I would say yes. Plants feed off of the bodies of dead lions according to this animated documentary I saw, and that doesn't make them any less vegan. Then again, I'm not a vegan, so I might be entirely wrong.
You can't say "no politics intended" and then directly discuss politics. The answer will invariably include politics.
Trump didn't want to be a politician. He wanted to be president. Being a senator or congressman is a job, but being president is a mark of prestige. If he can become president again, he will, because it makes him look good. There's no point for him in taking a lower position with less power.
When I get drunk, I constantly evaluate how drunk I am and accounce it to everyone around me. You'll see me stand up to do something, sway a little too much and then declare "okay, I'm at, like, a four." If I notice I'm getting a little too smashed, I'll try and slow down or eat some bread or just generally try to take care of myself. Still having fun, though.
You want others to like you. You want others to be happy. You put your own desires aside for the benefit of another. It's not mindless, it's selfless.
You make an assumption about a person, and they never give you cause to doubt your assumption. It will take you a long time for you to think your assumption might be wrong. After all, they agreed to it, so they must enjoy it, right? And they invited you to do this thing they like with them, so you don't wanna bring the mood down by refusing.
It's obvious in hindsight, or from a third person omniscient perspective like we have, but in the moment? It happens. It shouldn't, and that's why it's a paradox.
See also: Peer pressure, false consensus, "Don't rock the boat"
Person A wanted to please person B and suggested a given action. Person B assumed person A wanted that action and wanted to please them, so they agreed. Nobody wanted the action, nobody was forced to take the action, everyone had a chance to deny the action, nobody even necessarily lied. People wanted to please others and everyone did something nobody wanted to do.
Yes, it is a failure of communication. Specifically, it's a false consensus, where everyone misunderstands the opinions of the wider group. Even more specifically, it's the Abilene paradox, where everyone acquiesces to the misunderstood desire of the wider group.
In the specific context of the OP, nobody liked the guy, but everyone thought everyone else liked the guy. They didn't want to openly insult someone everyone liked, so everyone kept quiet, so nobody realised nobody liked the guy and nobody told him to go away. It's the paradox in action.
There's a thing called the Abilene paradox. A family is hanging out when one of the suggests having dinner in Abilene. It's a hot day and a long drive, but nobody wants to be left out, so they all agree. After a terrible dinner, they all reveal their frustrations at the event when the person who suggested it notes that it was the first thing they thought of, as they thought everyone else was bored.
Thus, everyone sits in wonder at how they all convinced each other to do something nobody among them wanted to do.
It's fun how often that includes hanging out with someone.
Uh... Okay, optional revised version. Roll a d3 (use a d6 and half it) and use whichever option comes up. If you don't like the result, or you want more click clack throwing fun, roll again until you get the result you want.
I take a system inspired by the video game Wildermyth, where the player gets to decide what happens at 0 HP.
Option 1: You fall unconscious. Your fate is out of your hands.
Option 2: You die, but... You might go out in a blaze of glory, or inspire an ally, but you're dead for good. At least it's a good death, which is better than some get.
Option 3: You live, but... You might lose an eye, or a magic item gets destroyed, but you manage to escape. You're still out of the fight, but you live to see another.
There was no misleading information. There was no name-calling. It's weird you think there was.
If you're allowed to say "Nazis are allowed a space to hang out", I'm allowed to say "shut the fuck up". If you're allowed to say "yeah, I agree with this" by upvoting, I'm allowed to say "this is a terrible idea" by downvoting. If you don't have to give an explanation for why you support something, you shouldn't have to give an explanation for why you oppose something.
I'm telling you to shut up from the front of my mouth. You are not the first person to put forward this argument, and you're not the first person to do it shortly after being downvoted for defending Nazis. You deliberately want a double standard that limits criticism and it was a pretty easy guess, proven right, that you had recently been justifiably criticised.
Every single time someone makes a post with this opinion, they're either a Nazi or a Nazi apologist. They don't want discourse, they just don't like it when people tell them to shut up. It makes it hard to take their arguments seriously because I know they're just excuses.
Lo and behold, you have a downvoted comment in your recent history where you argue Nazis should be allowed a safe space to talk in. The pattern continues.
Criticism is a part of public discourse as much as approval is. People who allow positive responses freely but put walls in the way of criticism tend to be the ones trying to silence all forms of criticism. They want a positive feedback loop so they can pretend people agree with them. Some people need to be told to shut up quickly and decisively.
Encounters, easy. You were going to prepare those anyway.
Maps, not as easy but there's resources online in a pinch.
Forces... What do you mean by that?
Terrain... That's just maps again, right?
Ecosystem... Yeah, you're definitely over-preparing at this point.
Descriptions... You shouldn't have been prepping this anyway. If you know what the thing looks like, you can describe it yourself during the game.
It's that thing you do in the shower the night before the session and forget to write down "but it'll be fine" and then you forgot half of it and only remember the dumb voice you gave the shop keeper. That, plus those notes you wrote down and you're sure you knew what you had in mind but now you're not sure what "damp lich" was supposed to mean.
I'd accept this as a bad example if it wasn't pronounced "hold". Like, you say "thresh hold" and not "thresh old", and that's why I get ticked off at it only having one H. Even if there's an explanation, it's irritating.
Good point, my mistake on hitchhiker. My brain just merged it in with my hatred of threshold.
It doesn't matter how old threshold is. They merged the h of hold with the h in the sh sound of thresh. There is an H missing from how it should be spelt.
Thresh + hold = threshold. Why did they drop the middle 'H'? You still have to pronounce both 'H's, and they don't even have the same sound. They're the worst kind of portmanteau, but they're in the dictionary.
Susaga @ Susaga @ttrpg.network Posts 24Comments 290Joined 2 yr. ago
I would say yes. Plants feed off of the bodies of dead lions according to this animated documentary I saw, and that doesn't make them any less vegan. Then again, I'm not a vegan, so I might be entirely wrong.