Succubus

Abyssal Lord's page

263 posts (287 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 263 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Kirth Gersen wrote:

I wonder if Zariel is mentioned in any of the old "Politics of Hell" articles from Dragon magazine, waaaaaaaaaaay back in the day...?

EDIT: Issue #28! From 1979! But not the one I was thinking of. Further research reveals: "Dozens of unique devils appeared in a two-part article by Ed Greenwood, including the greater devils Bist, Caim, and Nergal, the dukes of Hell Agares, Alocer, Amduscias, Arioch, Balan, Bathym, Biffant, Caarcrinolaas, Chamo, Focalor, Gaziel, Gorson, Herodias, Machalas, Malphas, Melchon, and Merodach, and the princesses of Hell Cozbi, Lilis, and Naome in 'The Nine Hells Part I' (Dragon #75) and the dukes of Hell Abigor, Adonides, Barbas, Barbatos, Bele, Bifrons, Bileth, Buer, Bune, Morax, Neabaz, Rimmon, Tartach, Zagum, and Zepar, the princesses of Hell Baalphegor, Baftis, and Lilith, the chancellor of Hell Adramalech, the queen of Hell Bensozia, and the inquisitor of Hell Phongor in 'The Nine Hells Part II' (Dragon #76 (August 1983). Ed Greenwood's follow-up article, "The Nine Hells Revisited" in Dragon #91 (November 1984) introduced the greater devils Armaros, Azazel, Cahor, Dagon, Duskur, Kochbiel, Malarea, Nisroch, Rumjal, and the arch-devil Gargoth." No sign of Zariel :(

Zariel is strictly from late second edition post Planescape. She was mentioned first but unnamed in a Dragon Magazine article that re-introduce the Arch-devils. She was given the name Zariel later in Guide To Hell (I think, could be wrong).


Blazej wrote:
The players are more important than the system.

In regards to the art, I think the system is more important than the art..as I am on the fence on whether getting D&D 5E.


According the D&D 5E Monster Manual, Zariel is now the Lord of the First again.


Saw reviews on the 5th edition D&D Players Handbook. Got some rave reviews....Say they have streamlined the system and a lot less number crunching....


Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
Personally, I don’t often curse unless extremely frustrated and I don’t tell crude jokes or find them very funny. However, neither do they bother me. The cursing and crudity was just around when I was growing up (but not in my family) and in my first few jobs. So to me it is just background noise. So as CathalFM says, I would feel hypocritical saying it bothered me or wasn’t welcome around me. And I’m pretty sure all my friends know it doesn’t bother me.

Crude jokes, curses, etc, are fine within the context of a group of people who are familiar with one another and shared a dynamic. We usually let people we know get away with certain things as we know the intent, as opposed to a stranger. When a newcomer gets into the mix, it is only natural to "be polite".


Jessica Price wrote:
Abyssal Lord wrote:

Women are just more biologically emotional thanks in part to their upbringing and more importantly, estrogen.

Wow. No, no we're not.

Women are likely to feel some types of emotion in some situations than men. And men are more likely to be emotional in other ways. (The fact that we tend not to classify being angry or piqued as "being emotional" when men do it notwithstanding, testosterone is as much a mood-altering hormone as estrogen.)

But aside from being sexist and bad science, that statement's a pretty significant derail.

Thank you for clarifying that. You see, I have been the victim of all those things I read about how men being not able to express themselves and their emotions (usually from women magazines, I might add). Rather it seems both genders are allowed to show certain set of emotions (women can cry, men who cry are sissies, men can be angry and be considered manly but women who gets angry are b$!+$es--in a bad way).


Lissa Guillet wrote:
Abyssal Lord wrote:

Culturally speaking, women are allowed to show emotion, they are allow to show fear (hence the copious amount of female victims/heroines in horror movies) as oppose to men. Then again, we often forget that sometimes culture and biology also goes hand in hand.

Allowed sure, but it comes at the same price as that of men. We are often considered weak for having emotion.

Men are not allowed to show extreme emotions as men are not allowed to portray themselves as victims.

When men showed fear, it is usually done for laughs. I am trying to remember a horror movie that actually showed a guy trembling in fear. I am sure there is one out there. I mean, done in serious fashion, not like the male lead in those Evil Dead movies.


Lissa Guillet wrote:
Abyssal Lord wrote:


Women are just more biologically emotional thanks in part to their upbringing and more importantly, estrogen.

Read an article about this man who underwent the procedure to become a woman. She chronicled the changes in her body as the estrogen replaced her testosterone and she also noted how her emotional state changed. She would notice that tears would well up at times when as a man, she would shrug off.

I would somewhat disagree with that, as someone who has been through this process that is a gross oversimplification.

Everyones experience is going to be different here because the societal pressure we totally buy into stops exerting in ways different societal pressure push their way into your brain.

Culturally speaking, women are allowed to show emotion, they are allow to show fear (hence the copious amount of female victims/heroines in horror movies) as oppose to men. Then again, we often forget that sometimes culture and biology also goes hand in hand.


Benjamin Falk wrote:

Real men do cry.

Because real people do have emotions.

Personaly, if a situation makes me cry, i´ll just do it.
No matter where i am or who can see it.
Because essentially, i´m not ashamed of my emotions.

Would i see anyone cry at my table, i would try to comfort that person if i can. Because other people do deserve our support.
Exceptions there only prove the rule.

Without reading all of the above, i´m not sure why or how crying should be especially related to women. Something like that reeks of a wrong understanding of feminity and masculinity and deep seated emotional problems.

Persons should not be reduced to sex and gender, neither should the discourse be reduced like that.
If you stop seing different gender and start noticing you´re surrounded by different people, which have totally different attributes, among which gender is one of many, things become a lot smoother and easier.

Women are just more biologically emotional thanks in part to their upbringing and more importantly, estrogen.

Read an article about this man who underwent the procedure to become a woman. She chronicled the changes in her body as the estrogen replaced her testosterone and she also noted how her emotional state changed. She would notice that tears would well up at times when as a man, she would shrug off.

In the end, this is just a game and sometimes I am amazed at how emotional it can get..with screaming, fighting and tears.

I told this story before, about a friend of mine whose sister was subbing as a DM for awhile. For whatever reason his character cursed out his patron deity and she ruled that the god struck him dead and he was throwing a tantrum with tears flowing down his face. It was not just one tear, it was a torrent.

Absolutely amazing.


Catling wrote:


I think that is another good point to bring up. I don't want to speak for all women, but I know for myself, if I'm upset or angered to tears, I'd rather not have anyone else see it, especially the male players. It makes me feel weak and vulnerable, and it makes me feel like I'm not strong enough to handle gaming with "the guys". If it were a group of just women, it feel a lot different and that we can be more open and honest with each other and how we're feeling. I feel like I can tell another woman to "stop being mean" if they start to act like a jerk, but trying to tell a man that makes me feel like I'm a dumb and overly-sensitive girl. I feel like I have to work hard to try to act tough and keep up with the guys, trying to act impervious to the comments, jokes and other immature conversations that end up at a gaming table.

That is why some men prefer to be with other men (not just in gaming but in other situation) sometimes. They can be their usual ruckus selves without worrying too much about offending somebody.


Now that more and more states are allowing gay marriage...we tend to see this as a good thing. But is it?

I saw this vid on Youtube. What you all think..when marriage between the heteros are all screwed up...:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNtn6rwkzJE


Jeff Erwin wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Haladir wrote:
Abyssal Lord wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
It's just a fad. We'll be back to arranged marriages in no time.
And then, everyone can be happy again, knowing their parents will take care of that whole deciding on who they should marry. This chaotic, unpredictable mess is simply intolerable.
Saying "Don't worry, they'll grow out of that straight phase." to obnoxious parents down here in the Bible Belt never gets old.
The Bible Belt still exists? What they do, put up walls to keep outsiders from coming in?
From what I've seen, they put up psychological/societal walls to keep people from leaving.
Thankfully the walls are inside their head.
Sometimes those are the worst sort of walls. You can't see them. Sometimes you're not even aware of them.

Reminds me of a title from the Dungeons & Dragons cartoon: Prison Without Walls.


Rysky wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
It's just a fad. We'll be back to arranged marriages in no time.
And then, everyone can be happy again, knowing their parents will take care of that whole deciding on who they should marry. This chaotic, unpredictable mess is simply intolerable.
Saying "Don't worry, they'll grow out of that straight phase." to obnoxious parents down here in the Bible Belt never gets old.

The Bible Belt still exists? What they do, put up walls to keep outsiders from coming in?


Sissyl wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
It's just a fad. We'll be back to arranged marriages in no time.
And then, everyone can be happy again, knowing their parents will take care of that whole deciding on who they should marry. This chaotic, unpredictable mess is simply intolerable.

Well, some people actually would prefer arranged marriages. If it works for them, at least let them live with the consequences of a choice of their own choosing.


Hey, they got it backwards.

I thought the Weather Wizard in the comics have black hair while the Flash was a blond.


Crystal Frasier wrote:
Abyssal Lord wrote:

On a lighter note, I stumbled upon this article about the Lady Chablis:

http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/1999/03/16/met_256314.shtml

Most other interviews and articles refer to her as "she" but this article refer to Chablis as "him".

I was about to say: B%++$, don't you be calling her no man!

But then it hit me that perhaps as a "hard news" article, it have to refer Chablis as a man because Chablis is still technically a man under estrogen therapy but will refer to her as a "she" if she had made the full transition...whatever!

It was 1999; reporting on transgender people was still pretty medieval and cruel. It's generally understood and accepted (though there are still many notable holdouts) that you refer to a person by their preferred pronouns or public presentation, no matter where in the transition process they are.

Apparently in journalism, there are certain "rules" you have to follow in order to maintain objectivity. I have only seen and heard Lady Chablis referred to as "she" and "her" but seeing her being referred to as a "he" in this article is quite jarring.


On a lighter note, I stumbled upon this article about the Lady Chablis:

http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/1999/03/16/met_256314.shtml

Most other interviews and articles refer to her as "she" but this article refer to Chablis as "him".

I was about to say: B*$&+, don't you be calling her no man!

But then it hit me that perhaps as a "hard news" article, it have to refer Chablis as a man because Chablis is still technically a man under estrogen therapy but will refer to her as a "she" if she had made the full transition...whatever!


MagusJanus wrote:
Abyssal Lord wrote:
Tirisfal wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:

Obama to sign executive order on LGBT workplace protections

Quote:
President Obama plans to sign an executive order barring federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, a White House official has confirmed...
I was reading up on this on my lunch at work today; I'm cautiously hopeful.
Wouldn't this discourage the hiring of people of "alternate" sexual orientation and gender identity because if you fire them for doing crap work they will charge you with "discrimination"?
Surprisingly, it usually doesn't. And the racial equality standards have taught companies how to get away with firing people for crap work without getting sued.

Let's say that before we rejoice too much, we have to think there will be people who will use this to their advantage, but not in the spirit it was meant to be.


Tirisfal wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:

Obama to sign executive order on LGBT workplace protections

Quote:
President Obama plans to sign an executive order barring federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, a White House official has confirmed...
I was reading up on this on my lunch at work today; I'm cautiously hopeful.

Wouldn't this discourage the hiring of people of "alternate" sexual orientation and gender identity because if you fire them for doing crap work they will charge you with "discrimination"?


We have like three smaller gay pride parades here in the various boroughs in New York City.

Sunday June 29th is THE BIG ONE in Manhattan...and Intact America.org is encouraging everyone there to participate and spread the word:

2014 NEW YORK CITY PRIDE MARCH

Every year, dozens of cities across America welcome thousands of activists at pride parades, where participants march to celebrate lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender culture. Intact America is proud to honor those in the gay rights movement who stand with us in the fight to end the brutality of circumcision—because every child has the human right to remain whole.

We are happy to announce that the Intaction.org Mobile Education Unit is joining us in the Pride March this year!!!

If you live in or near New York City, please join us; you can find details and RSVP at the event's Facebook page. All are welcome, regardless of sexual orientation.

See you there.. AND MAY THE FORESKIN BE WITH YOU!

DATE: Sunday, June 29, 2014
TIME: 11:00am - 4:00pm
MEETING LOCATION: TBD
Problems/questions, call:
Julia: (718) 679-4463
David: (917) 974-1399
Email: genitalintegrity@gmail.com
Facebook event page
Official NYC Pride website
For more detailed information, please contact genitalintegrity@gmail.com


Bomanz wrote:

I seen this girl at the mall, she had magic pants.

After she walked by, I felt dazed for a good 4 rounds.

Some girls accomplish this by NOT wearing pants (or anything else...)


Sissyl wrote:
With a 30% opinion for same-sex marriage, it is just a question of time. Everyone knows it. Unless something serious is shown ("Research shows 90% of same-sex marriages suffer from domestic violence" or the like).

How about this, one of their rationale is that none of these marriages produce children (at least any that was concieved in the "traditional" sense).

With the planet bursting at the seam at 5 billion people, I would think heterosexuality is alive and well.


Sissyl wrote:

No, after such a judgement, there isn't much more to add. They have tried calling it "not marriage", but if the matter is settled in most of the nation in this way, it is going to be simple enough. When marriage becomes open to same-sex couples, that is what they are going to get. Others simply have to relate to it. The situation becomes even clearer once you realize that a marriage recognized by one state doesn't end because the married couple move to a state where they could not have had such a marriage. There is clear precedent for this, as I understand it, in that some states allow cousins to marry, while others do not - and still have to recognize such marriages.

What will happen is likely that it will reach the High Court, though.

Do one state recognize polygamist marriage (as in the Mormon from Utah) from another state? If so, that would be used as a precedent of a state not recognizing a form of marriage and thus can be use to "nullify" gay marriages.


thaX wrote:
Garter Belt of storing, limited to objects six to ten inches long and cylendrical.

I guess that rule out those ten foot poles!


Are there magic garter belts?


Haladir wrote:

Saw this on Slate this morning: A beautiful passage from the Federal circut court opinion overturning the Pennsylvania ban on same-sex marriage:

US District Judge John E. Jones III wrote:
The issue we resolve today is a divisive one. Some of our citizens are made deeply uncomfortable by the notion of same-sex marriage. However, that same-sex marriage causes discomfort in some does not make its prohibition constitutional. Nor can past tradition trump the bedrock constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection. Were that not so, our would still be a racially segregated nation according to the now rightfully discarded doctrine of “separate but equal.” … In the sixty years since Brown [v. Board of Education] was decided, “separate” has thankfully faded into history, and only “equal” remains. Similarly, in future generations the label same-sex marriage will be abandoned, to be replaced simply by marriage.
Article here.

Just watch, they are going to argue over semantics. Now that they have to accept gay marriage, they are going to say that it shouldn't be called "marriage". As the term marriage was created to apply to a union between a man and a woman, thus a separate term has to be made for gay unions....thus no "marriage" license for you people! You have to get something else.

Ironic considering that marriage rates have hit an all time low...


Tirisfal wrote:
Abyssal Lord wrote:
Tirisfal wrote:
Abyssal Lord wrote:
Stuff
Brosef.

Just making an observation.

What's with the snide response?

You didn't click the link.

;)

Oh yeah I did.

Unless it is a song by Madonna, I have no incentive to listen to it.
Which ironically, there is a song by Madonna by the name of Frozen.


Judy Bauer wrote:

George Takei is going to be Grand Marshal of Seattle's Pride Parade. :D

...We should really start thinking now about how to Trek-up our scooter for the Queer Folks on Scooters and Electric Bikes part of the parade (we follow the D*##s on Bikes).

Will Captain Horatio from the Starship Battle Queen be there also??? (guess where I got THAT reference from....)


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Could it just be that men don't see quite as much difference between objects and people as women would like? Its not just women: other men aren't people, they're the enemy to kill /obstacles to overcome.

Saw a documentary when it comes to human sexuality.

A very interesting revelation:

A human male do not have a penis bone like most other mammals. Most other mammalian males can "get it up" and do the job whereas a human male has to be aroused via physical, visual and even phermonal (sp?) cues.

Hence I believe the objectification of the female form for straight men and male form for gay men.

It is interesting that if you look through gay men's magazines, the way the men in these mags are portrayed are done in a a way you would see a men's magazine like FHM would portray women.


No such thing as "bloat". You don't have to use everything. I rather have more option and choices than less....


Lamontius wrote:
pride weekend here in the LBC, always bananas

Pride week is not here in NYC until late June.

Planning to go see the parade....and see which politicians are showing up...but I don't think there will be that much this year as there are no elections. Got to see Hillary Clinton one year shortly before she became Secretary of State. Of course, some guy standing near me have to say: "She's so fat..."

Everyone's a critic.


Krensky wrote:
Abyssal Lord wrote:

Patriarchy punishes those who do not play by the rules and those who do does so under a heavy price.

All human societies punish those who do not play by their rules. It is not a unique element of patriarchal, patrilineal, or anything else you want to classify a society as.

Very true. But I get the impression that these 'rules' really benefit very few people (those on top with money and power) and are really designed to keep them in power and keep the rest of the "riff raff" in the bottom. They keep people deluded to think that they just might make it to the top when you know usually that will never happen.


Tirisfal wrote:
Abyssal Lord wrote:
Stuff
Brosef.

Just making an observation.

What's with the snide response?


Tirisfal wrote:

I wouldn't say that I act entirely "gay", but I've never been very "masculine" either. Most folks have never had a hard time assuming/guessing that I was queer, though most just assume that I'm gay and never entertain the bi option, despite being with a woman for the last 9 years :P

I used to be ashamed of my mannerisms and voice because I was mocked for it by my parents, my coworkers, my schoolmates, etc, but in the last year or two I've really stopped caring what everyone else thinks. I'm not "out" to most folks in real life because it's not really anyone's concern, but I don't try to hide it anymore, either - it got far too exhausting over the years.

If you were born a woman, you wouldn't be so under that much pressure to put up a front in terms of your mannerism.

Being born a man is not it all crack up to be, is it?

Patriarchy punishes those who do not play by the rules and those who do does so under a heavy price.


Holy moly....Baphomet have taken over Oklahoma:

http://www.vice.com/read/heres-the-first-look-at-the-new-satanic-monument-b eing-built-for-oklahomas-


Mikaze wrote:
Yep. Dragging what I'm assuming to be private conversations or grudges into the public isn't helping the tone of the thread either.

Speaking of tone, it is interesting that just by bringing up what is the "more oppressed gender" but I would get snarky and snide replies.


Wrong John Silver wrote:


First, I'm confused. What has Slaad said? I don't see it in this thread. It looks like you're putting words in her mouth.

Second, you just said "community" in ironic quotes. A lot of people consider that an insult. So, it can be said that you just have spoken against gay or transgender people. Assumptions are easy to make then.

So you're not helping your case at all. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, only that it's disparaging while pretending not to be.

What Slaad said to me was via private message and I place the word community in quotes because I am speaking for myself.

Perhaps I misused the use of the quotation marks but then again, English is my second language.


Wrong John Silver wrote:
Abyssal Lord wrote:

The response and reactions of people who respond to the idea of the question of what is the more "opressed gender" tells a lot about that person's personal beliefs, myths, and prejudices.

...

I see you and Slaad and Tirisfal made a lot of assumptions about me because I brought up certain questions.

But isn't that the point you were just making? That you can make assumptions about a person based on their responses?

And isn't asking a question also, itself, a response? At least, a reply to a thread certainly is.

Let's say that Slaad said she didn't like my stance on LGBT issues and never had I said a single thing against gay or transgender people. I can only come to the conclusion she would think that because I brought up certain questions and believe what is good for one side is good for the other.

Isn't that's what the LGBT "community" is trying to do?


thejeff wrote:

Or for that matter about how whites have it so hard. Or how Christians are persecuted. (Both of those in the US at least. There are certainly parts of the world where Christians are persecuted. The US is not one of them.)

Out of sight, out of mind, I guess.

I see you and Slaad and Tirisfal made a lot of assumptions about me because I brought up certain questions.


Wrong John Silver wrote:
Abyssal Lord wrote:
The response and reactions of people who respond to the idea of the question of what is the more "opressed gender" tells a lot about that person's personal beliefs, myths, and prejudices.
It does, doesn't it?

Tirisfal knows very well, LOL.


meatrace wrote:
houstonderek wrote:


just over minimum wage. All told, maybe $700 bucks.

I got bills about every week, until it went to collections then I got one every month, for the next 5 years. I finally had a good paying job and paid it off, but it was STILL a black mark on my credit rating during that time (my online bank gives you a free, monthly credit report including all outstanding debts and walks you through why your credit rating is what it is).

A good friend of mine who has lived in Washington, Wisconsin and Illinois owes about a quarter million in medical bills and late fees which she has no hopes of paying off. She can't get a job anywhere that requires a credit check because they won't hire her.

Jeezus...I guess America have the best healthcare in the world only if you can afford it


Wrong John Silver wrote:
Abyssal Lord wrote:


I guess we are still a long way when men don't need to resort to transgenderism in order to wear a dress.

Oh? Go ahead, put one on. See who'll stop you. If you want to wear a dress, wear one. There are dresses I would love to wear, I just can't afford them. (Sorry, my tastes are a little too refined, that's my problem. Also, my wife can't stop staring at me longingly when I'm in slacks, no reason to change what I'm already rocking.) And no, I'm a bog-standard cisgendered heterosexual man. I just know that I could wear it. Would I get stares? Would I make people uncomfortable? Yes, unfortunately.

But you know what? I grew up with alopecia. Half my hair fallen out in random patterns. I'm used to getting stares and making people uncomfortable just by existing. It wouldn't stop me.

I suppose it would be harder for most people. Most others can just be themselves and blend in and never get extra notice unless they seek it. Growing up able to hide your differences from strangers on the street has its value. But really, what does it take? Not much. Just put on the dress. That's all. Really, that's all.

So wear the dress, Abyssal Lord. Smash the stereotype. It's right there. It's in your power. Nothing stopping you.

I have no desire to wear a dress, but will defend a man's right to do so if he wants to and without the ridciule.

The response and reactions of people who respond to the idea of the question of what is the more "opressed gender" tells a lot about that person's personal beliefs, myths, and prejudices.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Abyssal Lord wrote:

Nice to see Trisifal is still following my comments..LOL.

Who?

EDIT: Ah, Tirisfal.

He and I had a little PM thing going.


About Universal Healthcare in other countries like France and Japan. Do the French and Japanese pay higher taxes for universal healthcare?


Cori Marie wrote:
She did not win. My gay running mate did. Prom Queen nominations were pretty stacked. There were five nominees for king, and fifteen for queen. Guys probably thought they had a better chance running for king.

Five vs fifteen...

I guess you do have a better chance with less competition.


thejeff wrote:
Abyssal Lord wrote:

Why should everybody be shocked or surprised?

Not the first time things like this comes out of Hollywood.
The term "casting couch" is not created for nothing.

Who's shocked or surprised? That it happens and we know it happens, doesn't mean it's OK.

Though in this case it is alleged to be actual rape, not a casting couch agreement. And the California part was apparently statutory as well. That makes it a bigger deal than "X director had sex with Y actor to get a part."

More proof for those that called Hollywood the "Cemetery of Virtue".

In any case, it will only add fuel to the fire for Bible thumpers that all gays are pedophiles and sexual predators.

Whether we like it or not, what we do cast a reflection over everybody else...


Cori Marie wrote:
We had one woman run for king. No men ran for queen.

I assume she didn't win?

Surprised that no guys ran for Prom Queen....


Talking about healthcare....anybody watched Michael Moore's Sicko?


In such a scenario, the setting has to be low level and low in magic...I mean, the players escaping via plane shift spells or hiding out in a Mordenkaninen/Mage Magnificent Mansion spell is rather anti-climatic and beside the point.


Reading Skeleton Crew by Stephen King.

Finished The Mist and The Monkey.

The first story got my interest in checking out the movie....

1 to 50 of 263 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>