Jump to content

Trencher

HERO Member
  • Content Count

    5,444
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Posts posted by Trencher

  1. 10 hours ago, archer said:

     

    I highly recommend that you see more episodes of that series to help you understand it better. :D 

     

    Thanks for making my day.

    Yeah Aragorn from games of thrones. Remember him? He used the glaive to save baby Garfield from the Gorgs. lol!

     

    I meant Aragorn from Lord of the rings and Samwise from Game of thrones just in case someone reads this and dont know what I am writing about. 

     

    Thia Halmades: Yes the players will get to unlock the archetypes during play its not something they have to choose when they start to play. They would not even know what to choose. Its supposed to be a prize. 

     

    Also Kage sound like gold. That type of style and flair is what I like in pcs. 

     

    Spence: I would like to not sound like I am trying to codify alignments since I dont like that system that much.  I mean back in the day when it was lawful, neutrals and chaotic s it was okay I guess. Because there were some chaotic creatures that had good intentions and some lawful that were cruel. 

    But when they started with throwing in good and evil stuff there as well it got all muddled up and now Dnds (actually pathfinder) most popular campaign has an Lawful Evil satatan like supreme god who only let all the other gods exist because he feels guilty of killing the good god and he will make people see the value of iron discipline and law and order through sadism and having the coolest armours in the game. Good luck with that I say lol.

     

    Its not an attempt at codifying but exploring instead. Different approaches that reveal not as much where the pc come from and what shaped the character but its core soul, what makes it different from others who are not heroic. I feel if I could make this concept more palatable I would be able to nail the 7 hero concept. 

     

    Any thoughts on how big the rewards should be?

     

     

     

     

     

  2. Ok to address your criticisms of the heroic archetypes I made up. 

     

    The refined hero can both be an mentor and an apprentice and in general they will often be in such roles. But they can also just be people who value civilization and human rights. 

    Im thinking guys like Obi Wan from Star Wars. Or Rey also from Star Wars. Picard from Star trek maybe? Aragorn and Samwise from game of thrones. Only seen some episodes of that series.

    Refined heroes can be everything from an retired general who try to tell young up and comers to calm their passions or a travailing barber woman who refuse to join in a schemes that dont target the oppressive trade syndicate that have an iron grip on the city. Because targeting the common folk would -just- not -be- decent!

     

    The pure hero: Here is where I see the first cracks in my concepts coming up as you took it to a negative point. That is very useful as I did not create these archetypes with an negative viewpoint on them in mind but were rather busy with being vauge so it could include as many types of characters as possible. 

    As for the pure hero I am thinking that they can indeed be very wise. But its a child like pure wisdom based on intuition and clarity that comes from not being dragged down by their own shadow if that makes sense. As for pure heroes I am thinking Luke Skywalker or other fantasy character like that. While many might find such character boring in a book I can guarantee you that its fun in an adventuring group of friends as they can contrast of eachother. This is the only time I disagree a little bit with your assessments of the heroes Archer btw otherwise you been pretty much on target. 

     

    The kind hero: A bit more realistic hero for the more mature role player, you pointing out that the person genuine wants to understand others was a good idea. My concept was a person who liked people because they understood their feelings even though they might not have agreed with them but wanting to understand is also a great heroic quality. 

    Lot of fictionally heroes fit here. Gandalf for instance. Or Han Solo from Star Wars(kind heroes can understand villains as well) Frodo is a kind hero.

     

    The logical hero: Being sure of himself, being odd to others and getting lost in his own mind is great character traits that would flesh out an hero. And they certainly fit. But an logical hero could also not have those traits. My wish for this hero is to give the rules lawyers and the careful players an positive look at being logical. 

    The logical hero could be Mr Spock or Odo from Star Trek but I dont really remember them that much so I might be wrong. 

     

     

    Loyal hero: While your point on the loyal hero wanting to have people be loyal back are well made the loyal hero can or can not have that trait. This hero arch type will be different in different cultures more than the others I expect. As for example I am thinking Sam from Lord of the rings. Other than that loyal heroes are a bit of a catch all for heroic characters that dont really have any reason for being heroic other than that they dont want to abandoned their friends and allies. 

     

    The balanced hero being more interested in justice rather than law was not something I was thinking of but such a hero would be terrifying for the villains indeed. 

    In fiction this is usually what the hero becomes at the end of the movie especially in martial arts movies. 

    Data from Star trek  or Finn from Star wars. Elves are often this type of heroes in classic fantasy stories Arwen and Legolas are balanced heroes.

     

    Again this concept need some more work so any input is welcome.

     

     

  3. Thanks for good feedback all. 

    First to the point that you as a player would feel enclosed in having to take this heroic archetype. Well the hero aspect is already solved I did the super trick and talked to my players before the campaign and got them to play heroes. 

    I dont want to bore you with details of my fantasy campaign but I guess I have to explain a little. Its made to have an beginning a middle and an end and the campaign world is in an dangerous situation which only the heroes can stop. 

    So I asked my players to play heroes and they agreed.

    It is a sand box and they can choose how to go about it but there is a ticking clock of a great evil and all that good fantasy stuff. 

     

    Off course as GM I do a couple of things to aid them playing heroes. For instance defeated common foes are just that. Defeated and even if they did not die (Infarct most of them are knocked out but not dead) they "have a change of heart" after their brush with death and stop being thugs and bandits and just leave to live their life in peace. 

    That way players dont have to go around execute them afterwards but also dont have to bandage their wounds and extort them to the nearest authorities either. 

    Off course with named enemies they do capture them and they do have a "stronghold like" prison of sorts with some old enemies in. 

     

    All in all I try to create a narrative where they can focus on saving the day and doing cool stuff not busy work and boring stuff. 

     

    As for the point about the benefits being kinda thin and not worth the cost,the benefits are low yes and they might be too low. I would like to read your thoughts about how to make the rewards more substantial. 

     

    The campaign have an cv max on 7 and max 8 damage classes and most killing attacks are lower than that. 

     

    The enemies they mostly face goes from dex 8 to dex 11 and might come with shields and weapons that gives them plus 2 to dcv and plus 1 cv in general. They also have martial art as it creates more tactical feeling fights.  

     

    They all play people with special powers and they can design their first power themselves, one created a slow spell others chose animal companion and fireball. 

     

    They are built on 25 points and 25 disadvantages but there is an option to go to a higher level of power later where they will get 25 points of disadvantages with if they choose them.

     

    I initially thought that having the rewards be small was a good idea and are quite surprised that you guys thinks its wuss crap not worth the time. 

    But if you think it then my players will think it to and probably feel a lot stronger about it lol. 

     

    That said this was not meant to be something characters pick at the start of the game but they unlock by how they do their heroic deeds. To help the players differentiate their characters so they dont turn into a bunch of identical girl and boy scouts. So even if they argue about the best way to do something when faced with a moral dilemma I can say after its all said and done that player A gets a logical hero point and player B get a Pure hero point and so on.. And when they had unlocked enough points to get the power they could write it down on their sheet that they unlocked -->HERO POWER<-- so and so. And not everyone can get that. You know to create a memory of sorts, and to reward their efforts in an non intrusive manner. 

     

    Also Archer thanks a lot for your thoughts about the hero types themselves who also rubbed people the wrong way.  That is a series of concepts that need more work as I was vague on purpose while brainstorming.  But I think that will need its own post so people who quote can talk about the types and the mechanics seperatly in them. 

     

     

  4. I am not arguing against you Archer I am just flabbergasted by the sheer evil on display here by the WWE.

    I get its legal if they were employees. But they are independent contractors and artists at that. So they cant do side gigs?

    In any case them not outlawing it but wanting a cut is what really makes this immoral. 

    Either its damaging to your brand or its not. This is extortion. "You want to keep your job, you better give us the money from your other job.."

    I usually fall for temptation and rent the network when Royal Rumble times comes around and then unsub when they do something that make me loose interest. (Causal fan until I die!)

    But not this time. 

  5. Hello everyone.

    I am GM'ing a Fantasy hero game and are always looking for stuff to let my players spend points on. 

    I been toying with an idea for Heroic archetypes that players can buy to difference them from each other and have as a reward for great role playing. 

    Like they have to had fulfilled this or that heroic ideal to be able to take one of these abilities. 

    And I would like some feedback on if this is a good idea, if the types I chosen is any good and if the abilities I chose for each archetype is worth the point cost.

     

    As for the archetypes I did want something with a bit of a unique feel and not like different types of paladins or knights from dnd. These archetypes are supposed to represent what the characters are not a series of wows they need to upheld. 

    I also have just come up with six archetypes and I would like 7 as its a cooler number so if any of you have an suggestion I all all ears. 

     

    Also these are not psychological limitations so there are no codes against killing or anything like that. This is just to give character concepts a little more meat on the bone and to reward and encourage heroic role playing. 

     

    This is what I have so far

     

    Refined hero: This hero like many others values justice, honor and all that but see them as something that needs to be learned and taught. Fair play is very important to this hero and ethics, diligence and being protective of those weaker are key words here. An Refined hero could also be called an noble hero as he or she is a bit of a knightly archetype. 

     

    Pure hero: This hero represents heroes that just are heroes. They dont think over it. They dont have to learn it as they pretty much just are naturally good. This archetype in fiction are often virginal or chaste of some kind but this is not necessary for this archetype. Rather an pure hero would just love their equal partner and not put it into some kind of social or moral context. 

    Pure heroes can sometimes be naive, they give villains chances to surrender, they help people who just fell into quicksand when they tried to push them into it and so on. 

    This is an archetype that represent abstinence, sacrifice, openness and gentleness. 

     

    Kind hero: The kind hero is the most common hero archetype in our world. This hero have a lot of compassion is generous with their time and help and take pleasure in empathizing and understanding others.  Despite the simple name kind heroes are often the most complex and conflicted as the kindness of their heart can go against what they know is right. 

    For instance while other heroes dislike to kill or feel sad over a life lost the kind hero feels their victims pain even if they had to kill the person to save their own or someone else life. 

    Kind heroes are often the most emphatic people around and sometimes feel alone because they dont feel connected by causes or principles as much as they feel human emphatic connection.  And few have the same level of emphatic prowess as an kind hero.

    A kind hero represent compassion, mercy and generosity. 

     

    Logical hero: The last twenty to thirty years have not been kind to the logical heroic archetype and they been shown as robotic, cold hearted or just misguided. 

    The logical hero however is one of the most resilient of heroic archetypes and the least likely to fall to darkness or anything like that. Logic after all is all about clarity and truth and to the logical hero what is good for people is the greatest truth. Logical heroes have many beliefs and philosophies but they all have a tendency to fall on the side of humans are good and deserve to be protected, nurtured have freedom and live full long lives. To the logical hero evil and aggression are just waste of time and the people doing them can off course be dangerous but ultimately unless everything goes wrong they can be brought over to the side of good or at least there is possibility for some understanding. One of the few things that really provokes an logical hero is an villain that wraps themselves in sophistry and such to justify their to the logical hero primitive actions. Logical heroes are represented by wisdom, humanist and progressive principles. 

     

    Loyal hero: Some philosophies would perhaps argue that the loyal hero archetype is not a hero at all but in fiction this archetype appear often and follows the rules for heroism to the letter. 

    The loyal hero is a person that would go through fire for his or hers friends and not only that but also someone who try to build other people up and support those they are loyal to with all their heart. 

    Loyal heroes not just people who like hanging in a group but people who are loyal to their core and will put others before themselves without a second thought. To qualify as a hero its not just enough to be moderately loyal so long you are not in any danger or trouble yourself. The heroic archetype of the loyal hero is a person who go a lot further to help those they are loyal to. Loyal heroes represent positive strength and to be protective. They are often quite enduring as well and its through that endurance they loyalty goes from being a positive trait to something heroic.

     

    Balanced hero: The balanced hero have a mind of their own and are often dedicated to justice. However this can be an natural inclination or a taught dedication the balanced hero is about justice not how its achieved in the end. The balanced hero sees things from both sides and they also recognize that conflict is not just between people but also raging inside people as well. A balanced hero could also been called an contemplative hero but since the balanced hero dont really need to be a philosopher archetype balanced works better. Like logical heroes balanced heroes thinks that humans are good at heart and ultimately all that is evil can be explained, understood and ultimately defeated through rational discourse. If people are willing to do it off course. 

    Balanced heroes are represented by the concepts of compromise, benevolence and positivity. 

     

    As for abilities I am having an fantasy campaign where I try really hard to hold CV to 7 and damage classes to 8. But with shields and maneuvers, longer weapons and stuff that is hard at least when it comes to CV. Also magic is powers and can cost quite a bit. This is balanced by that everyone plays magic users of some kind and there are no rules that stops them from wearing metal armour or certain weapons. 

     

    So here are the "rewards" I am thinking of when it comes to heroic archetypes. 

     

    Refined hero: +1 ocv skill level vs worthy enemies. Worthy here being enemies that are more powerful and have more CV than the hero. 

     

    Pure hero: plus 3 power defense vs evil magic. In fantasy stories some people are to pure to fall to some kind of evil curses and stuff so I think it might fit.

     

    Kind hero: +3 presence, a flat bonus as this is going to be a reward representing the kind hero stepping up and its often more impressive when a kind person does that.

     

    Logical hero: +1 dcv skill level vs monsters and weird creatures. Where others might panic or be stunned the logical hero just analyze the situation and does whats necessary.

     

    Loyal hero: I am thinking +5 ego if their friends are in danger and maybe even +3 in con only to avoid getting stunned as well.

     

    Balanced hero: This interesting and rare hero could get +1 to all skills as they are careful and thoughtful about what they do. 

     

    So is this something? If you were a player would it be interesting?

  6. 1 hour ago, Ninja-Bear said:

    I figured you were having the storm around the PC’s . Also is -2 based on windy conditions. Iow does the book suggest that in windy conditions archers should suffer a -2 OCV- an environmental condition? Cause then you should be able to raise the local wind level and that condition should kick in.  See the GM.

    Yes the storm is going to be eight meters around the pc's if I that is fair to put the minus to hit on arrows coming in to it. The minus 2 was a bit much I double checked and it said -1. But I think I am going to go with -2. And I am the GM lol! I think I might have been wrong thinking that the change enviroment cost should pay for covering the shooters as well as those that are shot at.

    1 hour ago, ChaosDrgn said:

    Change Environment for both wind level and a negative to ocv, area of effect:  radius.  You could link telekinesis to it as well depending on effect.

    Oh, may want to add hole in the middle

    Yes hole in the middle and tk is coming up on the higher grades of the power. 

  7. Well to affect the people shooting the change environment would need to be large enough to cover them right? Or is it enough to to just buy eight meter radius (four inch hexes) around them for the minus to hit on shots to have effect, since the missiles goes into the windstorm? Or is that cheesy?

  8. A player would like to build a power that creates a windstorm around him that makes him and his friends more difficult to hit.

    I would like this power to have more than one level so he can buy more powerful versions later on.

    I know that storms can give muscle powered ranged weapons -2 to hit and that would be pretty balanced but change enviroment is insanly costly and since he would like to have this as storm around him and his friends I dont know its worth the cost. Especally since force wall are so much cheaper.

  9. 11 hours ago, pinecone said:

    Some good points, but I usually look at Elves not as "Hippies" and instead as super bothersome vegans, who always look down on all others. "Go back to your stinky cities monkey boy!' "I've got "High magic" to cast!" (And the reason the world is in danger, turns out to be "High magic!" after all) :)

    Well that is the point. People make up their own version of elves so it is okay to dislike them. 

    6 hours ago, Badger said:

    The treatment of the strong vs the weak is really nature itself not just humanity.

     

    To survive, you must adapt. The strong are seen as those who adApted best. 

    Tolkien the creator of orcs were a World war one veteran. He saw the futility of total war and were naturally enough inclined to promote the idea that peace and kindness were the way for humanity to survive. I say this to put this notion in context: You can just as well see the strong as people who force others to adapt to them.

    Changing and adapting is not really about strength but about surviving. Which is the orcs weak spot. Orchish lives mean nothing to them. Victory for the dark lord and thereby themselves means all. 

    Strength, aggression and violence are not ways for them to adapt their own culture (such as it is..) to better survive but to change other cultures and people into another state. These states being enslaved and dead respectively.  

    Off course in epic fantasy based on a humanistic morality the morale of said stories are usually to show the futility of the orc (or equivalent) kill or be killed attitude. And the value of peace and kindness (like hobbits for instance). 

    Many games and books show the inhuman conditions of the orcs warfare and the heavy toll it takes on themselves and how it lead to their doom. Very few epic fantasy promote the total war soloution that orcs represent. Usually they glorify the single warrior against many and or honor and chivalry in war. For instance showing mercy to conquered enemies are often shown to pay of at a later date.

     

    To take video games as an example the excellent video game "Shadow of Mordor" takes to be mild quite a lot of liberties with the lore of middle earth. However there is one thing that game gets right and that is to show of the hopelessness and futility of the orcish condition. The cost of their way of life. Both physically and psychologically. 

     

    But there is another example seen in a recent world of warcraft cinematic. In it we meet an old cool looking orc who have doubts about war, especally the current one againt the heroic alliance which could really be avoided and are not fought in an way that appease the orchish sense of honor. (As in this game the orcs are a noble warrior race). 

    He then meet an young and a naive troll who idolizes him, idolize war and are ready to fight for the honour of the horde. The old warrior orc is implied to know better.

    Then the troll dies infront of the warrior orc. AND THIS CONVINCE HIM TO FIGHT ON!

    And the cinematic shows this as a cool and heroic moment. War is the way. War is cool! Fight on! Dont quit! 

    These are two approaches not only to war. But to the total war that orcs usually represent. The authors of the cinematic are trying really hard and doing a really good job at making unjust war seem like an honorable. The opposite of what orcs were intended to do. 

     

    I think that some people are just attracted to that idea of total war and they try to it honorable and shown as the "only way". 

    Off course they dont really want to do that. So story wise they often meet themselves in the door and have to make their warriors extra kind and sensitive like they have done with the world of warcraft orcs.

    From the first warcraft game orcs who looted pillaged and stabbed each other in the back up until to the warcraft movie where the orcs were just looking for a place to belong and raise their cute litte orc babies. Each version of the warcraft orcs are heaped on with more and more humanistic qualities while all the players want its to play tusked hulk and smash puny alliance humans. Its diffent wants and needs dragging the concept of the orc in different directions. 

  10. On 6/27/2020 at 1:57 AM, Duke Bushido said:

     

     

    I don't disagree with your sentiment, but Wizards didn't create the problem.

     

    Gygax and Tactical Systems Research ("Research!"  HA!  :rofl:   ) created the problem.

     

    For what it's worth, I don't care if they leave the alignment system in or not, because _screw_ D&D.   ;)      However, I've never been really big on accepting "this whole race is evil; deal with it."   I am _totally_ cool with "this particular dickhead right here, _he_ is totally evil."  I'm _way_ fine with that.  I just can't figure how a race of mortals with any sort of society can all just "be evil" and a society is still maintained.  I'm willing to be that even Mayans weren't chucking people onto the altar every stinking day.....

     

     

    True like most of the problems in dnd it can be laid at Gygax feet. Arnson were more palatable but he had also his own ideas about race. 

    As for evil I figured people never talked about nor thought of themselves as evil. Off course since most dnd player think of evil pretty much as black plate armour, and being feared is cool. that went out of the window pretty early. Blunders like aligment languages did not help. Then you have pathfinder who are working around the clock to make lawful evil into the new good. 

    They say lawful evil is actually people who are willing to sacrifice everything to make sure the law is upheld rather than sneaky sneaks who hide behind their law to do their evil deeds. And that the devils in the abyss is actually some kind of bullwark against the demons, ignoring that demons existed millennia before devils fell in most campaings and that demons dont have to crush hell before they invade the campaign world. Its just a bit of characterful background. Also TSR and wizards trying to milk the annoyance we gamers felt from being called satantistic by selling "books of darkness" and other crap to make the game look as occult as possible. 

    On 6/27/2020 at 8:50 PM, pinecone said:

    I usually used "Snooty Elves" to highlight systemic racist behavior, the few elves who gave a dang and tried to help save the world were viewed as dangerous deviants by their own kind. And the usual source of stable half elf families. Most 1/2 elf children were raised by single mothers.

    Yes that is a good point. Elves was usually labeled as racist even though elves in the dungeon and dragons book were noted for hanging out in the forest and having parties. They were hippies not nazis. But still players on some level wanted them to be racist and their counter part the orcs to be freedom fighters. 

     

    This is ironic since Tolkien created elves and orcs as two faces of the same coin. Elves were cultural one who loves nature, art and harmony. While orcs were the warlike ones who hates nature, loves technology especially weapons and wants to exterminate all the other races in the world. Both were the same race. Just two facets of the same culture. And since fantasy is closely related to fairy tales where evil is clearly marked by ugliness and good is clearly marked by innocence. The good elves were beautiful while the evil elves were ugly orcs. 

    But dnd, warcraft and players in general wanted so much that the aggressive orcs who wanted to exterminate humanity and bring in the new era of the orc and Sauron (You cant stop progress!) to be on THEIR side and the "wussy" (peaceful) and "snooty" (cultural) elves to be their enemy. 

     

    In psychology that is an easily recognized instinct some humans want to suck up to those who are more powerful than us and they want to attack and destroy those who are weaker than them.

    Its the same with Klingons, Stormtroopers and so on. Off course people dont want to admit that they are morally evasive so they invent stuff like they are racist or they hate us or something like that to explain their instinctual behavior.

    But in the end it is about this: Some players want to be on the side they perceive would win. Because in fantasy without our merry band of heroes the forces of evil would win. The point of fantasy is that small heroic bumps can topple a big cart of evil and give hope to humanity in an world where evil often win. But that does not speak to some peoples instincts they want to win and they want to win easy and fast and the fasted way to do so is to join the side with the biggest guys and the largest most organized army. Showing us that to some players the point of fantasy just go straight over their head.

     

     

  11. 10 hours ago, death tribble said:

    If this is just the main races then fair enough. Demons and Devils will always be evil and Celestials always good.

    But if their deity is evil then it stands to reason that their people will try to emulate them like Gnolls, Orcs and Goblins.

    The Drow situation is understandable bearing in mind that elves can come across as Aryan.

    Aryan is ancient tribe of  people from India. Hitler just stole the term togheter with the sun cross because he thought it was cool. 

    Also you mean Aryan in the hitler term which means white not drow black, purple, grey, blue or whatever dnd use for drow skin now adays. Which makes no sense no matter from what angle I am looking at your argument in. Furthermore the evil of drows are because of their evil goddess and their matriarchal rule. Black matriarchs are not the same as the hitler youth. 

     

    1 hour ago, pinecone said:

    I've always viewed Elves as snooty "better than you monkeys" types, with the Hero elves being the 1% ers of elven society. So yeah, I do see them as one step down from racists by nature.

    I seen this attitude in lots of players both online and off line. Orcs and other powerful aggressive conquering types are either misunderstood victims or cool warrior people worthy of admiration.

    While passive and contemplative races that spend most of their time in the woods drinking wine and doing poetry are seen as "actually" evil and hateful. 

    And if the game designers take this into consideration and create evil elves for instance. (In rpgs now I think there are more evil elves concepts than good tbh)

    Then the players start to interpret the evil elves as either as cool misunderstood victims or bad ass warrior people worthy of admiration.

    It seems to be instinctual in some people. Anything that is threatening and coming after you, like orcs are bad ass alpha individuals that should be sucked up to. 

    And everything that is passive, cultural and maybe a little bit feminine, like elves are looser victims that should be crushed, spat on and hated.

    And lets be honest here. there is more than a little bit of dislike of potentially gay and or the feminine woven in with elves hatred, maybe not that much at my table but certainly online. 

    In my dnd campain back in the day I could not stand for such nonsense so I had one of the evil npcs high priest of the blood religion kill off the last elven tribes. So if you wanted to play an orc you could go test your steel on heavy dwarven infantry instead. Focused on macho ritualistic behavior of the orcs which most often the players would succeeded at but they could also fail at created an "on the edge" and slightly paranoid culture which gave the orcs a distinct flavor but also made the players aprichaite humanity and human culture more. Which to be honest is perhaps what orcs should be?

  12. Back in the day when my first game master showed me the dnd stats for "orc" and told me what it meant he said "and this is alignment. This orc is chaotic" then I asked "do all orcs have to be chaotic?" and he said "You can do as you want"

     

    And that was that. I never used the alignment system for races to any degree other than a vague suggestion. And I have never met any gamers who have. But I have met many who enjoy playing the misunderstood good member of an scary but powerful race of beings. Which is something I think dnd can hold on to for new editions of the game as the misunderstanding itself can apply to more than one. 

     

    I really really get it when people fear that moral relativism will creep into their game. But the removal of the blanket statement of evil in game can actually aid the game master and players in creating real evil enemies and villains we can all love to hate. Evil will now be a choice which makes it extra morally justified to cut off the head of whatever entity that is looting the village. 

     

     

  13. On 6/23/2020 at 9:55 AM, tkdguy said:

    Also that screaming woman vs cat meme. The woman,Taylor Armstrong, was in one of the Real Housewives series. The origin of that scene is actually pretty disturbing.

    The hitler meme is from something disturbing too. Making disturbing things into jokes is a way to deal with it.

    On 6/23/2020 at 3:09 PM, Ragitsu said:

     

    Additionally, Jake Lloyd's childhood was permanently scarred. Curiously, the actor that voiced a thinly disguised Greedy Jew stereotype seemed to escape any (most definitely undue) criticism.

    The greedy merchant stereotype could fit in everywhere. In fact this is the first I heard of it as Jewish. Maybe it was because it was a such a weird alien that we did not see any human cultural traits in it. 

  14. Speaking of listening to academics who both argue sense and have the experience and education to back it up.

     

    https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/potential-fraud-why-mail-elections-should-be-dead-letter

     

    Yet when you go to wikipeida he is labeled "alarmist" a vague yet threatening term that will create an emotional response rather than a rational one. There are off course nothing to back that accusation up except for some referrals to news sites and on those news sites gives nothing substantial. 

    Off course there are a threat of unprecedented voter fraud if it goes all by mail. It is impossible to secure in any meaningful way. You would have every voter escort their letter to where its counted and then you could just show up to vote anyway

  15. 55 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

     

    If what John Oliver is saying should not be listened to because he's an entertainer by profession, rather than an academically-credited authority on whatever subject he's discussing, then there's no point in listening to or reading practically anything posted by anyone here, including yourself.

    Touche.

     

    But I will point out that there re some differences. I am just a guy on a forum he has a whole set up created by staff and designers to make him look like an authority on whatever subject he will talk about this time.  And I am taken to task by you guys. While his program and his message is designed to have him be met by delighted laughter and clapping. Giving us the viewer a subconscious message of him being "the leader of the pack" and someone to be listened to. While my posts are an invitation to come up with some counter argument. 

     

    What really really burns my hide though and why I get so angry at this smug douche is that he preys on peoples desire to feel smart. By saying things in a certain way and by presenting his joke as "laugh here to show that you are smart enough to get it" rather than being actually funny is very very annoying!

  16. 32 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said:

    Oliver's show does more real journalism than most TV news these days. It's got a team of journalists researching the segments.

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Oliver#Influence_and_the_"John_Oliver_effect"

    No they do enough research to say whatever they want to imply, or what mood they want to create or what spiel they want to throw at you sound plausible but they are not journalists because they dont care about truth they only care about the SEMBLANCE of truth a veneer that they can sell to people who like to sound smart. And then you add the comedy as an convenient absolution of responsibility and you have a social disaster. It brought Donald Trump into the white house and it created the idea that every American lives in an action movie and no matter what you do it is justifiable because you are the hero. 

    31 minutes ago, Ragitsu said:

     

    Funnily enough, in the United States of America (the last true bastion of freedom), academics are often labeled "Communist" or "Marxist' by those that are scared of their knowledge or - more specifically - the implications of their knowledge becoming assimilated by the masses.

    Communists have developed tactics for taking over academia using social pressure and exclusions to do so.

    Off course right wingers use the fact that there are communists in academia to discredit the idea of academia itself. Because they themselves are very often anti intellectual and want a society where knowledge is the purview of the rich and powerful and their chosen servants. 

    This does not hamper the communists though if anything it helps them as it makes academia feel hunted by "the outside" making the environment ripe for indoctrination into the cult.

    Which is what communism is.

    18 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

     

    If those who are not experts should have no voice, what does that suggest about the merits of allowing everyone to vote? 

     

    Or even freedom of speech?

    Freedom of speech yes.

    Have voice yes.

    Be listened to yes.

    Be able to vote yes.

    Be given the benefit of trust when they are speaking from the position of being a minority of some kind and they speak from their perspective yes.

    Be allowed to dominate the conversation completely by pretending to be knowledgeable while making everything a cynical joke, avoiding intellectual responsibility and cultivate a veneer of trustworthyness to make your half truths and outright lies easier to swallow? NO!

     

×
×
  • Create New...