I'm going to offer a little unsolicited support to SHARK's position.  It really is about context.  In Luke 10:3-4, the Lord instructs his apostles

    3 Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.
    4 Carry neither a purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way.

In Luke 22:35-26, he tells them

    35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
    36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

At first glance, these say opposite things.  And note in the second he told his apostles to carry a sword.  The scriptures are full of things that might seem contradictory when interpreted without an understanding of how, where, and why they are supposed to be applied.  IMO understanding the scriptures requires reading ALL of them repeatedly until you have the whole picture in your mind.

Quote from: Domina on April 23, 2024, 06:00:20 PMIn what way does it harm the hobby?
Why is storygaming bad?

If only someone at the start of the thread had posted something like, I don't know, a video answering these exact questions....

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on Today at 12:41:52 AM

Quote from: SHARK on April 23, 2024, 06:03:38 AMGreetings!

Well, my friend, I personally oppose the Woke based on two things--(1) My Christian faith; and (2) Traditional American Values.

The Woke are Marxist, evil, and traitors to our nation, our Republic, and our people.

And yes, as long as Americans are divided, distracted, and brainwashed with weakness, then the Woke Marxists will win. Americans need to unite, and become hard and fierce. Americans need to harden themselves in doing what needs to be done to heal our land, our nation, and our people.

"Voting harder" will not cleanse our great land, and make us strong. The hard times are coming, and America will need hard men to restore our nation if we are to have any kind of future. Otherwise, we will be choked in diverse rainbow jello and enslaved to a Marxist elite tyrant mommy-state.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

SHARK,

How do you square your Christian faith with the commandments, "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good", and "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."

How can we defend the West from evil, without violating these commandments? This paradox vexes me. What are your thoughts on it?

Neoplatonist1

Greetings!

Well, my friend, do not be vexed! Everything within Scripture has *context*. God does not want us to be helpless, weak, pathetic victims, just bowing down to evil and tyranny. In the New Testament, Christ commands us to when we go about into the world, to carry a sword. The disciples asked Christ, why should we go forth into the world armed, Lord? To which Christ continued, saying, for we live in an evil world. If Christ had wanted us to always be peaceful and sweet, and never do violence, then He would not have commanded us to arm ourselves.

Likewise, the Scriptures talk about being armed, and ready to defend your home and community from the wolves, from the brigand, the robber and thief.

Furthermore, the Scriptures are full of histories and stories of where righteous people rose up--and violently defended themselves, and resisted evil, wickedness, and tyranny. The Old Testament is full of this.

Perhaps, by individual temperament, a person may be so tranquil and so peaceful, as to simply be paralyzed when contemplating violence. Likewise, an individual sincerely convinced and committed to pacifism. The US government has historically acknowledged a sincere conviction of pacifism, based upon a few verses and teachings in Scripture. However, as regards a broader world view, such Scriptures and context would be a minority. There are far more examples, exhortations, and instructions for the Christian to be armed, and prepared for violence, either defending his person, his family, his home, or his community. Defending all from foreign invaders, but also from domestic evil and tyranny.

Quakers, for example, are a historic community within America that have always been committed to pacifism. I don't agree with their interpretation and application of a few Scriptures, but, they have freedom to believe as they do. I think such freedom is not just vouchesafed within our own Constitution, but also I would agree some allowance for such within the spiritual traditions of the Christian faith.

As I mentioned, I believe there is far more Scriptural evidence that does not support Pacifism, and instead counsels courage, being masculine, prepared, and ready to fight. There are also Scriptures that speak against the coward, the traitor, the man who would not fight to defend his community, his family, and his people. The Scriptures focus primarily on men, being dominant, and active--but also applauds and honours even women that stand up against tyranny, and eagerly and faithfully stand together with their men.

Search the Scriptures diligently. All I speak of is truth.

Thus, I sleep well at night, thankful to my Lord Christ, and to my armoury of weapons.

"The Lord teacheth my hands for war"

I hope that I have encouraged you, brother!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on April 23, 2024, 06:03:38 AMGreetings!

Well, my friend, I personally oppose the Woke based on two things--(1) My Christian faith; and (2) Traditional American Values.

The Woke are Marxist, evil, and traitors to our nation, our Republic, and our people.

And yes, as long as Americans are divided, distracted, and brainwashed with weakness, then the Woke Marxists will win. Americans need to unite, and become hard and fierce. Americans need to harden themselves in doing what needs to be done to heal our land, our nation, and our people.

"Voting harder" will not cleanse our great land, and make us strong. The hard times are coming, and America will need hard men to restore our nation if we are to have any kind of future. Otherwise, we will be choked in diverse rainbow jello and enslaved to a Marxist elite tyrant mommy-state.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

SHARK,

How do you square your Christian faith with the commandments, "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good", and "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."

How can we defend the West from evil, without violating these commandments? This paradox vexes me. What are your thoughts on it?

Neoplatonist1

Greetings!

Oh yeah! So many little points of conflict and strategy that balanced on a knife edge!

With Sea Lion, it is not widely known--but the German Luftwaffe was very close to annihilating British air power over Britain. Maybe just a few more weeks of constant focus and hammering of British radar stations and airfields, and the RAF would have been crushed entirely. Lots of chain "Ifs" involved, but plausible. Once the RAF was crushed, German air superiority over Britain and the English Channel would have check mated British naval power operating within the English Channel. From there, Britain would not likely have been able to defeat an airborne assault made by 20,000 German Fallschirmjagers--which is precisely how the Germans overwhelmed and conquered the island of Crete. First, air superiority; then, checking the naval superiority; thus enabling a bold airborne assault, which was then supported by amphibious troops and reinforcements from sea. The Greeks and British forces holding out in Crete were thus doomed, and Germany was eventually victorious.

Germany, following that similar strategy, could have proceeded with Sea Lion. The Fallschirmjager could seize a port or two, and then be reinforced with additional invasion forces. Can you imagine the 7th Panzer Division--the "Ghost Division" of Erwin Rommel unleashed at Dover? Guderian leading more panzers into London. The British after Dunkirk had a decent army of 300,000 plus troops in Britain, though they had very little artillery, trucks, or tanks, and honestly, not even much rifles, machine guns, or other infantry support equipment. Churchill himself said that Britain was next to empty, with nothing but broom handles and beer bottles to resist a German invasion with! *Laughing*

That would not have boded well for a German invasion force of well-equipped infantry, Panzers, lots of artillery, while the skies were filled with Messerschmidt's, Heinkel bombers, and of course, the infamous Ju-97 "Stuka" Dive Bomber. Britain would have thus likely fallen by Christmas of 1940, or sometime in the spring of 1941. Can you imagine if *that* had happened?

Of course, following from that epic disaster for the Allies--when the Reich then turned East afterwards to launch Barbarossa against the Soviet Union--imagine Barbarossa being waged with +25% more German ground troops and tanks--and +40% more of the Luftwaffe--and, ZERO prospect of there ever being any kind of "Second Front." No North Africa campaign. No invasion of Siciliy and Italy. Italy never being knocked out of the war. And no invasion of Normandy. Just as importantly--NO STRATEGIC AIR WAR crushing German cities to ashes and grinding German industry down. And no need to keep 40% of the Luftwaffe or more, guarding the skies over the Reich.

That, and with the increase in manpower--no need to keep 20 German divisions in Norway, or 20 divisions in Yuhoslavia, or 300,000 troops in North Africa. All that, and more--would have been able to be sent against the Soviet Union. Oh, yes, and NO LEND LEASE CONVOYS to Russia, bringing the Soviet Union tons and tons of valuable supplies, tanks, trucks, clothes, food, radios, train locomotives, and the precious high-octane AVIATION FUEL--which made the Red Air Force able to field dangerous and competitive fighters, ground attack aircraft and bombers in the Red Air Force. All of that would have gone away. And, furthermore, an unleashed Italy and a German Afrika Corps under Rommel could then certainly have swept victoriously into Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and--the Caucuses region of southern Russia.

Yeah, as can be seen, the domino effects all cascading together, stacking up--the Soviet Union would have likely gone down as well, eventually. Then you would have a German Reich and Italian Empire dominating all of Europe from Britain to the Ural Mountains, and from Norway to the Congo in Africa, and the entire Middle East as well. Both Iraq and Iran were moving closer to being allies of the Reich. So, yeah, that is likely what would have happened. Then, you would have Rommel on the Indian border at the Kyber pass from the West, looking to invade India from the West--while the Japanese Empire was invading India from the East.

Truly mind-boggling!

Interestingly, this is exactly the scenario envisioned by the American High Command, as seen in the 1942-made government film, "Why We Fight!" The US high command were very well versed in the whole immense importance of the grand strategy of "The Heartland." Basically, controlling Europe from Britain to the Ural Mountains in Russia is "The Heartland" and the resource keys to enforcing absolute dominion outwards over the entire globe. THAT is exactly what we were very worried about happening looking at the war in the spring of 1942 through the smoke and ashes of Pearl Harbour.

All this talk about "Nah, the Axis never had a chance. That's all BS." All that kind of talk is smug arrogance, triumphalism, and borne from the comfort of hindsight and being victorious.

I remember my own father telling me that yeah, the Axis could have won the war. Damn right we were worried about winning. He told me it was not a sure thing at all. We had a very long and hard struggle facing us, everywhere.

It was definitely not a forgone conclusion in 1941 or 1942, maybe not even in 1943.

Thankfully, though, the Axis powers of Germany, Italy, and Japan, all had the troops, the power, and the momentum to achieve victory--but they also suffered from several critical strategic thinking mistakes that ultimately cost them the war--and would end with them all being crushed by fire and ashes.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 23, 2024, 09:10:50 AMGURPS kinda recognized this by publishing the "lull" supplement I mentioned but unfortunately can't find.

Eric,

IIRC, it's in 3E Compendium 2. Sold it years ago. I don't think that rule made it into 4E.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on April 22, 2024, 10:37:59 PMSo I've read the latest beta watched a session, and I have thoughts.

[editing]

Such as?

It's like our TTRPG list but for video games, wonder if Ocule's list should be included there?

DEI Detected

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 23, 2024, 03:53:14 PMEhhh, no, that recognition predates Studio C by a long time.  Joseph Campbell was talking about monomyth in the seventies.  It is, in fact, one reason why modern games and media mostly suck.  Because politics comes and goes, but the human condition never changes.  And the "progressives" want to assert that there is no human condition, nor is there anything within us other than the product of culture and politics.  And that is why they fail...

Indeed:

Marx's Theory of Man and the World

QuoteThe world of man — state, society — as Marx had it is the social structure that he creates for himself and that he, indeed, imprisons himself within. Man creates society and embodies that creation in the State, and the society, shaped by the State, in turn creates Man. Marx called the creation of society "praxis" and the creation of Man by society "the inversion of praxis." Praxis is theory-informed activism, so activism or "the work" done in light of Marxist Theory. It is the transforming activity done by Man on the world of man. The inversion of praxis is social conditioning. The society that Man has created for himself socially conditions him almost completely deterministically. Man is limited and thus psychically incarcerated by the limitations of his social conditioning through the inversion of praxis.

Quote from: jeff37923 on April 23, 2024, 02:28:24 PM

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on April 23, 2024, 12:18:39 AM

Quote from: jeff37923 on April 22, 2024, 11:46:37 PM

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on April 22, 2024, 03:17:00 PMIt occurred to me that the main thing holding back the Wokification of all media products is what we might call anthropological realism...

Before I touch this subject, I'd like you to define "anthropological realism" because I have not been able to find a definition online.

As ForgottenF put it above, (1) writing fantasy as if it were history, to which I'd add (2) employing races, sexes, cultures, and religions logically as derived from the inspiring mythos or cultures from which the given fantasy comes.

It doesn't make sense to have Africans in Rohan, for example. In fact it defeats the whole purpose. LotR is a European fantasy, the Rohan are an Anglo-Saxon horse culture; the other races of man are geographically and culturally peripheral.

OK, but doesn't that go back to before Tolkien? In Beowulf there was Grendel, and even Grendel had a mother. In it's most basic form, that is "anthropological realism" in that it is a copy of western family structure.

It appears so. The difference between Beowulf and LotR would then be quantitative.