Its a place where the majority of members use it as platform to dismiss and question various SJ movements and suggestions . And to find contradictions in the SJ narrative But its not a bad place, the people here aren't bigots. They aren't sexist or homophobic and in fact often champion these causes, this is about the rejection of SJ ideas in the gaming industry. Its about GG. I am a SJW and there is no point really even suggesting that people not use that word because its not really meant maliciously ...its more about a reference to the likes of Anita and there influence in gaming ...most people on this thread believe that the SJ movement is fundamentally changing and attacking something that doesn't need to be changed or they believe criticism is often misplaced or contradictory . But its just about gaming..so don't expect people to really take other SJ causes that seriously I think the term SJW is a good identifier for people who see social justice as a zero sum game.

Fun fact. Even though i never associated myself with GG nor do i ever intend to, but when i for example disagree with Anita's supporters, they always immidiatly assume that i am a GGer. And everything else that comes with it. And that frustrates me a lot. Because the world is not black and white, because there's no "us" and "them". If you think you're better than "SJWs", well then actually be better. Otherwise you're just as evil and inhuman really. Since you're new to the party I will bring you up to speed; logical well articulated rational statements have no place in this discussion. Think of this whole thing as a bunch of rabid dogs one half blaming the other for their affliction. Although, it is quite revealing to know just how many people have been affected, some I would have never suspected.

It seems to me that it damages an industry of creators in the same way something called "Cheese Spread" with an almost unnoticeable under note saying "contains no actual cheese" affects dairy farmers. If you don't understand why... There's not much I can say to make you understand. They are charging for easier "flavor" content that you can do for free anyways. How is this as extreme as you are suggesting? I should note, I DON'T AGREE with them doing it, but at the end of the day it doesn't actually give someone any sort of tactical advantage, is optional, and does not impair your ability to play the game. Basically, the game is the same as it was before you knew this was a thing, so why make a fuss about it? I guess that the purist mindset likes an even field for a fair game that its based purely on skill, finishing moves are part of of the overall skills required so they might dislike the double standard. Now someone should release a special set of fatalities solely for shaming people that bought the easy fatalities, make money from both sides of the argument.

You don't condone piracy but - yeah, I can't even follow this logic. He is getting his product ahead of schedule.

Right now, the only person who's declared they're running who has a chance of making it into the general election is Clinton. And that's because nobody within the party seems to want to try to take her on for the parties vote. And on the Republican side, Cruz is a Joke, Paul is to radically stupid in his ideals to get much traction (Seriously, the economy wouldn't survive on the gold standard kipper), and Rubio is just a footnote. Although in general somebody like Rubio would probably take the nomination (how many of you knew who the hell Obama was before 2008?) But he'd be completely out classed by the machine that Democrat's have built for presidential elections. Right, and the best the democrats have is an incompetent woman that has gotten by on connections and has royally ****ed up every incident she's been involved in. But let's support Hillary cuz Republicans are evil.

I think most people equate subjectivity with "whatever the **** I want", I think what most people really want is good service. They don't want to be chastised, hyped, or sold on a game they want an honest opinion of it and they can agree or disagree with it. The problem is that what they're getting from games journalism is a dissertation on women's studies.

Does daydreaming count as sleep?

Oh I open all books and click all chat options, I just don't ... read them with super concentration, since I just forget it all after the next combat or two. There was a couple of lore tomes that had stories I liked enough to focus on them enough to remember I liked them, but not enough to quote them or their titles even. You're an oddity. I really wondered why so much time would be wasting developing such in game lore that had no relevance to the main plot. I guess it's for people like you.

Other than PuppyGate there isn' anything else going on, but if these trends are an indication we might be seeing more Gates in the future.

Do you get a such a thing in the USA as an Asian Hispanic ? I think they should just let you choose all that apply since Brazilians are Latinos but they aren't technically Hispanic. (I sound like a SJW)

He's hispanic not white. Hispanic is not a race. Hispanic refers to a racial grouping that covers many different counties. Seems a little nitpicky to get on about it. Saying hispanics are not white is like saying that slavics are not white. If you're going to be that specific about it then you shouldn't use white but anglo saxon or germanic or aryan or whatever denomination they consider to be "white". I'm not going to profess to know how it works in Europe with all the different ethnic groups, but that isn't how it works in the US. Being Hispanic or Latino makes you part of a minority group, and you are not identified as part of the white majority. It is a general term that covers a bunch of Latin American countries. If you want be specific (and really, you are the one who got up in arms about it) then you would say Mexican American (or wherever his family is from.) In the US it is necessary to have Hispanic as a group because both census and issues that only affect them, I'm not arguing against use of Hispanic as a term just the notion that its a race of brown people. I also find the whole "Noun-American" thing to be ridiculous, mostly because people actually identify with it. I don't see the value of equating race with politics, as if you're white it means that you're more likely to be republican than if you're black.

He's hispanic not white. Hispanic is not a race. Hispanic refers to a racial grouping that covers many different counties. Seems a little nitpicky to get on about it. Saying hispanics are not white is like saying that slavics are not white. If you're going to be that specific about it then you shouldn't use white but anglo saxon or germanic or aryan or whatever denomination they consider to be "white".

Combat in Blackguards took a significant turn for the worse once the purple hordes of doom showed up. Yeah, TRPGS where the enemy outnumbers you, outclass you and you only get one turn are a bit too frustrating to me. Plus I hate having to wait for 8 guys to finish their turn before I get a chance to try and hang on for dear life.

He's hispanic not white. Hispanic is not a race.

I can understand why you might perceive me that way. I am passionate about this, but I also make a point to speak in basic and unambiguous terms (invoking, oppression, theft, murder) to cut to the root. First, one cannot remove their participation from The State. If I and a group of others were to hypothetically homestead wilderness, we would be fine until we were discovered. Once discovered, we'd be taxed under threat of violence and likely fined for not abiding by that territory's authority (building permits, etc.). The situation would then be binary. Fight for freedom and potentially die, or submit and be yoked. This cannot be argued. Second, I do not believe The State keeps evil people restrained. For the most part, it gives them employment. That employment also gives them power to organize and propel society towards degrees of destruction and atrocity that would never be possible if people had to freely unite and pool scarce resources to commit. Governments give us tanks, hydrogen bombs, chemical weapons, etc. These things are wildly impractical, expensive, dangerous to produce, and provide absolutely no productive value. There is absolutely no incentive to develop these kinds of devices outside of State violence. No doubt there might be some turf wars or family blood feuds, but these are trivial in comparison to scale of wars and destruction that only a State can engender. I said that it was expansive but not impossible, there are still areas in the world where there is no civilization or where it exists in its lowest stage. Although I would't recommend settling there without some psychopathic murderers to protect you from the other psychopathic murderers. Anarchy is very naive, it ignores both the state of nature and society's benefits in favor of some ideal version of humanity that can exists with each other with no moderation. I still haven't seen my points about the futility of Anarchy as it just reverts humanity to an earlier stage from which they will work their way back to a society. Or about how those virtues you base your alternative on, emerged from society. You seem to treat the state as a nebulous cognizant entity where in reality it is just made of people whose quality determines the state of the nation. I don't think you have a clear basis on both what the state is and what individuals are. I would like to hear what you think those concepts are.

I do not think that an anarchistic society would be a utopia. I recognize that evil exists, and shall persist indefinitely. It is my belief that there are better ways to deal with human nature and societal complexity. My main grievances are thus: Distilled to logical conclusion, compulsory government is immoral; and therefore can never ultimately do good. The State does more to foster and insure evil than such a structure can possible prevent or mitigate. The State actually fosters significantly worse harm on a catastrophically greater scope than would ever exist otherwise. The State prevents people, both directly and indirectly from pursuing more realistic, practical, and effective solutions. It's not that I think I am perfect, or that other humans are. I do believe that The State prevents humans from becoming better people though. Much like dogma and superstition are the underdeveloped person's substitution for philosophy, The State is the religious cognitive dissonance of those not yet brave enough to acknowledge history and human nature. Edited for clarity. I think you're projecting your personal view way too much into your model of what the state is, and you're quite possibly ignoring a fact that you are clearly stating. If you know people are evil then how would removing the one thing that keeps them reined in be a good thing? What do you mean by acknowledging history and human nature? For someone who seems to hate the state you seem very keen to use its byproducts to support your ideology. Also government isn't compulsory, its is just expansive and hard to get away from but you're free to go into the wilderness and live off the grid in whatever country you wish. I don't understand how you say that evil comes from humans and yet somehow the state is guilty of fostering, if such thing were true then no one would be subjugated to it for long periods of time. Also, there are some things you seem to be ignoring: The only reason why you have a concept of "better" or anarchy or virtue is because the state allowed men to specialize in tasks and gave a vehicle to those ideas. Quite frankly (and I mean no offense) you're coming off as an edgy teenager that has started rebelling against his/her father (the state) for no reason, despite all that it did for them.

You should see what I name my chants, you'd think that reading "Kana has stopped chanting You touch My Tra La La" gets old. It doesn't.

That's a fallacy. If they are "like-minded", then they do not need a coercive body to compel them to cooperate. The State actually destroys cooperation, because instead of getting to know your neighbors, working things out, compromising, and taking responsibility for your community--people petition to paternal state. This doesn't create bonds or society. At best, this creates proxy aggression were no social cohesiveness can ever reasonably or realistically formed. I was actually talking more along the lines of a cabinet or a senate. It also looks as if you have a very misguided view of communities; its weird how you hold the state accountable for what in your example is a choice by the community. Plus, you don't put forth any explanation as to why communities gravitate towards the state for solutions. People gravitate towards The State for solutions for a variety of very common reasons. The State exists. Why bother negotiating with anyone when you can simply get The Masters to do what you want without consideration? It doesn't always work out that way--but that's why people pursue that avenue. The State exists. How many thousands of years did it take people to seriously challenge the legitimacy of the church? The State exists. Coming to solutions outside of The State, or without its blessing often provoke its attack. See homeschooling, food co-operatives, small businesses, etc. Indoctrination, erm, compulsory education in State (approved) schools. Civics. Pledge of Allegiance. It's a secular religion. Laziness. (See bullet #1) Fear. (See bullet #1) Greed. (See bullet #1) Ignorance. (See bullet #4) Evil. (See: Politicians, Ulterior Motives, etc.) Vestiges of monotheism are probably more significant that I note here, but this is a pretty casual list. Hyperbole and emotion aside there where some good points there. Yet they describe a malfunctioning state, if your argument is that the State is corruptible and should therefore be done away with I would ask you if you think you're perfect or otherwise will you do away with yourself. It seems like an extreme solution for a problem that doesn't require it, government needs and overhaul not an amputation.

That's a fallacy. If they are "like-minded", then they do not need a coercive body to compel them to cooperate. The State actually destroys cooperation, because instead of getting to know your neighbors, working things out, compromising, and taking responsibility for your community--people petition to paternal state. This doesn't create bonds or society. At best, this creates proxy aggression were no social cohesiveness can ever reasonably or realistically formed. I was actually talking more along the lines of a cabinet or a senate. It also looks as if you have a very misguided view of communities; its weird how you hold the state accountable for what in your example is a choice by the community. Plus, you don't put forth any explanation as to why communities gravitate towards the state for solutions.

Now that's a good question We need order and structure because many people are incapable of doing the right thing, like paying tax, unless they are forced to So governments represent a collective system that allows things to function like the maintenance of institutions, examples of these include healthcare and education, and without institutions you will have countries and there citizens living in a benighted state where they just don't progress That's one of the biggest failures in Africa, the failure to maintain institutions in both the private and public sector So paying tax to your overlord(s) is 'doing the right thing'? You choose 'paying taxes' of all the examples in the universe one could come up with as doing the right thing? And you need your overlords to make sure you pay taxes to them? There's some circular logic fail for ya. Also, paying taxes has as much to do with doing the right thing as God has to do with choosing and blessing monarch X that claimed 'divine right'. Taxes are a primary way a government is able to maintain institutions and invest in the growth of a country I don't consider the government overlords but the custodians of ensuring a country is functional What would be your suggestion for a government to generate revenue and before you answer that consider this, every single government in the world uses some form of tax system because taxes work and are relevant to what governments need The question wasn't how best to tax the serfs, it was 'why do you need someone to rule over you?' Because for every form of decision making you need an arbiter that has the last word, otherwise people will splinter off into smaller groups that are ripe for the taking by larger ones. The best way for social groups to operate is under the guidance of an individual or a group of like minded individuals that have a sense of direction.

Ok, were getting into weird territory. Do you guys mind keeping the discussion clean, please?

Now that's a good question We need order and structure because many people are incapable of doing the right thing, like paying tax, unless they are forced to So governments represent a collective system that allows things to function like the maintenance of institutions, examples of these include healthcare and education, and without institutions you will have countries and there citizens living in a benighted state where they just don't progress That's one of the biggest failures in Africa, the failure to maintain institutions in both the private and public sector So paying tax to your overlord(s) is 'doing the right thing'? You choose 'paying taxes' of all the examples in the universe one could come up with as doing the right thing? And you need your overlords to make sure you pay taxes to them? There's some circular logic fail for ya. Also, paying taxes has as much to do with doing the right thing as God has to do with choosing and blessing monarch X that claimed 'divine right'. Taxes are a primary way a government is able to maintain institutions and invest in the growth of a country I don't consider the government overlords but the custodians of ensuring a country is functional What would be your suggestion for a government to generate revenue and before you answer that consider this, every single government in the world uses some form of tax system because taxes work and are relevant to what governments need They could lower government spending while offering incentives to create free market alternatives. Sure but lowering government expenditure is something that should happen anyway and is what most governments aspire to achieve I like the free market concept but there will always be certain things that any government will want to be responsible for to ensure fairness and reasonable control of so its not abused by the private sector So free markets aren't the solution for everything ? You're such an optimist. Government is not a cohesive thing, democratic governments are a game of exquisite corpse where each incumbent tries to leave their mark and somewhere along time comes one that ****s up the composition. Government spending isn't going to be fixed until it becomes a problem for the government, as long as they can throw money at a problem that's what they'll do. Free markets should not be directly regulated, it is different from regulating substances. The problem lies less with the free market than how regulation has made sure that there isn't any competition. As well as raising the entry cap and growth for small businesses that are not big enough to make use of tax loopholes. As what we have isn't a free market due to regulation I will say that indeed the solution is a free market and that direct regulation just stifles it creating oligarchies and duopolies.