Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Hahahahahaha!

7 (41.2%)

Nooooooooooo!

10 (58.8%)

Total Members Voted: 17

[Andres]

In any case, the unofficial council prosecutors think dying was punishment enough for Yaos. That does not in any way mean Serac and Cim are off the hook.

Yes it does. They've been acquitted. That's Legalese (I like to think that's an official language in the Ye Gods world) for 'off the hook'.

[Rolepgeek]

Sense=gone

Anyway.

I wouldn't dislike a warrior race automatically.

I'll probably end up making one at some point, actually.

It's just that they need to fight for Good causes, rather than for the sake of violence and harming others.



Price check on Faultless (as in, no weak points; not the eye slit, not the joints, nothing) Armor? This would mostly be magical in the required secondary powers, since (most) of the armor's construction could be done by skilled smiths. No eye slits, but you still need to see. No weak joints, but you still need to move(though again, skilled enough smiths could mitigate a good portion of that). No exposed/breakable buckles, but you still need to get it on and off, etc. Most of the way this would work comes from the fact that in medieval times, armor was already good enough that to kill someone in armor you needed two things, or, often enough, both of them. Either you needed to attack at the weakpoints(which is why a lot of fights ended up as wrestling matches with stillettos, and the only reason longbows were as effective as they were(they couldn't get through breastplate, but they could certainly pierce chainmail, and horses didn't wear that much plate armor...)), or you need to hit hard enough to hurt them through the armor(aka really big hammers/maces, crossbows, etc.). The second one was the harder of the two, especially in melee, against a skilled opponent. Although crossbows ended up being banned for a reason...

Which brings me to the next price check. Faultless Armor, with some additional generic-ish enhancements. Resistance to blunt force trauma(aka cushions the wearer), extra durability/strength, maybe a little lighter to wear, projectiles coming towards them are veered away as not to hit(this may be better on a shield, or in reverse on an invincible shield), protection from heat(which also means less stupendous amounts of sweat and heat generated just by being inside it), protection from rust/decay(stays quality longer), etc, all at fairly low levels.

And then that, but at high levels and also improved reaction time, strength, stamina/endurance, speed, agility, and perception for the wearer, protection from magic(esp. EVIL), repairs itself, reduced knockback from impacts, you get the idea.

And then I'll just ask about Holy Weapons. (blah blah generic better weaponing blah righteous fire blah blah SMITING blah)

Also, actually, Andres, Council Surveillance says it saw you three murdering him.

Thus, you guys did kill them. There's magic video tapes and everything.

Besides which, a thief putting back the things he stole, or some dropping his suit, doesn't mean they didn't happen, and it still says something about their character(especially since it really seems like you only did it to get out of being in trouble).

[Stirk]

From phone will get to rest later

There is no reason we can't sew him again

[Vgray]

I already said that was the GMs fault a bookkeeping error.

[Andres]

-armour-

Power armour. You're thinking of power armour. Specifically, you're thinking of Master Chief's armour. That let's him see outward rather easily but it has no slits. It covers his entire body. It boosts his speed, reflexes, strength, etc. It's power armour dude.

Also, actually, Andres, Council Surveillance says it saw you three murdering him.

Thus, you guys did kill them. There's magic video tapes and everything.

But which one of us pulled the trigger? I would really like to know. Both from an IC and OOC perspective I have absolutely zero idea who dunnit.

Besides which, a thief putting back the things he stole, or some dropping his suit, doesn't mean they didn't happen, and it still says something about their character(especially since it really seems like you only did it to get out of being in trouble).

So you're saying that it's equivalent to steal something and keep it than steal something and return it? Are you sure you're the god of Good? What about guilt and/or redemption? Do they mean nothing?

I wouldn't dislike a warrior race automatically.

I'll probably end up making one at some point, actually.

It's just that they need to fight for Good causes, rather than for the sake of violence and harming others.

Fighting for good causes or no, you're still raising children to kill people and to likely be killed. Now, making a race that would be very good at fighting is fine, but making a race that's very good at fighting with the express intent that they'll fight? Not good.

[Cptn Kaladin Anrizlokum]

There is no reason we can't sew him again

Well, you have never sewn anyone, so that is a reason you can't sew them again.

And also, OOC I don't know who killed Fusil. He just kind of died.

[Rolepgeek]

-armour-

Power armour. You're thinking of power armour. Specifically, you're thinking of Master Chief's armour. That let's him see outward rather easily but it has no slits. It covers his entire body. It boosts his speed, reflexes, strength, etc. It's power armour dude.

...So? First off, pretty sure ALL Power armor is like that(but it has weakpoints, like most power armour in sci fi), not just Master Chief's, second, I don't believe it increases reflexes for him, third, your point being? Power armor is used for a reason; it's powerful.

Besides which, a thief putting back the things he stole, or some dropping his suit, doesn't mean they didn't happen, and it still says something about their character(especially since it really seems like you only did it to get out of being in trouble).

So you're saying that it's equivalent to steal something and keep it than steal something and return it? Are you sure you're the god of Good? What about guilt and/or redemption? Do they mean nothing?

Don't be a dick and purposefully misinterpret me. I never said they are the same. I said that giving it back doesn't mean you didn't do it. If you give it back in a true spirit of repentance, it makes up somewhat for it. However, if you give it back just to try and not get in trouble?

Not the same.

I wouldn't dislike a warrior race automatically.

I'll probably end up making one at some point, actually.

It's just that they need to fight for Good causes, rather than for the sake of violence and harming others.

Fighting for good causes or no, you're still raising children to kill people and to likely be killed. Now, making a race that would be very good at fighting is fine, but making a race that's very good at fighting with the express intent that they'll fight? Not good.

A. Everyone who's been made mortal will die anyway, and they will all be reborn anyway. So that's not really a good argument.
B. Ideally, they wouldn't need to fight in any way except in friendly duels and competitions. Realistically, Good requires sacrifice to maintain, and moreover, it requires protection from Evil and those who would harm others in the sake of their own self-interest. This often requires combat. If I don't make a race that's specifically meant to be good at fighting, and left the races not designed for it to fight the battles instead? I would in fact be less responsible, because more people overall would die, unnecessarily, and they might lose and be slaughtered. While a warrior race is not perfect insurance against this, it certainly makes it less likely.
C. Combat is not inherently evil. It is the fact that it is often used to hurt others that makes it harmful and Evil. If it is used to protect others or shield them, or done safely for entertainment of oneself or others, it is not Evil. Might not be Good, if it's for entertainment, but if neither individual dies or is horribly maimed, it's not like it's evil.
D. The Death Battle Plane.
E. I'm not raising children. I'm making a race. That's different.
F. Express intent to make them fight no matter what? No. Express intent that if fighting should be necessary they're the ones who'll (probably) do most of it? Yes.
G. Well, you know, everyone's entitled to their own opinion(besides weren't you the one saying I defined Good? ).

[DreamerGhost]

The explicit order to throw egg in Fusils cell was given by good captn kal here. I would post a quote, but I am on phone.

[Andres]

...So? First off, pretty sure ALL Power armor is like that(but it has weakpoints, like most power armour in sci fi), not just Master Chief's, second, I don't believe it increases reflexes for him, third, your point being? Power armor is used for a reason; it's powerful.

So nothing. I was just pointing out that you were describing power armour. I wasn't criticising you or anything, I was just trying to make the kind of armour you were describing easier to imagine. I myself had no idea what the armour would look like until I was reminded of power armour by your description of the armour increasing the physical potential of its user.

Don't be a dick and purposefully misinterpret me. I never said they are the same. I said that giving it back doesn't mean you didn't do it. If you give it back in a true spirit of repentance, it makes up somewhat for it. However, if you give it back just to try and not get in trouble?

Not the same.

I didn't purposefully misinterpret you. I may have accidentally misinterpreted you, but it wasn't on purpose. Glad we got that cleared up though. It makes sense what you're saying, but what if someone wants to undo the bad that they've done and not get in trouble for it? The way you set it up it seems like the only two options are put it back for selfish reasons and thus not get in trouble or give it back for repentance and possibly get in trouble for it. What if someone wants to give the stuff back with a guarantee that they wouldn't get in trouble? I think they'd put the thing they stole back where they found it, leave, and move on.

A. Everyone who's been made mortal will die anyway, and they will all be reborn anyway. So that's not really a good argument.
B. Ideally, they wouldn't need to fight in any way except in friendly duels and competitions. Realistically, Good requires sacrifice to maintain, and moreover, it requires protection from Evil and those who would harm others in the sake of their own self-interest. This often requires combat. If I don't make a race that's specifically meant to be good at fighting, and left the races not designed for it to fight the battles instead? I would in fact be less responsible, because more people overall would die, unnecessarily, and they might lose and be slaughtered. While a warrior race is not perfect insurance against this, it certainly makes it less likely.
C. Combat is not inherently evil. It is the fact that it is often used to hurt others that makes it harmful and Evil. If it is used to protect others or shield them, or done safely for entertainment of oneself or others, it is not Evil. Might not be Good, if it's for entertainment, but if neither individual dies or is horribly maimed, it's not like it's evil.
D. The Death Battle Plane.
E. I'm not raising children. I'm making a race. That's different.
F. Express intent to make them fight no matter what? No. Express intent that if fighting should be necessary they're the ones who'll (probably) do most of it? Yes.
G. Well, you know, everyone's entitled to their own opinion(besides weren't you the one saying I defined Good? ).

A. Heavily disagree. If having people killed because they'll be reborn anyway is ok then hypothetically a genocide would also be ok because all those people would just get reborn. I may be misinterpreting again but that's how I see this argument. I also disagree with the argument because simply having life isn't good enough - having a good and possibly long life (if they want) is what's good enough.
B. Fair enough. You make good points here and I agree.
c. More good points. I agree.
D. What about the DBP? We're talking about permanent death here, not temporary death.
E. The point wasn't that you were raising children to die, it's that you were creating a race whose children would all be expected to fight and kill.
F. My gut tells me I shouldn't like this one, but I don't see any flaws in the argument. I'll give you that one.
G. GM said that that's not necessarily the case. Besides, you yourself jossed the fact that you defined Good by saying that it should be discussed and debated, as we are now.

[Kilojoule Proton]

I'll be out for CoC, so the rest of the stuff will get resolved in a few hours.

[Cptn Kaladin Anrizlokum]

The explicit order to throw egg in Fusils cell was given by good captn kal here. I would post a quote, but I am on phone.

Yeah, but it also said the egg didn't do anything.

It's a nuke!
Throw the egg into Fusil's prison.

Someone throws the metal egg onto Fusil's prison. Nothing seems to happen.

[Rolepgeek]

It's magical power armor, but yeah(which makes it cooler because glowing runes).

If someone will only give it back with a guarantee they won't get in trouble in exchange? That's doing it specifically so they don't get in trouble. If you really give it back in a spirit of repentance, while you would prefer, of course, not to be punished, you would accept any punishment given(theoretically, those judging would take your repentance into account, however).

A. Mostly misinterpreting; my point is that by creating a race, in the expectation that they will die someday(maybe the peak of their physical fitness is actually towards the end of their lifespan specifically so that they can both gain plenty of combat experience from training and sparring and the like and so they live a long, happy, bountiful life), is not evil simply because they will die. I am not the one killing them, nor am I ending their lives especially early. I'm actually making it possible for them to live at all. Besides, who are you to say what's a good life? For that matter, who am I? There's been plenty of real life cultures in which a good life partially entailed dying a valiant death in battle(first one that comes to mind is Norse). And then, of course, there's the question; is a poor(or at least not great) life better or worse than no life at all?
B. Cool.
C. Cool.
D. I mean that if wars are all fought on that like we might end up making them, a warrior race won't actually die from the wars it's in.
E. When they're adults, yeah, they might be expected to fight, but it's not like I'd force 'em to, and it's not like any other race would be different, really. I'm creating a race whose children might be expected to fight and kill - so that races that would have to fight and die instead don't have to.
F. Alright.
G. I know, for both of those; I like this discussion. I'm just poking fun at you now questioning my status as God of Goodness after saying that. Thus the . (the first part of G was meant to be in the semi-bored, snooty, making-fun-of-the-people-who-actually-use-this-argument voice)

[Vgray]

How has this game not become a full on Greek tragedy? That's my question.

[Andres]

If someone will only give it back with a guarantee they won't get in trouble in exchange? That's doing it specifically so they don't get in trouble. If you really give it back in a spirit of repentance, while you would prefer, of course, not to be punished, you would accept any punishment given(theoretically, those judging would take your repentance into account, however).

Good and evil isn't always binary; sometimes it's on a sliding scale. It's true that turning yourself in would be the most good option available, but there are lesser options available, like putting the thing back. It has to do with intent.
If the person is putting it back just so he doesn't get in trouble, it's neutral at best. If the person is putting it back because he feels guilty AND doesn't want to get in trouble, it's good. If the person puts it back at all assuming it's guaranteed they won't ever get in trouble for keeping it then it's good. Turning one's self in is of course the ultimate good in the situation, there are lesser good options available that still fall under Good.

A. Mostly misinterpreting; my point is that by creating a race, in the expectation that they will die someday(maybe the peak of their physical fitness is actually towards the end of their lifespan specifically so that they can both gain plenty of combat experience from training and sparring and the like and so they live a long, happy, bountiful life), is not evil simply because they will die. I am not the one killing them, nor am I ending their lives especially early. I'm actually making it possible for them to live at all. Besides, who are you to say what's a good life? For that matter, who am I? There's been plenty of real life cultures in which a good life partially entailed dying a valiant death in battle(first one that comes to mind is Norse). And then, of course, there's the question; is a poor(or at least not great) life better or worse than no life at all?
D. I mean that if wars are all fought on that like we might end up making them, a warrior race won't actually die from the wars it's in.
E. When they're adults, yeah, they might be expected to fight, but it's not like I'd force 'em to, and it's not like any other race would be different, really. I'm creating a race whose children might be expected to fight and kill - so that races that would have to fight and die instead don't have to.

A. Just because you're responsible for their being able to live at all doesn't mean that you can doom them to a life of slaughter. I define a good life as one that the person enjoys living but that doesn't negatively impact other peoples' lives too greatly.
D. Fair enough.
E. Again, there's definitely argument for a warrior race being used for the greater good but not without accepting that it's a result of a lesser evil, even if said evil is overshadowed by its own local good.

@Neron: I've challenged KJP's decision to sell one STF's weapons to you. I want to be able to choose which weapon I sell to you. Please don't do anything with the weapon yet.

How has this game not become a full on Greek tragedy? That's my question.

Mystic Snow.

[Vgray]

There's something wrong going on when it turns out the god of Greed has morals. What have you people done to poor Azem?