Susaga @ Susaga @sh.itjust.works

Posts

5

Comments

539

Joined

2 yr. ago

Agloe, NY, was a fake town designed as a copyright trap on a map, but then a general store was built on that spot. When a company was caught stealing the map, they used the general store as proof the town actually existed.

In Iceland in 2010, a group of comedians made a joke political party called the Best Party, with a platform that amateurs can't mess up more than the pros. They won the mayoral election.

There's a youtube video about how to pretend you know how to play guitar, which suggests you learn just four chords and cycle between them. The comments noted that this is just a beginners guide to actually knowing how to play guitar.

George Lazenby lied on his CV when he auditioned for James Bond. When he confessed this to the director, the director pointed out how he had already convinced an audience with his performance. By acting like an actor, he had shown his ability to act.

The line between pretending and doing is thin, and you learn by doing, so you can learn by pretending to do. If it's a good enough fake, it may as well be real.

Do you fuck by lying unconscious for 8 hours? Your stamina is astounding, but you need to be a little more active.

I hope they're living their best life. I hope they see how far their writing has come, and feel at least a little pride at how much of an impact their work has had.

The problem with the fediverse is that not enough people get how it works, so they don't use it, so there's not enough content, so there's less incentive to use it. The benefits of the fediverse are that you can't exploit and ruin something for everyone if there's an alternative readily available for them to use instead, and the fediverse is BUILT on those alternatives.

The problem with web3 is it does nothing practical enough to justify its existence. The only people who found a use case for it just used it like stock shares, being something worthless that might be valuable if enough time passes. Calling it an alternative to money is absurdly naive at best, manipulative at worst.

Imagine if you had a boss who told you they would only pay you in company stock, and tried to say that it's better than being paid money. That's what this is.

No, like you're part of some tech-bro cult. Which is worse, I will point out. Rejection of the current status quo doesn't mean we want a WORSE status quo.

And we already have plenty of people in the current establishment who want to pay their employees with something other than actual money. We call those people scumbags. At least being paid in exposure isn't bad for the environment.

"Fs in the chat" -> "Subjects, please join me in mourning"

"Thanks for the dono" -> "Your tithe is greatly appreciated"

"We're going into subs only mode" -> "You may only speak if you are of the proper station"

Ironically, "we just got raided" can be said in both instances, but means different things.

I wrote it on a pc, then looked later using Jerboa and saw what you saw. Definitely a Jerboa issue.

Look, everyone knows that

<previous thing>

<current thing>

<comparator>

<adjective>

<comparator>

<element>

Fingers crossed this gets fixed in

<next thing>

Ever heard of hook and loop fasteners? The Velcro company would really like it if you called it hook and loop fasteners.

Goblins have language and culture and religion, and that all requires the ability to think, feel and grow. Making them evil means that either your worldbuilding is nonsense or you've made a thinking, feeling group of people inherently evil from birth. If you want a group that doesn't think, feel or grow, then do what I said in the first place and use undead.

Stop saying it's an evil deity doing these things. It's just you. You're doing these things. Don't be a coward.

Are you seriously trying to justify Boblin the Goblin being evil because of the Lich from Adventure time? One is the cosmic manifestation of the death of all things, and the other is short and green. That's not remotely the same.

And most objectively evil villains in fiction are, I shall point out, human. Nothing to do with their species. A group of human bandits and a group of goblin bandits are equally evil. And at no point have you given any explanation as to why that wouldn't be the case.

Either answer the fucking question or shut the fuck up.

Edit: It would appear they chose to shut the fuck up. I would have preferred they answer the question, but this is acceptable.

No, sorry, that still doesn't answer my question.

Cosmically controlled goblins are doing the same thing as bandits, but the bandits made the choice to do evil things and the goblins didn't get a chance to refuse. Surely, the people choosing to do evil are worse than those forced to do evil, right? So why are bandits better than goblins?

The suggestions you gave fall kinda flat to me, really. No matter what the in-universe reason is, the DM made the universe. "It's what my character would do" doesn't excuse bad behaviour, and neither does "it's what my gods decided." You're the one who made them do that. You're the one that decided an entire culture of thinking, feeling people are born objectively evil and can be killed en masse. And that's fucked up.

I feel like this is related to the meme you just posted about turning an insect swarm spell into a cloud of falling elephants. That's not "player shennanigans", that's theory-crafting a gotcha moment and failing because of how the spells actually work.

Thanks to this post, I have spent the past few minutes looking at pictures of sticks and going "kwoah, that's a good stick." Time well spent.

Everyone should play through all of it! Eluna and the Moth is amazing! Sunswallower's Wake is amazing! A Walk in the Unlight is amazing! I may like this game just a little bit.

To everyone who never played it, Wildermyth is essentially a story focused, randomly generated fantasy X-COM. You play as a company of heroes crossing the wilderness and hunting down monsters, coming across all the fantastic things therein. Campaigns take in-game decades to finish, so the heroes you start with might retire and their kids might join the fight later on. It's one of those games where I have run out of people irl to recommend it to, so now it's your turn!

Try flipping your process. Instead of working from the full list and taking things out, start from an empty list and add stuff in. If there isn't a good enough reason for it to be there, don't put it in. And if this leaves you with just humans, that's fine.

I'm not removing githyanki from my game. Githyanki were never in my game.

From Order of the Stick:
"Wait, aren't dark elves evil?"
"Oh, my, no. Not since they became a player race. Now the entire species consists of Chaotic Good rebels, yearning to throw off the reputation of their evil kin."
"Evil kin? Didn't you just say they were all Chaotic Good?"
"Details."

There's a game called Wildermyth where every faction is inherently incompatible with humans, but none of them are inherently evil.

For example, the Gorgons are an empire seeking to reclaim lost territory. This is fair, but they're aquatic, so they need to flood the world to take it back. Humans naturally need to fight them in order to survive, and there's no real way to compromise on that. It doesn't help that they ooze corruption everywhere they go.

If you can kill something without feeling bad because of its race, that's fucked up. A group of goblin bandits can be fun, but they're villains because of the bandit thing, not the goblin thing. Why should a group defined by plundering travelers be more acceptable than a group defined by being short with green skin?

That said, the undead are, more often than not, fair game. Undead are a mockery of the life that came before and a defilement of their corpse, so killing them is a way of honouring the dead.

Someone made a point that, in pointing out how Kyle is a murderer, someone would come to defend him. Then you came to defend him, or at least said the exact thing someone trying to defend him would say. When people tried to brush you off, you cried about people not wanting conversations. When they corrected you, you cried about them sticking to a narrative. When they called you out for defending him, you claimed to hate him, then kept defending him. You were identical to a Rittenhouse supporter.

Why does talking about sensitive topics need a disagreement? A death in the family is a sensitive topic, but you don't need to say "I'm glad they died" to talk about it.

Were you even responding to me? Because you disagreed with a point I didn't make and raised a point in response to my answer of that point.

Don't disagree for the sake of disagreement. The devil doesn't need an advocate.