Since you are going to implement a policy that says that any “transphobic” statements are going to be met with a permanent ban, can we get a clear cut definition of what will be regarded as “transphobic”?

I need to know, explicitly, where the line is in order to decide whether or not I wish to stay.

Here’s the bottom line. The people who would be upset by a light-hearted take are probably harboring resentment for this AP existing because it has a positive display of police.

Everybody has already made up their mind on that topic, and I don’t see how a livestream would affect anyone’s views. Everybody who would take offense already has.

Here's my idea: reverse the penalties for lethal vs nonlethal damage.

I remember back when pro wrestler CM Punk tried to get into MMA. The biggest difficulty was that he was trained, and became very good at, executing moves and maneuvers that look damaging, but not really hurting his "opponent". Those instincts kept kicking in, and it ultimately hindered him when in an environment where he was trying to hurt his opponent.

It would not be unreasonable to presume that the same would apply here.

Am I the only one who is thinking this is starting to sound a whole lot like Video games glorify/encourage violence kind of territory?

Starting to?

There’s some folks trying to guess at my reasoning for titling the thread the way I did. Let me clarify:

Quote:

Is now a good time for Agents of Edgewatch?

Gestures broadly at the recent global protests against police brutality

Quote:

Is Ever?

These protests brought attention the world over to deeply endemic issues in society, issues that either people were ignorant of, knew but thought were minor enough to ignore, or even felt powerless to speak up against.

One of the issues is the topic of Copaganda, where television, books and art depict even corrupt cops as possessing underlying heroism. Let’s take my favorite current “good cop” show, Brooklyn 99. Even those cops, with issues highlighting race problems and possessing above average human decency and empathy do bad, outright illegal things.

(cut for time)

I am no longer comfortable watching shows about police, because entertainment is meant to be an empathy device, and I no longer trust the authorities to act legally, let alone morally.

That is your view; I don't have that view.

I and many others are uncomfortable with an interactive game, where cops can act like Player Characters in a tactical combat RPG like Pathfinder. Being complicit in creating the kinds of stories that allow society to become complacent enough to cheer on cops no matter what they do.

So it seems, and feel free to correct me if I am in error here, is that NOBODY should be allowed to play a campaign where the cops are the good guys.

One rule of life that I follow is to not act upon borrowed convictions. Why should I not get to play Agents of Edgewall because you don't like the police?

I wonder how much of this is because in most campaigns, the town guards are powerless to stop the bad guys and it's up to the PCs to handle the situation as people with neither legal authority nor the restrictions as that legal authority. Now the PCs are the town guards, which means that in theory, the town guards ARE powerful enough to deal with the bad guys. But are they going to act as the law or as PCs tend to act in other circumstances?

More importantly, cancelling this product because of current events sets a bad precedent; namely the idea that product development must take into account events that haven't happened yet and are unforeseen in order to avoid "being on the wrong side of history".

Fumarole wrote:

- snipped to the part I want to respond to -

Making changes to the game is fine if that's what a GM finds suitable, but it may not be necessary if the GM and players communicate to set expectations with each other. I guess I may be guilty of assuming that all GMS do this because it's something I've done for a long while.

I do session zeros as well and use a similar approach, but it can be hard to hit on really specific points like this without spoiling things. It might be that in this particular case spoiling things might be the best solution. I'm pretty sure the player's guide mentions the Mwangi Expanse or at least globe trotting, so it might not even be that much of a...

That won't solve the actual problem. We could debate in the abstract all day about whether it is a racist caricature or how your black players might feel about it, but it really doesn't matter - because YOU, the GM, have a problem using it. So the solution is not use them.

You have a sensitivity to this and really, even if it wouldn't phase your players, it will bother you. You are a part of the group of people at the table, which means that there is one person you KNOW is not going to be OK with it. And since you're the GM, you can take it out without having to spoil anything.

"That Gen Con is so dedicated to fostering one big welcoming gamer community" as long as you think the right thoughts.

Most of the vocal supporters of Gen Con's statement outright said that they wanted to drive out those who don't support "marriage equality". So you'll have to excuse my cynicism whenever someone wants to compel someone else into performing a business transaction by threat of force (which all laws ultimately are) and calls that "inclusiveness".

The Alkenstarian wrote:

Oh no, the dread gazebo! Phear it, everyone, PHEAR it!!

192: use bite attacks on wooden gynosphinxes, then complain about splinters in one's tongue and get IC testy when the other characters joke about eating the ... well ... cat.

Somehow I don't see "<5-letter profane word for the vagina, equivalent to house in this context> cat" as describing a gynosphinx.

Clearly you've been looking at the wrong gynosphinges.

Completely on accident on my part. 1996, I was running a Marvel Super-Heroes game. Was setting up for the team to meet at a pawn shop at midnight. I improvised the name as Qwicky Cash Pawn Shop. Worse, they asked me what was on the sign, so I improvised that it had the slogan "Come in For Your Quicky". I was trying to show that the place was run down so the last word was torn off.

I was literally the last person at the table to realize what I said.

According to Bryan Adams, the singer of the 80's tune "Summer of 69", the song is about the summer he lost his virginity, and no, the name is not because it happened in 1969.

So if someone is a sexist piece of s!!%, they spread their legs on the subway to hurt women? Even if sitting beside men? Even if they are big enough that sitting normally on the tiny seats is a problem for them? I don't understand how that follows...

careful ... you're manterrogating. <snicker>

Bringing it back to a more general oppression:

10 Ways men oppress women every day

Considering what rape victims, either female or male, are subjected to when they make an accusation of this nature, and the way that nearly everyone, as observed in this thread, bend over backwards to defend the accused, just having the courage to come forward with an accusation is a bit of a point in favor of the credibility of the statements.

My principle is to believe the victim unless a reason is apparent that they should not be believed. Cosby doesn't lose much by me refusing to watch his shows, buy his albums, or buy jello pudding pops, mostly because I already didn't. I'm not going to be on the jury, and the most harm (if it is harm) I'll do is that I might convince someone who isn't currently convinced one way or another.

There is no virtue in refraining from judgement in a matter like this, except insofar as you are involved in law enforcement or legal proceedings associated with the matter. Saying that you presume Cosby to be innocent until proven guilty is equivalent to saying you presume those b!+@+es to be lying until proven truthful.

Not buying his products isn't convicting him of a crime. Organizing a boycott isn't convicting him of a crime.

As for the argument that these women are trying to cash in by accusing a celebrity, there are thousands of rich men out there. Very few of them have 33 people accusing them of rape. Even if you bring race into it, which, I must acknowledge, is a fraught situation with a history of false rape accusations by white women against black men, there are still thousands of rich black men out there, very few of which have 33 people accusing them of rape.

I get to say, I think he's a rapist. I get to say, I believe these women. People insisting that we can't make any judgement are verging on rape apology, in my opinion.

You make me sick and here is why! Rolling Stone magazine recently got caught in a case of "always believing the victim". Lena Dunham is being sued because she is claiming that a specific person raped her, in her autobiography. Then there's the Duke lacrosse team, where the players were proven innocent of rape (and in fact, one of them wasn't even there), and people STILL want criminal convictions.

But I don't have to look to the news to find someone falsely accused; I only need to go to a mirror. The "victim" lied. The "victim" admitted to lying in court. Yet enough people decided to take the "always believe the victim" stance, and it harms me to this day. I lost friends and family over a false accusation.

So get off your f%^(!@g high horse about how people falsely accused don't suffer harm, because I know from personal experience what BS that is!

I smurfed a smurf, but the smurf I smurfed, wasn't the smurf I smurfed I smurfed. If the smurf I smurfed I smurfed had been the smurf I smurfed I wouldn't have smurfed so much.

And to think you smurf your mother with that mouth!!!

(I tried to resist. I really did.)

Choose a random character. Slip him a note saying, "Your Common Sense is tingling!"

The 1998 Godzilla, universally hated, is officially part of the Godzilla mythos. In the 2006 movie Godzilla: Final Wars, there is a reference of a monster attacking New York City in 1998 that was mistaken for Godzilla, and the creature itself shows up in Australia and is the first monster Godzilla kills.

Also, his official name is now Zilla, which started out as a joke; fans have said that that movie had nothing to do with God.

As many a wise person on these threads has said:

Flag it and move on.

Thank you. I will flag what he said to me.

As I said on the Book of Faces...

Yours Truly wrote:

Bad enough that anyone would have to come out and condemn this idiocy, but then he has to crap on my home town's rep, as well. Then, on top of that, people will link this to the protests, while tensions are already escalated as it is. Invoking the Daily Show isn't enough to convey the contempt for what has transpired. but let's be redundantly blunt - that wasn't helping, and his choice of targets couldn't be worse.

Of course, I'm used to individual bad actors being used to tar the whole group. I expect an inevitable storm of excrement from the usual right wing echo chambers.

Well, the chanters were saying, "What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want them? Now." Kind of hard to not link it to the protests.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj4ARsxrZh8

Bon Voyage, Charlie Brown (And Don't Come Back) is the only Peanuts special to have a sequel. That one is What Have We Learned, Charlie Brown? and it was about the Peanuts group traveling through France, on the way to the airport to go home, learning about some of the battles of WWII and WWI that took place there.

Fergurg wrote:

It's Your First Kiss, Charlie Brown was one of the most controversial Peanuts specials of all time for two reasons:

1) When Charlie Brown tried to kick the field goal, Lucy pulled the football away, making him miss, causing the team to lose the game, and he was blamed. Lots of hate mail for this.

2) The little red-haired girl is named. Her name is Heather. Later strips and specials explicitly deny that he knows her name.

I really had to read #2 twice. I read "Her name is Heather. Later strips.." to have an implicit "She" subject on the second part.

That's the fan fiction, "You're Gonna Get Some, Charlie Brown".

Not trying to disrupt too much here, because it seems people are resolving/debating the topics here fairly OK without our involvement. But, I've removed a couple baiting posts that are getting too abrasive/breaking some of our guidelines. If a post is making you see red or get frustrated, please take a moment away from the keyboard before responding. I'd also like to note that very broad statements about this issue can be a problem, let's try to keep this one centered around the topic from the original post please.

So here is my confusion: one person literally says that I am either lying or brain damaged for my views, and I call him on it. Why is my calling him on it too abrasive, but his is not?

The last line Lex Luthor says in the 1986 movie Superman IV is when he tells Superman, "I'll see you in twenty years." The next Superman movie to come out, Superman Returns, was released in 2006.

The evidence showed that Wilson was attacked and defended himself. It was a tragedy, but Wilson did not have an obligation to let himself be killed because the assailant was black.

Fergurg wrote:

On July 4th, 1776, King George of Great Britain wrote in his diary, "Nothing important happened today."

What makes that feat truly impressive is that he'd been dead for 50 years...

Fine, King George II

On July 4th, 1776, King George of Great Britain wrote in his diary, "Nothing important happened today."

The KKK has always heavily infiltrated the police. For obvious reasons.

It's disgraceful and needs to be be seriously clamped down on, but it's not at all new.

What is the legal status of the KKK these days anyway? Can they be declared a terrorist organization with all the trouble that brings? I can't really think of any US group that better qualifies.

Subversive groups infiltrate everything, including each other.

As for legal status, I actually know the answer to this one, at least as of fifteen years ago when I wrote a college paper on quasi-legal groups.

It is legal to be part of an organization that is a hate group. It is legal to advocate for laws to be changed in ways that people disagree with. You can even advocate for breaking laws and for violence - in general. On the other hand, you're not allowed to call for violence against specific people or specific acts - that is legally a threat.

Screaming, "We need a revolution!" is legal. Screaming, "Kill the cops" is also legal. Screaming, "Kill THAT cop over there!" is not legal, nor would "Blow that building up" be.

Even then, it can be tricky because if you generally advocate for it, it might be legal; saying, "Someone ought to kill that cop" is a general statement and an opinion. Actively urging someone to do it when there is a reasonable expectation that it could happen - better get a damn good lawyer.

How about "Oh hell no!"

The difference is that colossal means you panic, scream, then you pull out your tools and fight, while saying, "That thing is colossal."

"Oh hell no" means you grab your tools and run, while seeing "Oh, hell no!"

... If they are from Chelax they might think the female form is a weaker one due to religious influence and not want to take that burden on. Or they may simply see it as suffering they have to live with (perhaps as followers of Zon-kuthon... in fact I could see a really interesting cult of his perhaps purposefully changing their genders away from what is comfortable to them in order to suffer more and practice their... craft). ...

You have given me some ... fun ideas for my next campaign band of villains.

Let me see if I'm understand the argument here: in a fantasy setting, where some races and species are defined as being evil, assuming they are evil is now wrong? How does this make any sense?

Anybody else thinking of Grimlock from the Transformers? Fighting for what be believes in, maybe not the brightest candle in the box, but on the side of the angels and eager to fight for what is true.

665: The evil overlord will absolutely destroy me in a 1-on-1 fight.

So I'm not going to give him one.

But there is an important consideration, at least here in the U.S. The purpose of the right to bear arms is not to have guns for self-defense, nor hunting. The purpose, as explained by many of the Founding Fathers in many places, is so that if the government was to get too tyrannical, it could be overthrown.

There's an expression: You can always trust the government. Just ask an Indian.

I love alignment and how it is a physical law in the Pathfinder/D&D universes. Adds an element of how actions have consequences.

When I GM a game, I steal shamelessly from movies and TV. In fact, I once had the world of Dark Sun invaded by the Borg - it was sure a shock to them when three people wearing metal walked into Urik and killed the sorcerer-king.It was a bigger shock when they spoke the native language of the thri-kreen.