The alignment system really isn’t that complex or strict. Lawful means you’re someone who generally holds to personal principles and chaotic means you go where the wind blows. Good means you do what’s best for everyone and evil means you do what’s best for yourself.

Chaotic Good would be the hardest one to wrap ones head around. That would be someone who wants to help people but isn’t really sure how. They don’t have a strong oath like a paladin and they don’t know if they should be nice everyone or if they should maybe be a little quicker to fight against the obvious bad guys.

Ultimately though, the alignment is system is something pretty well explained in the DMG, from what I remember, but with D&D people just look at poorly informed memes and then complain about how rules don’t even function in the actual book. Their ignorance is not the fault of the source material.

Otherwise I generally agree with what you’re saying. I would like to add that you can also create depth with character growth. A simple character is a fantastic starting point if you actually develop them over the campaign.

Well that’s the thing, it wouldn’t be possible so the entire idea of “let us sane people come” is flawed from the start unless they truly believe that there should be a purity test and that they would pass it. Anyone who genuinely thinks that way should be immediately disqualified from immigrating based on their own idea of an ideological test.

“I’m different though and there should be actual, real laws to permit to do particular things!” is not the position of someone who considers their community at large to any particularly special degree. And to be clear I’m all for banning hate speech and stuff because that’s a specific banned behaviour and not a specific allowed behaviour, and we have evidence to show that it can be as harmful as any physically violent attack.

Don’t worry, there aren’t that many sane people in the US. A lot of them are under the impression that they’re sane because they take the “balanced” position, though, which is to say that they just choose whatever’s in between fascism and barely progressive policy while they call themselves intelligent.

Frankly I’m not sure I’d want a bunch of people who cannot take accountability and who have such main-character energy they think that they would be allowed in while “bad” people wouldn’t be. We have enough problems with similar mindsets here in Canada and I really don’t want more of that except now they’re making it even harder to get away from our useless, conservative, Liberal(capital L) party.

Not if you stayed, then it’s an investment. Money doesn’t just disappear when goes to poor people, they use it to buy things like food and stuff. It would only be a financial drain if you were sending that money back home.

The North American mind cannot comprehend the benefits of supporting the poor.

Ah ok cool cool. “Asking questions” is always a dicey game that needs incredibly clear intent these days.

I don’t have the background nevessary to answer your question, but if I understand it correctly you’re asking about when the eggs are created and, if they’re technically made before birth, does it then not count. I’m not sure any one definition would really help nail it down. It’s a question that can probably not be answered within a strict binary which I imagine is part of the point you were trying to make, that said strict binary isn’t something we should be wasting too much time trying to force in the first place.

If you’re trying to define being a woman as being a female by “asking questions” which, in this context, are stupid ones then sure. Unfortunately for that line of thinking it’s only possible if you’re aggressively ignorant so I’m hoping that I’m misunderstanding something.

At the end of the day, gender and sex are separate things which often councide in a certain way but do not need to. I won’t claim to understand that feeling as a cis dude but that’s just how it is. Bringing sex into the transgender talk is beyond pointless(except when it isn’t, but that’s not what people who talk about “biological females” are ever talking about).

The one where the first several hundred metres is just water.

I read it as “we are aware that these two ideologies are different and frankly they are both such absolute garbage that we don’t really care to distinguish them all that much.”

It’s to show that there is literacy and understanding of nuance there, but that at the end of the day it’s more of a “fun fact” when the centrists keep supporting the conservatives as their general default. Even when Liberals do nothing is about how that nothing is consistently helping the far-right get away with shit while aggressively discouraging progressive change.

Conservatives are nationalist morons who are trying to conserve and bring back a lot of the systems that let low-quality privileged people in their given society keep all the power. Liberals don’t have hating minorites as a policy goal but they also refuse to believe that doing nothing will not, in fact, make up for hundreds of years of systemic issues. Conservatives will try to fix capitalism by ethnic minorities and Liberals will try to fix by getting rid of rules which “might stifle economic expansion”. Neither of those ideologies are worth anything though they are different.

There’s also, I think, the weird fucky option were 75% sorta works because the 25% applies to choosing 50% and 50% applies to choosing 25% which means that as long as you don’t choose 0% you’re good?

BUT ALSO, none of the question says it’s talking about itself. It could just mean in general, so we can choose 25% on purpose and then glare at whoever made A and D the same.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

They also said that exit wounds can have benefits, though they didn’t get into it nearly enough. I’m imagining that two wounds, especially on opposite side of a person, are going to be a lot harder to deal with and the increase blood loss potential while also distracting anyone trying to help them has a lot of benefits.

Also I say benefits, but yuck.

Open-eneded because in comparison to something like a Warlock you’re simply handed a guy who hits real good and in comparison to a ranger there are no weapon specific stereotypes. You can be pretty much anything you want and there isn’t much distraction in the flavour text, even. Now, I personally don’t pay much heed to flavour text and roleplay things however the hell I want but I do know a lot of people get bogged down by the idea that rogues need to be theives and paladins need to be good and that 95% of the community still doesn’t know what “lawful” means and they should really change the word to “principled” to square that away.

The reason I said “stricter framework” was in response your comment where it seemed as though you were saying that the 5e fighter required creativity to make it fun and I assumed that meant that what you wanted was for other systems to lay things out for you a little more. I assumed that because nothing I was suggesting required building your own class and mechanics, it was all just fairly high-level rules found in the books(minus the Eldritch Knight, I thought I’d seen it elsewhere).

Oddly enough, though, the fighter in PF2e, I would imagine, requires much more thinking since much of its power appears to come from feats that you need to choose at every level. I love that idea, and technically you can do a similar thing in 5e with the optional feat rule, but I’m struggling to figure out where you’re coming from saying that it’s easier or that dedications are safe from bad choices. I don’t find it as daunting as an experienced player but it’s certainly a lot more opportunity to accidentally build poorly. Also 5e multiclassing really is not that difficult, though there are small details that I think should be ironed out(maybe there were in 2024, I don’t know at this moment).

End of the day, 5e Fighter may be a bit of a blank slate but that’s precisely why I love them. They aren’t at all boring if you bring your creativity and roleplay skills to them and that also depends on what kind of game you want to play. I also play a Warlock now that I’ve made fairly unique and love the amount I can do with him so it’s not like I’m scared of classes with more complexity to offer, either, I just see the value in all of them and play to their strengths and weaknesses appropriately.

I’m aware of what I said, but the other point I made is that fighters are not the boring easy class everyone makes them out to be. They are very open-ended and that can be a lot for people but it’s not a sign that they’re bad. They also have the echo knight and eldritch knight subclasses if you want a little help/inspiration/spice built into the class itself. I have an echo knight minotaur I played for a bit who was great fun to play in combat.

If we’re talking about complexity being the issue then you can back right the heck up with that “just play Pathfinder” nonsense. I really want to try PF2e, actually, but to act like it’s simpler than a 5e multiclass is something you must surely know is not going to fly. I made a PF1e barbarian once and the amount of choices I had to make as an experience 5e player was within my skill level but for your hypothetical new player it would be far more daunting a task.

Also “without needing to get creative” is such a tell. It’s really not that complicated, and it’s not 5e’s fault that someone might need a stricter framework. You’re not a worse person for it, necessarily, but the whining about it sure isn’t a good look.

And yet they still have lots of features in their subclasses, work great with quick multiclass options, and can just, ya know, wield a magic weapon.

My battlemaster fighter had a few levels in Battlesmith artificers and I had sooo many things I could do even though the only spells I really ever cast were Shield and Arcane Weapon. I had my steel defender doing all kinds of fun stuff, and even though being ranged took some flavour out I was still able to be creative. It was also awesome to have such a clean base to build my roleplay on top of and by the end he was the least background-heavy character yet still had tonnes of depth and character.

The only “issue” with them is that the burden of creativity lies much more heavily on the player and it’s more difficult to rest on cheap stereotypes. I’m playing a warlock now, the plot class, and I still took it several steps further all on my own because I can. The pathfinder fighter looks interesting, for sure, but come now.

It’s actually still much better even to use an ICE generator to charge an electric car than to attach that engine directly to a car and that’s the least efficient way to use non-renewable resources to charge an electric vehicle. Generators are smaller and built to run at a peak efficiency vs cars where they’re almost never there and often keep running even when stopped.

That aside, subsidies are not inherently bad but they are very easily misused. Yes, if a corporation claims it needs to be bailed out then in many ways it should be taken over as it proved that it couldn’t handle the task but that is a different scenario, albeit similar.

There is always going to be a need for some people to have personal vehicles and electricity is a damn sight better than gasoline. Used correctly, a subsidy is an incentive and a support for something which may not be able to be very profitable on its own but which is still worth having around and investing in.

The problem is that they are so often misused especially by two North American countries and things go south.

Public service spending isn’t a subsidy but I also didn’t directly call it that and I think you missed the message I was sending. The point is that sometimes you want something that cannot be directly profitable but which is of a certain benefit to society.