TheDarkness

You do realize the alt-right was founded by white nationalists? There's not even a historical question on that. The founder is a white nationalist, it began in two white nationalist websites, and many of the movers and shakers in it are still white nationalists. If you can't even define a white nationalist founded movement that includes a huge number of white nationalist groups as probably being racist, should you be the boss of when someone can mention racism? Further, is it really unprompted to question what role racism played in the first election since Jim Crow in which the winning candidate openly courted a group, founded by white nationalists for white nationalism, and used that group in influencing the election? AND when that group basically made a moderate veteran Republican decide not to run as a third party candidate after they sent his family members pictures of his adopted daughter, who is not white, in a gas chamber? No one is saying all his voters are racist. But you can hardly claim that it is unwarranted to speculate on what role racism played. Hell, when endorsed by major white nationalist organizations, he did not come out and denounce them, he only made a denouncement when PROMPTED by a journalist after the SECOND endorsement, unlike, say, Reagan, who tore white nationalists a new one as soon as they announced their support. And, considering that white nationalists now think that Trump was just playing politics in his denouncement, and considering that he was quoting white nationalists on Twitter, there's a point where there's sufficient cause to speculate.

I actually think D&Ds divorce from the nuances of Tolkein encourages murder hoboism. When you have defacto evil races that can never be good, what other sensible choice is there but killing them all? Never mind the way experience used to be granted for killing and gold. I'd be curious to go back over the books to see how he actually describes orcs.

To clarify, Eru loved Melkor(Morgoth), therefore, Melkor could not be by nature evil. He made himself so.

EDIT: to clarify, there will be some hairs split in this post, but mostly to make a case that Tolkein walked an interesting line in his world creation that did interesting things to make it so that, for the most part, there were no creatures with human level intellect that did not choose evil. I think there's a difference, and a few points. Morgoth did not start off as evil, he was an angelic being, like Sauron, who followed pride into evil. His initial acts were not evil, per se, but prideful. Sauron, for a long time, was also not evil by nature. Ungoliant was a created thing, and, if we are to go by the backstory of dragons and fell beasts, was made from other, more ordinary creatures. Orcs were made from humans and elves who were twisted by Morgoth or Sauron or Saruman. There is not a single race in LOTR that was not something else twisted into evil. You'll note that the end of LOTR leads to the next age(fourth? I can't recall) It was a new age because all of the power of angelic beings was then out of the world, or soon to be out(mortal elves, the slow normalizing of the dunedain, who had elvish blood long in their past, the dwarves). This point is hit home more by the difference between Gandalf and Saruman. Each was an angelic being on the order of Sauron, though less powerful, who took on a weak mortal form and was working under a further chosen limit from expressing their full powers because, as all the ages before showed, that power only seemed to make things worse. Saruman chose power, and blinded himself to what ordinary beings could do. Gandalf barely ever expressed power, and helped the most ordinary of creatures win the day. There is no evil by nature creature in LOTR that was not simply something twisted by dark angelic powers. Sure, the orcs were evil. But the orcs were not really a race, they were made out of something that could be good or evil. We have no source material to show they even mated. All references that I'm aware of had them being made. Orcs, goblins, trolls, dragons, fell beasts, wargs. There is also a key element in the work that things made with dark angelic powers actually create nothing unique of their own, only twist what is there. While the brighter angels made elves and dwarves, and Eru decided to let them stand as worthy works, everything Morgoth and Sauron create are merely twisted copied that show the greater virtue of what they are twisted from. Even Morgoth's attempt to subvert the song of creation ends up proving Eru's themes in their attempts at discordance. A LOTR game that has orcs, yes, the orcs will be evil. I just don't see them as an actual race, and suspect that JRR would have been more comfortable with interpretations that the process that made them such was by way of corrupting them into that. A defacto evil race or being that reproduces itself and by its nature has no capacity for good, to our knowledge, does not exist in LOTR. And a being that is evil by nature that was not twisted by angelic powers does not exist at all. Actually, I must correct myself. Ungolliant's offspring. Perhaps the orcs could reproduce. I think both of those points weaken the work, the former, less so(giant spiders could be said to not particularly be placed on the scale of good to evil for wanting to eat dwarves, orcs, however, are, as such, I'll tend to view orcs as created and evil, ungolliant's offspring, imbued with evil power, but not really doing anything a big spider wouldn't do irrespective of moral quantifications). I just find the premise of beings born evil problematic. Tolkein had a bit of an end run around the issue, for the most part. In every other way, he seemed to frame the question of evil with choice.

And when someone does that, one has a legitimate complaint against the person who does that. Not against every other person who ever brings up the topic.

So, let's say that a fantasy system, Powered by Hero, was put out. What do members think would be the tropes of fantasy that would gain the most advantages, as far as being depictions of the tropes, versus depictions that became common through previous role playing games. Thinking things that take advantage of Hero's flexibility. My view is, first, the need for such things as classes becomes irrelevant. What your points bought and how you describe them will define what you are. So, looking at the original Conan movie, for example, which, in a lot of ways, is almost one of the best and closest depictions of a fantasy rpg 'party'. Archer and thief. Simple enough, No need for a 'barbarian' class, he's a warrior, has climbing skill. Strong willed. Female warrior and thief. Actually pretty much leads the party in every scene she's in. Old crazy wizard. Using D&D as an example, the ranger class always bothered me. Aragorn is clearly the strongest inspiration there. Spells always seemed to me more a way to make them useful than a particularly trope-fulfilling thing. In this, if you want your ranger to have spells, that's a no-brainer, anyone could potentially buy them, it just depends on how many points they want to take away from other things. But, in this case, since the effect is whatever you choose it to be, his healing spell might be "I was taught the nature of healing plants by the elves, here, let me slap some foliage on that for you. Is my healing salad working? Good." Likewise, his invisibility might be "pass through the woods unseen." That's actually something I was thinking about. Some powers/spells could include, for their point value, a limitation that has some choice for the player. It would have to be of the simplest sort. So, in the case of the above invisibility, they could choose at purchase for it to only work in certain settings, in urban alleyways, in forests, in swamps, in cave systems. Races for the game would themselves be packages: set, paid for bonuses that design a base for an elf, a dwarf, a kobold, etc. For the fantasy game I'm setting up, I'm really going nuts with kobolds as a choosable PC race. Their ability to climb walls lends them quite well to thievery, plus the kobolds for my game are more along the lines of Tucker's Kobolds. Another thing common in my game is the avoidance of a race being 'evil'. I find that entire trope problematic. Even if one looked at LOTR, there weren't really 'evil' races. All the examples were actually twisted forms of something not, by its nature, actually evil. [admittedly, now I'm mostly talking about thoughts for my game, ah well, perhaps The Digression of Darkness would be a better handle for me] So, there aren't dark elves, there are elves who delve too deeply into dark sorceries(and who are, in my world, actually blanched bone white by the use of these dark powers). Dwarves, I'm really trying to capture. I'm playing with the idea of them having a high will towards the kinds of corruptions that affect elves and humans, so some demonic spirits have little sway over them, but conversely, a tendency toward greed, so things that play off of that have more sway. I intend for them to have higher strength and con, simple enough. Additionally, they can buy dwarven armor and weapons with their starting points, whereas most others might be able to buy a dwarven weapon, but not dwarven armor. Kobolds and dwarves have a tied history in my game. They are under a truce, which in some places is more an actuality than others, but they tend to have conflicts because they are competing for the same territory. Kobold raids on the dwarves occur, and dwarves moving wholesale into areas where kobolds live because there are precious minerals under their caves is another issue. The kobolds tend to have mastery of cave systems as they are, and so their mobility as a group and their knowledge of the cave systems, traps and poisons is dangerous, while the dwarves have armor and dwarven steel and war machines. In some ways, it is one race that tends to be part of the environment, and another, that tends to shape the environment to their ideas. I'm actually really pumped about how my ideas on rangers are turning out. Keep in mind, they are not a class, but a group one belongs to that tend to have similar skill-sets, and they have a couple options that others can not choose. [okay, back to my original blabbering] Holy orders(paladins, monks, warrior monks) are also more easily done. Starting points spent on magical armor could easily be armor empowered by their belief(and thus, as far as focus issues, could be replaced by other armor empowered by their belief in the case of loss). Combat skills are all a matter of what they choose, so spear and sword and shield and lance could as easily be chosen as could a skill set that resembles kung fu or samarai arts. And again, since spells are open and the effects defined by the player, then all manner of other things could be added in.

Dude, he didn't make an 'accusation', he made an idle speculation. Further, you cannot make the conclusions off of raw data that you just claimed to do AND claim certitude. In sample sizes that large, you have no way, without a lot more data, to read smaller influences within the set.

Inspiring leaders aren't always capable, capable leaders aren't always inspiring. One of the greatest statesmen in ancient China had a terrible stutter. He also produced a work that would allow China to maintain a wide are with a lean bureaucracy that England would take ideas from two millennium later.

Yeah, he has no Republican or Democrat support for that. None. He has no industry support, and everyone is well aware that American consumers would be the big loser for that deal, and heads would roll in future elections.

Actual quote from the founder of the alt-right movement, Richard Spencer. Again, Breitbart hails itself as the media source of the alt-right, who actually call sources like Breitbard Alt-lite for making the theme's more palatable by proposing the same solutions as the white nationalists, but omitting the ideology these solutions come from: “The ruling, non-discriminatory ideology, that we’ll be a little stronger for the more piquancy of the sauce, is a suicidal ideology,” Spencer says. “The races are not equivalent or interchangeable. The prevailing ideology is one that will lead to the ultimate dispossession of my people and my culture.” https://www.wired.com/2016/10/alt-right-grew-obscure-racist-cabal/ "“Most people who get interested in these groups aren’t drawn in by the rhetoric. They work their way there slowly.” So while not everyone shouting about cucks on Twitter is a Richard Spencer in the making, a proportion of them probably are." Spencer on Hillary's talk about the alt-right: "Spencer is hopeful about Clinton’s speech, writing on his site Radix Journal on Thursday that “Hillary is trying to push the GOP into permanent minority status by empowering the alt-right—and, believe me, she will be empowering us today. The alt-right is, in a way, what people wrongly accuse the GOP of being: a nationalist party for White people. Hillary’s alt-right speech will try to force the GOP to become what it is.”"

Never mind, ignore.

The running tactic is now to blame Obama. I've seen a number of people say, "Trump's not president yet, so how could it be his fault." Apparently none of us are responsible for our actions until we win the presidency. I'm raiding the vending machine. Thanks, Obama!

I cannot, in good conscience, like your post. Eck.

I can't believe I forgot spork!

I'd say,as a system, if it came out today, it would not do well. As far as Hero, I don't think it needs to be made simpler than other games, either.

No problem. I just happened to stop in at an old forum I used to go to. It was usually a really pleasant place. Wow, it's an ugly scene in there with the politics. I like the Hero forums.

Lately, Chicago has joined the list. We're just upfront about putting crooks in office.

Yeah, I think they actually voted in more of the same, unfortunately. Essentially, as far as areas like the cracked article talks about, the last four elections were made up of scares(this one being immigration, the last being immigration and gay marriage, the previous one being morals in government) that have no effect on their situation. Whip up a frenzy, then abandoned as soon as its over. I think a strong focus on ALL our poor areas would do a lot more than coming together over any particular president. Traditionally, American politics has always used the 'black threat' to whip up certain areas, and those areas were often also poor and high crime. In the end, both groups would still be in a bad situation.

I think a further point. Hero needs, for example, using fantasy as the base, ONE fantasy game that gets focus on adventure packages first. Something that some branding can have influence on, and various publishers can develop works for for different point levels of characters. Even books that expand on the options for different people(the Way of the Warrior book, the Way of blah blah blah), all to flesh out that one. Also, any modern game should have an item "Flashlight, 1 pt.", just to make people on the forums spend listless hours determining which build was used.

Just to say, not everyone thinks this way. I grew up in Chicago, we like you folks. A little jealous of your winters, but we still like you. I actually never heard this sentiment about California until I was in the Southwest. Back in the day, there were only two states I avoided like the plague. Alabama and Oklahoma. I traveled a lot when I was young, and back in the day, if you had a long hair or a black person in your car in either of those states, apparently that was probably cause. Three times had to stop in Oklahoma, on three different trips, for a full car search because two of us in the band had long hair. Full searches, no probable cause, no violation. Alabama, though, we had scary run-ins with the police, again, no cause for it except long hair and a black person. Full car search, and we were treated like the worst kind of scum, while our poor drummer was actually called 'boy'(he was black). It's a shame, because Alabama, as far as physical geography and many of its people, is pretty cool. Met lots of great people in both places, but even they were like, yeah, there's no shortage of messed up people here living in the past. To be clear, this was in the late eighties and early nineties.

Asking for proof that a group is predominantly racist whose accepted reading list is a list of people who run self proclaimed white nationalist organizations and write essays on white nationalism is perhaps a sign that you are kinder than me. I'll stop there. I'm not part of any organization that reads any white nationalist articles for enlightenment. I'd imagine you're not either. My premise is that is because you're not a white nationalist, and I'll happily make the safe bet that someone who does read those articles is, and that seems a reasonable level of proof.

I already said that there were some on the fringe who were not. But seriously, the entire crop of people who are considered the voice of it are self-proclaimed white nationalists. You can look them up, it's practically without exception. And the guys who think they aren't supporting THAT while calling people the n-word online(because the alt-right hates pc) are hopelessly naive and self-involved. There is a point where you are asking for an unreasonable amount of evidence. Even if they are in the fringe, there is no way they could be in alt-right without daily seeing as much outright racist proclamations and white nationalism as a part of daily converse and debate as on Stormfront, because that's a constant. It's really not hard to find this out for yourself.

As a movement, alt-right is a white nationalist movement. Most attempts to claim otherwise have failed, because the overwhelming trend of the movement is white nationalism. Steven Bannon not only provides their media outlet, but meets with avowed white nationalist leaders. Your argument is semantical and wrong. The reasons are simple. Let's use the 'teach the controversy' movement. In Kansas and other places, the movement ostensibly was about fairness in schooling, not about creationism. But, in reality, it was about creationism. It's members were creationists, and no amount of rebranding changes this. Alt-right is about white nationalism. Further, their major leaders and voices all also declare that they are white nationalist. A google search will show this. So this: "You have gone from claiming that his staff publicly call themselves "white nationalists" to saying they used some code-word that you perceive to mean the same thing." Is factually incorrect. The major leaders, the voices they most often quote and repeat, DO call themselves white nationalists. AND call themselves alt-right. Further, those Breitbart columnists they most often quote who don't call themselves white nationalists, often spout the exact tenets of white nationalism. Alt-right members hate coded racism, so they will not follow a columnist who does not come out and say what they also think. Finally, I'm assuming you mean Bannon(in reference to his(Trump's) staff, as the Twitter people probably weren't staff, but Trump still managed to quote avowed white nationalists on his Twitter as well as reap the rewards of the alt-right's twitter support, which only the most naive would consider accidental since Bannon, the head of Breitbart AND the provider of the media outlet for the alt-right, was a key staff member). Bannon provides the alt-right's media outlet, outright stated that that was his intention, meets with people who the alt-right movement follow and whose arguments and quotes form the basis of a lot of what they do, and those people he meets with not only refer to themselves as white nationalists, but lead other organizations that are openly white nationalist organizations, blatantly white nationalist. Now, a guy meets with white nationalist leaders, runs a media outlet that he outright states is aimed at a group that mostly follows what those white nationalist leaders have to say, in short, his entire success is based on the previous two points, I'm going to say that that person is not a good person at all. At best, he's an opportunist of the lowest moral order, and very possibly a racist. He is still functionally a racist, as he furthers the cause of white nationalists BY CHOICE. Of course, that person's wretched ethics don't worry me, until they get some more influence. Say, ties with a presidential candidate. Or a president.

Alt-right is white nationalist. The people who aren't are the fringe. This is fairly well established. Brietbart is the self proclaimed media for the alt-right. Honestly, there is no going into alt-right venues without recognizing that all but the fringe are self-proclaimed white nationalists, and the fringe is apparently okay with that. Further, Trump was quoting white nationalists on Twitter. And never seemed to have any problem with a major part of his activities on twitter getting huge support from alt-right members who were not shy about their white nationalism. Steven Bannon. who of course worked for Trump during the election, as head of brietbart, according to this article by someone that knew him, specifically courted the white nationalist alt-right and made brietbart its voice: http://www.dailywire.com/news/8441/i-know-trumps-new-campaign-chairman-steve-bannon-ben-shapiro# Now, the person who you say was 'dishonestly' painted as a white supremacist, I suspect you are talking about is Milo Yiannapoulis. One of the writers of this article: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/ Large sections of that article, in which the authors are talking about what they consider true versus describing the alt-right movement, but why they think the alt-right movement is right, are flat out white nationalism. They go further to split hairs and subdivide the group in ways they are NOT subdivided in online environments at all. They go to great lengths to say, we think nazis are LARPers, while supporting every pro-white argument of nazis in the rest of the argument, saved dressing like them. Here's what they have to say about 'natural conservatives', which, in the article, seems to be what he considers the best of the movement, the goal state almost like a 'clear' to a scientologist. "Their goal is a new consensus, where liberals compromise or at least allow conservative areas of their countries to reject the status quo on race, immigration and gender." Note the race in there? That IS the beginning, end, and middle of the charter of pretty much all white nationalist movements. They always say, hey, this other group can go to their own place, and we get our own place, really, it's only functionally the same as racism, it's not really racism. He follows this by explaining that that's a reasonable request, and only if they DON'T get it, well then, the nazis can do it their way. Seriously, that's what the article says in this section, if(and only if, so nice of them) liberals and conservatives don't yield territory where the natural conservatives can then "reject the status quo on race, immigration, and gender", well then, only then do the nazis get to gas everyone. This is the part of the group that he speaks most admiringly of, in his own words. He has been accused of being supportive of white nationalism, he denies it, but in that article, there's hardly an element of white nationalism that he doesn't defend as a natural state, even if he dances around it a lot by saying, look, it's not real racism(never mind the nazis in reserve, they're just larpers), they just want the choice to not have black people, or hispanics, or allow anyone to move into their community that doesn't somehow fit their standard. He is part of the alternative right, and he does describe white nationalism as a natural state of things where white people are involved. We need not even discuss the ties between gamergate and alt-right's rise. I know several people who spent extended times researching the alt-right in many online environments. Probably more time than half the people writing articles about them. One of these people is conservative, and he is disgusted by that last article's attempt to whitewash the stock white nationalism that he observed.

I understand. BUT, if a candidate puts self professed white nationalists in key roles in his election, and people vote for him, and say nothing against this even when it's brought up, why would you assume they WEREN'T racist? I mean, if I see a guy at a Klan rally, but he's not wearing sheets, I'm gonna make assumptions. Trumps that guy now. The only potential saving grace for Trump is if he was maybe being an opportunist, but the problem is, he's emboldened them, and the other problem is, why would anyone give him the benefit of the doubt after hobnobbing with white nationalists? David Duke himself referred to their role in the Trump campaign as important to the rise of this wretched movement. And the Alt-right served a significant role online. I mean, we're not talking about people we think might be racists. We're talking about people we all know are racists.