|
Post by Joseph Barros on Aug 27, 2010 9:24:25 GMT -8
Yeah that's why I try not to say the word moot. I prefer to instead say, "your argument is stupid and it's making me stupid. Die in a fire."
|
|
|
Post by kore on Aug 27, 2010 9:40:34 GMT -8
Yeah that's why I try not to say the word moot. I prefer to instead say, "your argument is stupid and it's making me stupid. Die in a fire." Yeah, that sounds rational.
|
|
|
Post by redbstrd on Aug 27, 2010 9:54:49 GMT -8
when you say Mute I think you mean moot? Mute means you can't speak. And even then I think sometimes you are misusing the word moot. Moot: www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mootIt's strange, because every colloquial use of 'moot' I've encountered is meant to decribe an arguement or position that is no longer necessary to debate or pointless to debate. Yet, most definitions seem to indicate that a topic that is described as 'moot' is 'debatable'. This seems to be in complete opposition to its common use today. Somehow, we've culturally redefined the word...very Orwellian. Even stranger is that one of the examples (from the link) of the word's use seems to indicate the opposite of its definition. *head asplodes* I'm not sure that the word has changed meaning. A "moot" (noun) was a court in Germany where judicial matters were discussed. The literal adjective seems to derive easily from that situation (something that is moot is debatable), but we don't use that definition these days. The second usage (that it's pedantic, overly academic, or irrelevant to a practical conversation) - the one we use - is a variant of the first rather than a reversal of it: it's saying that a moot point is something only appropriate for abstract debates (i.e. it's appropriate for a classroom or court, but not in the practical conversation underway). Usually when we say a point is moot, we're not commenting on the level of support it has or whether it is still in question, we're saying that any discussion of that point belongs somewhere else. In other words, we're saying it's beside the point, rather than not debatable.
|
|
|
Post by kore on Aug 27, 2010 10:12:30 GMT -8
I'm not sure that the word has changed meaning. A "moot" (noun) was a court in Germany where judicial matters were discussed. The literal adjective seems to derive easily from that situation (something that is moot is debatable), but we don't use that definition these days. The second usage (that it's pedantic, overly academic, or irrelevant to a practical conversation) - the one we use - is a variant of the first rather than a reversal of it: it's saying that a moot point is something only appropriate for abstract debates (i.e. it's appropriate for a classroom or court, but not in the practical conversation underway). Usually when we say a point is moot, we're not commenting on the level of support it has or whether it is still in question, we're saying that any discussion of that point belongs somewhere else. In other words, we're saying it's beside the point, rather than not debatable. Thank you. So would it be appropriate to say "this discussion about the meaning of a the word 'moot' is moot"?
|
|
|
Post by narutoanbu on Aug 27, 2010 14:43:02 GMT -8
Ok already said i was changing the character. Second, I get it I'm not good at spelling. Third, I Got Darkcide from a name generator it was the only one that didn't sound stupid so any likeness is a coincidence.
|
|
|
Post by frobones on Aug 27, 2010 20:35:31 GMT -8
If you want to make your hero formerly known as "Arch-Angel" a reformed villain, take a look at this plot device in Freedom City: PROJECT FREEDOM Harriet Wainwright’s program to rehabilitate super-criminals (see page 74) can form the basis for an adventure or even an entire campaign, with the players running super-convicts offered a chance to work off their sentences doing public service. The convicts might agree for the reduced sentence and greater personal freedom, only to discover they like helping people. Alternatively, they might figure out a way to turn the program to their advantage. Both motivations are likely, causing some interesting conflicts within the group. The super-criminals have to overcome everyone’s suspicion and mistrust and the stigma of their past crimes. There are also more than a few fellow criminals who’d consider them “sellouts” for working for the authorities. So there are plenty of ways to make you hero idea work, you don't just have to give up.
|
|
|
Post by narutoanbu on Aug 27, 2010 21:44:09 GMT -8
Ha ha Thanks Frobones I like that. yeah I was kinda going for that. Only difference is he was trying to overcome what his family was. Everybody knew about his family and on that basis figured he was the same. So nobody necessarily could link him to any real crimes it was just all based on prejudice. Although I decided to make a new guy and save Arch-Angel for another game. I kinda didn't know this was going to be a silver age and i built him for more of a Golden Age set in a Grim and Gritty style or a Iron age campaign.
|
|
|
Post by frobones on Aug 27, 2010 22:11:06 GMT -8
Ha ha Thanks Frobones I like that. yeah I was kinda going for that. Only difference is he was trying to overcome what his family was. Everybody knew about his family and on that basis figured he was the same. So nobody necessarily could link him to any real crimes it was just all based on prejudice. Although I decided to make a new guy and save Arch-Angel for another game. I kinda didn't know this was going to be a silver age and i built him for more of a Golden Age set in a Grim and Gritty style or a Iron age campaign. Now I'm confused. I thought you were scrapping the hero formerly known as Arch-Angel because killing isn't "acceptable" in the Freedom City setting. But now I'm realizing your hero is trying to get rid of the prejudice befallen him due to his parents - and yet you want to consider the killing of villains. Isn't that counter productive to what your character is trying to achieve? How would killing people make you any different from your parents?
|
|
|
Post by narutoanbu on Aug 28, 2010 0:36:41 GMT -8
Ok I Have my guy i'll post him tomarrow.
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Barros on Aug 28, 2010 8:55:57 GMT -8
Yeah in the future if you are not sure about the setting. I'm not sure where you got the idea that this was going to be grim and gritty or Iron Age. Even Paragons isn't really being run Iron Age or even really grim and gritty.
I don't really think of "ages" but if you need on to focus on, go with Bronze Age. I kinda hate the Iron Age.
|
|
|
Post by frobones on Aug 28, 2010 10:05:26 GMT -8
You know, "Revelation" would be a good name for this hero. You obviously want a biblical ring to it hence your original choice of Arch-Angel; Revelation has a similar ring. Also, if you look at the definition of the word, your hero had a revelation about what his parents were doing and decided to change and do something about it. I think it's a pretty good fit. Even though you said you'd save this guy for another game, you still have to get over the hurdle of not calling him "Arch-Angel"
|
|
|
Post by narutoanbu on Aug 28, 2010 11:14:26 GMT -8
Revelation? hummm I like that. Oh he wouldn't kill every body just the most despicable of criminals. Ummmm but always playing those settings will get boring eventually.
|
|
|
Post by narutoanbu on Aug 28, 2010 11:33:27 GMT -8
But like Stephen said, heroes don't kill. As I said before, people like the Punisher are NOT heroes. They are not good guys. Burning the village in order to save the village is NOT a heroic path. Makes for great stories, but again, if he existed in the real world, I would not feel safe knowing he was operating in my city. In fact I'd feel very very worried.quote] Why do you always bring up the Punisher? That's like saying every Islam is a extremist. Aren't you forgetting Golden Age batman Or Green Arrow? that dude snapped a thugs neck by doing a swinging kick while his head was hanging out a window O.o. Hell he even cared a gun. Shot up some giants a female giant at that. haha wasn't tell the ban on that kind of violence in comics that he stopped or at least that's what i heard. I know in the first issue he killed someone.(Cant remember if it was Detective Comics or Batman) and the Green arrow shot a thug full of arrows with pointed tips. Now before this gets turned into a you can't cause I said type of thing. I am in no way trying to argue for a right to kill in Freedom City. I will save those guys for a suitable campaign. This is strictly in response to the hero's don't kill topic and always referencing to the Punisher when I talk about a character that does.
|
|
|
Post by redbstrd on Aug 28, 2010 15:17:26 GMT -8
I like the name Revelation. Exaltation is another good one.
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Barros on Aug 28, 2010 19:44:23 GMT -8
You are completely missing my point Bryan. It doesn't matter who does it, that kind of action is wrong. Just because a famous and iconic character did something terrible, doesn't justify it. "well Batman did it so it must be ok?" Is that how you think society should behave? I hope not. It would be chaos if everybody, rather than following the law just decided to use the past mistakes of celebrities as a gauge for what is acceptable and what is not in society. I wasn't speaking just wrong for comics. I meant just plain wrong in anything. I use punisher because he's the most obvious example, but pick any similar individual and I feel the same if that makes you feel better. Rorschach. Spawn. Venom. Take a pick. I'm not judging based on race or religion. I'm judging the actions of an individual which is how all of us should be judged. However, it is not up to me to decide whether or not to kill someone I decide is evil.
Furthermore do not use examples that you clearly know very little about. Batman has always been anti-gun. It's a core characteristic of the man. He also feels the same way about killing. In the first few years there were some examples of him using a gun and apparently killing some criminals, but it was very early on decided that he would not do that. Not because of the code, because the writers decided that just didn't make sense for the Batman character. Essentially that part of his past was retconned. Retcon means it was written out of continuity and therefore is considered never to have happened. Even after the comic code was significantly relaxed beginning in the late 70s and onward, Batman has still chosen repeatedly to not kill and not use a gun. Otherwise pretty much all of the major Batman villains would be dead. I don't know Green Arrow history, but I would assume something similar took place. If not then I feel the same about him as I do about Punisher. Anyone who takes the mantle of sole judge, jury, and executioner is wrong and self-serving. They obviously have little respect for order or society. They just feed their impulses and the consequences be damned.
I fail to see how this can be compared to calling all muslims extremists. I'm not making a sweeping generalization about any group of people. I'm saying no individual has the legal right OR the moral authority to decide who should live and who should die. I would not want to trust any individual to decide my fate like that. That's why the constitution says ALL citizens have the right to a trial and jury of their peers. I'm saying that killing is morally wrong. Please don't use politically loaded statements like that unless you are going to back it up with a very good explanation. You did not do this.
|
|