>>98163388
Look, I simply don't have the time or energy to explain my issues with the first section alone. Basically I want to beat them with a large hard cover of some Foucalt until they stop writing forever.
I usually hate horshoe theory bullshit but this is just intersectionalist MYFAROG.

>>98163388
>Don't make every villain "good but misguided"
>Also don't make every villain inherently and viciously evil balls to bones
>[Implication] People doing ethnic cleansing are worse than people doing violent robbery to eat.
Yeah that sounds about right.

>>98163428
>People doing ethnic cleansing are worse than people doing violent robbery to eat.
But I WANT to do ethnic cleansing!

>>98163388
>avoid going into territory that has you giving every villain “their own side” of the story. Some popular narratives, for example, have chosen to redeem the heinous or harmful behavior of their antagonists by insisting that they were “only” delivering to others the same kind of harm that was inflicted upon them. The layers of evil may be complex, but there are still some irredeemable thoughts, acts, and behavior. If you spend extensive time exploring how a genocidal villain grew up with abuse, this can move the focus away from the harm they are actively causing, or worse, act to justify it.
This is actually based in a vacuum. Giving villains pathos is a trite attempt to guilt you for hating irredeemable evil. Unfortunately the rest is projecting DARVO bullshit, pretending minority criminals are not constantly covered up or that female villains don't get endless excuses compared with men.

File: Untitled (4).png (343 KB, 1080x612)

343 KB PNG

All of this feels like somebody getting paid by the word. I've seen a thousand of these "very special pages" and they blend together. Sure, I'll listen to the coastal liberal tell me how to run my game. Sure, I'll waste however many minutes it takes to read this to know they "don't approve." Whatever.

>>98163388
>As a GM, avoid going into territory that has you giving every villain “their own side” of the story.
>However, society isn’t perfect.
Can't even keep to their own guns for two pages.

>>98163481
Well go and make your dreams come true, champ!

>>98163388
>there are still some irredeemable thoughts
No. I refuse to accept any system in which a mere thought is something that can be described as irredeemable. As long as someone is capable of reason and discussion, any thought can be examined and any mind can be changed.

>>98163604
Even if they're untermensch?

>>98163388
That's so many empty words to say
>don't give the bad guys a motivation that makes sense because that's heccin' problematic

>>98163660
If they arrived at one thought, they're capable of arriving at another.

>>98163591
Kek. Moralizing grandstands are always even bigger hypocrites than the average imbecile.

>>98163388
What game is this, and why would they include all this shit? It's fascinating how they keep trying to sneak the 'woke' in, it's like a tranny trying to hide the dick.

>>98163388
Ironsworn has shit like this too. Telling someone how to play a SOLO game.
In the seafaring expansion it even tells you not to play into indigenous stereotypes...in a solo game...that you play in your mind...that no one else will ever know about.

All this school marming about people playing games wrong comes off as some form of secular religious delusion.

>>98163388
>Violence against an oppressive force may be just what is needed.
Alright. I roll to rape the author.

>>98163976
Sorry pal, but I think someone beat you to it

File: 9f30fd16dd5163cb18489a8eb(...).jpg (247 KB, 1492x2048)

247 KB JPG

I am the sort of GM who virtually never uses overarching villains. At the same time, I do not run sandboxes either. I run episodic games, each with a new villain of the "week" (or, more accurately arc).

The great majority (but not all) of my major antagonists are disaffected, desperate extremists. They have suffered and been persecuted, and now they have stumbled into power (metaphorical or otherwise) that lets them make a big impact. Some are terrorists who violently lash out upon whole cities; others use the extreme degree of magic or technology at their disposal to try to radically alter society and forge a utopia, no matter the collateral damage.

In Eberron, they might be extremist Cyran refugees, the Mourning Dawn, or perhaps aberrant-dragonmarked or warforged in a similar position. In Legends of the Wulin's Shénzhōu, they could be, to quote the core rulebook, "non-Han minorit[ies] that [are] considered barbarian and savage and that [have] often been made into outcasts and become persecuted by so-called civilized people," now banding together as the pyromaniac terrorists called the Fire Doctrine. In 13th Age, maybe they are a disillusioned Archmage, trying to steer the Dragon Empire towards utopia through some ill-advised scheme involving mass-mind-controlling everyone into a harmonious hivemind.

In a sense, the overarching villain of my campaigns tends to be civilization itself: and the conditions, inequalities, and frustrations it spawns. My individual antagonists are symptoms rather than causes. When I run a long-running game, the PCs receive opportunities to try to remold civilization themselves... many of which potentially involve hypocrisy (e.g. applying mind control to the emperor who was just trying to mind control the entire world), should the characters be fine with a little doublethink.

File: db9bf2c44a545bd8c087e6e6c(...).png (47 KB, 1280x720)

47 KB PNG

For reference, the above pages are from Evil Hat's Umdaar: Rebel Broadcast Edition, a standalone Fate Condensed RPG. Due to awkwardness in production, it is PWYW and mostly art-free, despite clocking in at 464 pages (over 500 pages if we count the supplemental PDFs).

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/568102/umdaar-rebel-broadcast-edition

This Umdaar book is mostly examples upon examples upon examples and GM content, without really innovating on Fate too much, but that is fine.

File: 7a9ad4498f033e43d65ca9f88(...).jpg (1.69 MB, 3472x2455)

1.69 MB JPG

>>98163591
>>98163872

To play devil's advocate here:
>As a GM, avoid going into territory that has you giving every villain “their own side” of the story.

The important word here is "every."

The next page, the one talking about bandits, showcases an example wherein it is roughly fine to showcase an antagonist's side of the story.

>>98163388
There is nothing here I inherently disagree with, but the author is an insufferable libshit, and I'm going to disagree with him on a lot of things that weren't said, but implied.
Whoever first said "Every villain should be a hero of their own story" in the TTRPG scene should be beaten with a crowbar, this advice ruined a whole generation of DMs. Sometimes (often, even), villains should be just evil.

>>98163388
>morality is for the privileged
This is pure identity politics, ie evil.

>>98163604
Don't you know that thoughts can kill and oppress billions, anon?

>>98164354
It's true, though

A person struggling to survive facing structural violence on a regular basis will have an entirely different view from someone benefitting from the structural violence, and should not be judged by someone who benefits from the society that has made this happen

File: 25F8BB56-8A4F-4600-9330-6(...).jpg (76 KB, 335x447)

76 KB JPG

>>98163388
>Some actions are simply evil.
https://youtu.be/6Rt7NnRcNEM?si=C5idgXvK_AD2pPpZ

>>98163388
The fact that the only examples of absolute evil are idpol garbage shows me that nothing further is worth reading. The very first example of an inherently evil act ought to be something along the lines of 'murdering an innocent child' or other obviously morally reprehensible acts.

I'm not familiar with this system (I see an Anon above me says it's a standalone version of Fate but I don't know that very well either) but it is absolutely viable that monsters are inherently evil. The example mentions goblins so I am assuming this is a high fantasy setting. The idea that a demon is not ontologically evil is retarded and if that is the case the 'oppression and harm of demons simply because they exist' is absolutely justified. If the author would claim that genocide of demons as a moral act is not done because demons 'exist' but because they pose a considerable threat to all life on the setting or something similar than the entire point is moot because it is easy to find reasons that any group can be a threat.

>>98164396
There are universally reviled acts cross culturally. Morality exists on a fundamental human level. The extent to which any given set of rules, ethics, or morality is inherent versus structured by a society or ruling class varies but to argue that morality as a whole is a societal construct is demonstrably false.

>>98164396
No. Being a victim of evil does not entitle you to inflict more evil on others.

>>98164354
yes sweetie everything is identity politics

>>98164438
If there were any universally reviled acts they simply wouldn’t happen

>>98164465
lol. lmao.

File: c89998530e0449bad62a4a851(...).jpg (808 KB, 3219x4096)

808 KB JPG

>>98164434

>it is absolutely viable that monsters are inherently evil. The example mentions goblins so I am assuming this is a high fantasy setting. The idea that a demon is not ontologically evil is retarded and if that is the case the 'oppression and harm of demons simply because they exist' is absolutely justified. If the author would claim that genocide of demons as a moral act is not done because demons 'exist' but because they pose a considerable threat to all life on the setting or something similar than the entire point is moot because it is easy to find reasons that any group can be a threat.

This is an odd case because Umdaar does not have a species called "goblins" by default. In theory, a GM could introduce a species called "goblins," but that would have to be a deliberate act. The setting does not quite have demons in the traditional high fantasy sense, either; they are referred to only distantly.

>>98163388
>>98163388
>Don't justify evil acts or make bad guys sympathetic
>Justifies evil acts and makes bad guys sympathetic

This whole thing reeks of far leftism and their weird masochistic fantasies of being victims.

>>98164478
>erm, sorry sweaty, everyone agrees that X is bad
>X FANS DONT COUNT OK??? EVERYONE AGREES
lol

>>98163388
>Real life news coverage favors criminals who come from a privileged class

I agree with this but I don't think they would agree with which classes are privileged

>>98164439
When reasonable methods have been exhausted, unreasonable methods must be employed.

>>98164524
Stfu goy. Accept your place in the hierarchy.

>>98163388
>Or, to put it another way, morality is for the privileged.
Funny how those are the exact words an evil person would use to justify themselves to someone with empathy.

>>98164520
If I walked out of my home and stabbed some random person to death, I would get 25 to life and would probably be remembered as a disgrace to my community forever.
If """that other race""" of guy walked out and stabbed someone to death, he would get 7 years, but he would be out on bail in a week and he would only see prison for 3 years before he was paroled, and that's even if he showed up for court. If he doesn't show up for court, meh, whatever. He'll still technically have a felony warrant, but apparently our cops don't really care that much.
>What race am I?

>>98164545
Woman

>>98164455
>morality is determined by your identity rather than by your actions
>not identity politics

>>98164545
I’m having a hard time convincing myself the type of person who would ask this question would be able to stab someone to death, much less climb their basement stairs without suffering a hearty attack

>>98164155
>>98163388
>As a GM, avoid going into territory that has you giving every villain “their own side” of the story.
>A downtrodden community with no farmable land and no outside relief might result in desperate individuals robbing to feed themselves or their families. Crime may be a symptom of the problem, not the source. Or, to put it another way, morality is for the privileged.
take your own advice faggot.
My villains are ontologically and scatologically evil, they rape and plunder because their ideology is rapism-murderism with plunder characteristics, the goal is to wipe them out and revitalize the area they were squatting in.
>Ethnic conflict is divided into good guys and bad guys (the darker the skin tone, the gooder)
>shoplifting, shooting dope, smoking crack, pissing in your own mouth on a train are morally complex

>>98164107
So as usual it's
>Evil I can personally empathise with: tolerable
>Evil done by people I personally disagree with: unforgivable
Which is exactly why right-thinking people with moral PRINCIPLES find this kind of garbage so tiresome.

Is this “morality” in the room with us now?

>>98164434
the disconnect here can be demonstrated twofold. There are two questions:
>are the demons (or goblins, or etc “monsters”) people?
That is, do they have similar enough biology, psychological drives and reactions, or “moral weight” to human beings? Or even something similar, like a Dog or Bear or Shark; animals with similar drives and… let’s say less complex psychology. And then, of course, if you say something completely true like: “this setting is fictional so I can simply create beings, like Demons, that are Ontologically Evil,” the question is:
>Is it relevant that Ontological Evil does not exist in real life?

That is, you would say “no,” to the first question, which is totally possible in fiction and the article author likely wouldn’t disagree. Then you would also say “no” to the second question, or maybe you’d reject it entirely, on the premise of; “Ontological Evil DOES exist in real life”. In which case you would simply be incorrect; however, that really is the key question. Representation, and the hivemind here has its opinions on whether fiction can affect the people who engage with it. EG what effects dualistic stories, such as stories with perfectly good gods and entirely evil monsters, have on the people that read them. Are you willing to have that discussion? It doesn’t seem likely to me.

>>98163388
schizophrenic "argument".

>>98164524
Unreasonable methods remain, by definition, unreasonable.

>>98164396
Things are either one thing or another, perspective is irrelevant to reality. If something is wrong it's wrong whether it's being done by a rich dbag or a quivering sympathetic orphan. Your poverty does not excuse your immorality, any more than your wealth serves as a marker of your virtue. "Structural violence" is a ludicrous misnomer(since it almost never refers to *actual* violence) invented out of thin air to excuse the actual-violence of actual-criminals, by people so poisoned by their own retardation that they unironically decide whether an act was good or bad based on the skincolour of the perpetrator and victim.

In short: eat shit, die, rot, and get fucked in hell you subnormal subhuman fuck.

>>98164573
calling people “subhuman” is wrong
unless you somehow manage to kill everyone else, you will forever be stuck living in a world where people disagree with you, and if you continue to treat them this way you will be more alone than you need to be

>>98164579
Dunno, I’d feel comfortable calling guys like John Wayne Gacy and Ted Bundy subhuman

File: 743943074b71872b60dd93366(...).jpg (3.71 MB, 1784x2543)

3.71 MB JPG

>>98164560

Still playing devil's advocate here and steelmanning the argument made in the Umdaar book, we will note that this:

>As a GM, avoid going into territory that has you giving every villain “their own side” of the story.
Is in the same paragraph as this:
>If you spend extensive time exploring how a genocidal villain grew up with abuse, this can move the focus away from the harm they are actively causing, or worse, act to justify it.

So what the book appears to be advocating is that a "genocidal villain" should not get the benefit of "their own side" of the story, whereas a relatively less harmful band of bandits could warrant a more sympathetic angle.

>>98164588
Oh, sure it’s insulting, but I mean both meanings of “wrong”. It would be factually incorrect. Both of those men were exactly human.

I understand it must feel good for you. But that’s just your emotions coloring your personal perspective on reality, which isn’t very objective at all. But yes, it also makes you unpleasant to speak with, so you’ll excuse me that I stop.

>>98164603
Nah, I feel comfortable not feeling like giving dead serial killer rapists the benefit of the doubt because of “muh relativism”.

>>98164396
pedophiles face structural violence (which ranges from psychical assault, legal persecution and exclusion to censure and intolerance) when trying to express their sexual preferences, would be child victims benefit from structural violence.
Clearly pedophiles should only be judged by their peers subject to the same violent acts i.e. other pedophiles.

>>98164579
Some people are considered mentally unfit to stand trial. That makes them morally subhuman.

>>98164573
Your logic would make perfect sense in a just world.
However rich or privileged people are able to get away with a hell of a lot more because the judges deem that they have a "promising career" or they just straight up bribe officials to look away from their crimes, or cause conditions that lead to the death of thousands because they want to save money.

You will agree with me that these judgements are in error and these people deserve justice
But they never do, and they never will. Instead, you are given your illusion of justice when you see some random criminal is given the media tour and then given a harsh sentence, shared with the world right after it has been given.

The world has been pruned and cultivated to appease your morality despite the rot underneath, and you'll still cling to it because anything else just means the criminals have won and they are laughing at you.

>>98164565
>Ontological Evil DOES exist in real life”. In which case you would simply be incorrect;
>socioeconomic factors made me torture cats for entertainment instead of making up harmless backyard games using rocks and sticks like my peers in poverty
Does this extend to rape as well? Well muh dick was throbbing for some action, and I had a sexual emergency, graffiti is obviously a protest against inequity, same as smearing feces on cars.
>>98164596
>Hitler just woke up one day, seized power and decided to go hogwild on the jews and everything east of Oder River
>the guy who shoplifts bread to filter denaturated alcohol and get wasted before shitting himself on a bus has a profound backstory explaining his motivations and how he became what it he is (perfectly valid and no need to improve himself)

>>98164627
>Instead, you are given your illusion of justice when you see some random criminal is given the media tour and then given a harsh sentence
And you belong in prison together with them. You need to be thrown into the darkest hole that there is, and never be allowed to see sunlight again.

>>98164627
People getting away with evil doesn't make anyone's deeds less evil.

>>98164613
Incorrect
Jimmy Saville, Jeffrey Epstien, Puff Daddy, R.Kelley were all pedophiles and lauded by their respective communities until their existence became too much of an albatross around the community's collective neck.

>>98163388
How did any of this come up in your last game?

>>98164637
>Rich jews rape children, so it's okay to rob people
I... What? What?! WHAT?!

>>98164637
The BBC never objected to Saville until after he died.

>>98164633
Thank you for proving my point.

You didn't engage with any of the points and latched on to the random hypothetical criminal (who I didn't even say was innocent or undeserving of the sentence) like a rabid dog and condemned a different perspective to be the equal of the crime itself.

You are the billionaire class' goodest goy and you will get those Good Goy Points that you so rightly deserve

>>98164648
Rich people do a whole lot of crimes and get away with it, anon.

File: __enmu_kimetsu_no_yaiba_d(...).jpg (75 KB, 850x735)

75 KB JPG

>>98163388
>>98163419
There seems to be a blatant contradiction in this text:
>You can't redeem villains!
And at the same time
>Violence against oppression is good!
Most tyranical and genocidal regimes in history justified their actions saying they were being oppressed. Like the nazis started their whole bingo saying they were injured during WW1 and the german race was being sabotaged. Another contradiction is the lecturing about "no queer people or women." You're a bad, genocidal maniac you don't get a free pass just because you have tits or you like cock instead of vagina. You get shot in the head and thrown in a ditch like all genocidal maniacs should. Either you want equality or you want super special treatment, the second case is never acceptable because you're opening the door to other genocidal maniacs to ask for special treatment, and then nobody is ever evil except my own specific brand of subjective bullshit.

>>98164646
Engaging with the philosophy of society in a world where you can experiment with what your players- great agents of change of your DM allows it- inflict on the world they inhabit, is a cool discussion to have.

>>98164658
Why does that justify anyone else's criminality?

>>98164631
>Hitler just woke up one day, seized power and decided to go hogwild on the jews and everything east of Oder River
>the guy who shoplifts bread to filter denaturated alcohol and get wasted before shitting himself on a bus has a profound backstory explaining his motivations and how he became what it he is (perfectly valid and no need to improve himself)
This but unironically.

>>98164637
>and lauded by their respective communities until their existence became too much of an albatross around the community's collective neck.
so they faced structural violence when they got exposed as pedophiles? Whatever other things they did is irrelevant in the context of the argument, which is that people arguing for moral relativism can't pick and choose what is and isn't relative.

>>98164683
They never faced structural violence because they were rich and influential, retard. Only after their influence started to waned or when they died (in the case of saville) is when they were faced with any consequences whatsoever.

Thats the point I'm trying to make
The rich will protect their own, and you will not be able to do anything about it.

>>98164555
where does it say that retard

>>98164692
>the rich will protect themselves via SSR+ lawyers and bribes so we should also keep releasing schizophrenic crack addicts stabbing people onto the streets

>>98164631
you aren’t really engaging with what I mean by “ontologically evil,” so I’ll clarify (you’re welcome): the term describes a being that is born (or otherwise made) to be inherently, immutably and entirely “evil,” to the detriment of people around them and their sole benefit. A being, not an act.
I’m not sure you even understand enough about human behavior to be having these arguments.
>Did socioeconomic factors make me torture these cats?
YES, or well, they likely played a role. Children who have suffered at the hands of violent sadists are vastly more likely to enact the same sadism in their play. Whether you call it punitive or power-hungry or even just plainly curious; there is something a cat-torturing child wants, and that specific want has something to do with how they’ve been treated. Were you treated with care, in your childhood?
But of course you must lurch away to rape in bad faith. You’re all over the place. “Externally caused” does not mean “not harmful,” nor “justified” nor “healthy,” nor “good,” and you can only lie to so pretend that’s my meaning. The premise is: if we wish to maximize “good” we must understand problems holistically, not lay all the blame on one person; especially not one with very little in the way of societal power. It is easy to say “he” or “those people” are part of the problem; it is significantly harder to say “the problem is very large, and I am a part of it”. You attribute this to “moral relativism” from me, but I just read dishonest cowardice into your dodge. Acts can be harmful; people can do a great many things.
I will continue not to call harm anything but what it is; you are doing it, and your acts too have external causes. Not excuses—you’re causing harm still, and that will never be a good thing to do. I’ve found that this word “evil” is most often: a finger to point. I, too, am capable of that.

Shlomo Shekelstein feels called out if you have a race of evil rotten to the core demons in your setting, please understand.

>>98164695
>morality is for the privileged
How the fuck else do you read that?

>>98164596
>whereas a relatively less harmful band of bandits could warrant a more sympathetic angle
That the gang of thugs robbing your farm may have been beaten by their daddy as children and are not genocidal maniacs does not lessen the impact of their evil. Your ability to earn a living is still curtailed. Your family may still starve come the winter. Evil is evil, *everyone* has "a story", and it's just as relevant to the subsequent behaviour of a Dindu Nuffin bandit as it is to the maniacal cackling Dark Lord who wants to rule the world and burn it to ashes - ie, it serves to demonstrate that they are shitty people because they chose not to rise above and be moral anyway, like 99.99% of people who experience hardship and misery do.

I grew up right next to the shittiest part of my town, and I know guys who were born on literally the same street and had all the same experiences growing up - same poverty, same shitty families, same shitty education, same poor treatment by society at large - but one is a violent criminal thug who steals and constantly bitches about "the man" and the other is a mental health nurse who devotes their entire life to helping others. What happens to us is what happens to us, it's beyond our power to control, all we can control is what *we* do and it's that choice which decides whether we're good or evil not Muh Structural Oppreshun.

>>98164696
Now where did I say that? I'm checking my posts and I've never mentioned any of that. Are you sure you're replying to the right person?

>>98164670
Hence my comparison to MYFAROG, which outright states things as definitionally true and then contradicts those statements with rules.

>>98164692
>they never face structural violence, until they did (legal prosecution, getting killed, suicide (lol, lmao))!

>>98164700
>desperate individuals robbing to feed themselves or their families
idk bro maybe the previous sentence explained something or something

>>98164701
I believe that choices matter.
Have you ever chosen to speak Hindi to anyone? Why or why not? Do the circumstances of your birth and upbringing not affect your choices? Your reasons for acting, the size of your circle of care; what choices are even available to you?
I know it’s a nightmarish mess of ambiguity; likely it’s more comfortable to say “anyone who does X is EVIL regardless of why”. But it’s foolish not to ask the why, when making judgments; two people who’ve robbed you have both hurt you, and that should factor in, certainly. But then, of the powerful and powerless: who is more likely to rob you again? Who is easier to protect yourself from? Do you not see how flatly declaring they’re both “evil” is actually harmful TO YOU, in how it narrows your perception?

>>98164627
See >>98164701
The world is the world, we're talking about *morality* not law or systems. Whether or not you are a moral person depends entirely on *you* and *your* choices, nothing else. I don't drive, I walk and cycle and use public transport - I am *systemically* disadvantaged by motonormativity - the constructed social belief that driving a car is the normal baseline behaviour and so should be catered to at the cost and even to the exclusion of other modes of transport - and drivers frequently receive soft treatment by the police and the courts when they commit crimes that kill or injure pedestrians and cyclists - SMIDSY, "the sun was in my eyes yer honour", "he wasn't wearing bright/dark/reflective/contrasting colours yer honour", "no helmet yer honour"(what an inch of foam in a 2mm plastic shell would do to stop 2 tons of metal going 30 over the speed limit is a question for the sages), "I was only a little over the limit", "you can't take away my license I depend on it to transport my elderly mum's seven great danes to the vet every thursday!" etc etc etc leading to under charging, under convicting, and under sentencing relative to what the law states should be the case - but if one day I decided to begin indiscriminately smashing up parked cars with my D-lock in furious outrage at the injustices of the world, *I* would still be doing a bad thing, because *my* actions are under my own control, and whether society punishes other people's bad actions in a fair way is irrelevant to whether I am responsible for my own choices.

>>98164732
That you can argue with a straight face that deciding whether or not to learn a language is even in the same category as "should I murder this other thinking being or not", let alone close enough in moral equivalence to even be a relevant example, demonstrated you're either not arguing in good faith or are just fucking deranged.

I return to my original sentiment: eat shit and die.

>>98163428
>ethnic cleansing
how else would you get rid of the vulture demons and 4 billion orcs and goblins and other greenskins before they destroy civilization?

>>98163388
>muh evil queers is a harmful stereotype
takes a look at real life:
>Sam Altman
>Peter Thiel
>James Carville
>Donald Trump (spiritually gay but biologically straight)
>Nick Fuentes
>Andrew Tate
>JD Vance (suspected)
Your move, leftists

>>98164698
>Were you treated with care, in your childhood?
yes, white, European lower-middle class upbringing, never found wanting for parental affection or suffered abuse from others, uncircumcised; I find it hilarious to see a helpless animal suffer. I am well aware I am inflicting pain onto an innocent creature and that is the whole point of the exercise. There is no curiosity or some developmental disability making me unable to understand my own actions, the outcome of helpless writhing while the cat's teeth are ripped out with pliers while its tied down to be unable escape is a settled matter and the goal of the exercise.

Now putting aside the text roleplay of a psychopath, unless you are also roleplaying as a libtard for ragebait purposes; you are a mindless cretin, ironically incapable of empathy i.e. the ability to understand, share, and vicariously experience the emotions, thoughts, and perspectives of another person.
What if I understand good and choose to do the opposite because I'm just antisocial and evil?
Rape is fun because it makes my peepee feel good *AND* it inflicts suffering on others.
A normal, healthy society would decide that the solution to me is hanging, gassing, electric chair or shooting me in the head so I don't hurt anyone anymore because therapy, seclusion and basketweaving classes aren't a substitute for the joy I get from arson, rape, murder, animal torture.

>>98164739
I agree with your assessment wholeheartedly and I want to tell you: it is by design.

The elites benefit from bike riders getting mowed down and public transportation being in the shitter. The world has been slowly designed in a way where your rage has been cultivated to be let out in an anti-social rampage so they can keep making a society that excludes you.

I agree with you that your actions are your own- and a just world would have you be judged with the circumstances leading to it in mind, and a responsible one world would make sure that the circumstances do not happen to more people.

>>98164765
nah, they're no more evil than the average epstein client. the reason you hear about the gay ones is that they have enough charisma to be a media personality.

>>98163872
People who whinge about moralizing are always illiterate.

>>98164698
a hard fact of life is that the people who are victims of injustices are meant to be losers by their genetic makeup and this is why we have therapy to prey on them too. On the other hand people who are capable of rape etc. are the winners and grow to be successful because society unironically prefers those people. This is why women prefer psychopaths, they're just better and fitter for life. Life is designed to reward shitty people and we define shitty people by judeo-christian morality which is cultural poison to make our society weak and the law based on it ensures the winners stay winners instead of getting shot in a honor killing.

>>98164838
one day your gdp per capita will be over 5000

>>98164107
you know it's bad when you write about being consious of the morals in common tropes and the average 100IQ retard is so polarized they get mad that you didnt include a manifesto

>>98164890
People love to be told what to think and they like it even more when their biased are confirmed

>>98164728
>poor people can't possibly be moral
This is clearly false and moronic.

>>98164890
>>98164898
Stop vagueposting...

>>98164765
If you have kids you lose your gay card

>>98163388
meh, the problem people love to bring up and forget when it doesn't benefit them is that they're all for THEIR side rising up and taking power from the "tyrants" and blame said group they see as the villain. However, don't you dare push their group as evil or without the context they think makes them seen as good.

Remember, the left love to blame everything on the straight white man. However if you blame it on women, gays, commies, or any minority group. They whine it's racist, sexist, etc. You can't make arabs and muslims the villains without blaming someone else often america or the jews. However, you shamed if you bring up them invading and taking over Constantinople and the Byzantines while they wiped out, purged and enslaved the people.

You can have people, groups who do evil things for good reasons. However, more often it someone or some group trying hid their actions so they don't get push as the villain they said the other person they took out was. Even though they're doing the same or even worse than them.

Not every revolution was like the American Revolution now. Most were like France where it's just groups of villains fight for power because the current head is weak.They don't want to stop the crown. They WANT the crown.

>>98164902
>heh... your family needs to starve to death. morality requires it.

>>98164434
> 'murdering an innocent child'
>obviously morally reprehensible act
Don't let liberal women see this, some things are not as black as white as you'd think. Apparently.

>>98164941
If you're poor and hungry you should just murder and eat the next door neighbor who's better off than you.
Instead of being the destitute dirt farmer barely making do and getting robbed, have you considered murder and pillage for sustenance?

File: 1514316972142.gif (2.77 MB, 270x360)

2.77 MB GIF

>>98164980
I don't know why I tried talking to a subhuman who was clearly just deliberately obtuse from the first message

>>98164941
They don't NEED to starve to death, but the fact that they are doesn't revoke property rights and it not theft to take someone else's food for them.

Whoever wrote this should be transported directly to Joberg.

>>98164902
No it is saying that poor people shouldn't be considered evil for doing acts that they consider immoral.

>>98164941
>>98165030
>>98164990

What a retarded statement. First, it propagates a myth that poor and desperate people will just start commiting crimes and act evil just because they are "desperate" (poor people don't automatically start commiting crimes because they are poor, science shows genetics and race is a better predictor of criminal behavior).

Its also shows a hatred of morality. Yes faggot, even if you have a greater reason to commit evil, you are still engaging in an evil act.

Whoever wrote that shit needs to be put in prison. He has a mental disorder and should not be allowed to vocally voice his opinion as its a form of social pollution.

>>98165030
"Morality is for the privileged" doesn't mean that though. It means only those with privilege - for the sake of argument lets equate that with money - can have morality.

>>98165088
Why don't all homeless murder the first woman who has an apartment to sleep in?

>>98165093
Because morality isn't actually just for the privileged.

>>98165088
It is saying that the choice to be moral is a luxury that is afforded to the privileged and as such the underprivileged cannot morally be held to the expectation of behaving morally.
Perfectly cromulant.
If a wealthy person is moral, it is because they were privileged enough to be in a position to be moral.
If a rich person is immoral, it is because they have an evil soul.
If a poor person is moral, it is an extraordinary act since they have to make sacrifices to act morally.
If a poor person is immoral, that is forgiven, because they did not have the privilege of acting morally.

Yes, this little worldview matrix does suggest that one group of people are good when they are bad and that the other group of people are bad for expecting otherwise.

>>98164478
It's a shitty smarmy phrase, but the only apt answer to that is "concession ceoted".

>>98164560
You're deluding yourself if you think people with "principles" are any less hypocritical than the guy in OP. A moral standard is just an agreement between components of the same system, and that system will inherently ignore its own failings in order to perpetuate.

>>98165153
One group of people have connections, material wealth and a privileged upbringing to allow them to observe breadth of human experience and come to a decision regarding their morality.

The other group will have none of these things.

>>98163388
Ontologically evil opponents for the players to engage guilt-free is good if that's the kind of game you want to run.
Complex webs of conflicting motivations and grey-in-grey moralities are good if that's the kind of game you want to run.
This faggot, however, is somehow trying to have it both.

>>98165348
>Only the rich are moral or immoral
>The poor are animals that literally can't know any better because they don't have enough life experience to be human
Interesting argument, good sir.

>>98165375
Yeah, I wish that people would remember that these are games of pretend, and that it's perfectly valid to just say the dragon is evil and move on since the dragon isn't real and nobody is going to throw them in jail over fighting it.

>>98163388
Evil can only exist in an objective moral system.
Murder, theft, faggotry, it's all bad because God has decreed it so.
Anything can be excused or explained away with a subjective moral system including: "The abuse of power, the prejudices that are used to justify the oppression and harm of people whose only “sin” in the eyes of others is that they are different or that they simply exist, the weaponization of fear and paranoia, past and present acts of colonial violence."

>>98165389
>>98165348
>>98165153
>>98165088
>>98165030
how do you come up with this schizophrenic shit when the OP picture has the most straightforward possible example? genuinely kill yourselves right now.

>WHAT IF THEY ARE STEALING FOOD BECAUSE THEY ARE STARVING

uhh this is clearly postmodern moral relativism this is why we need theocracy and a race war please recognize my genius please clap

File: water margin.jpg (96 KB, 641x1000)

96 KB JPG

>>98163388
That's a nice argument but I have my brothers by my side and we will take your shit and kill you.

>>98165443
op and the person they’re quoting are also two faced dipshis who want to have it both ways so they can rattle on about how it’s always right to fight against bigotry and shit but also say “morality is for the privileged”, so fuck them and you, good sir

>>98165443
>>WHAT IF THEY ARE STEALING FOOD BECAUSE THEY ARE STARVING
Then we hang them all the same as if they did it out of evil. because less mouths to feed that way, we are bringing back or maintaining semblance of order, and protecting the people who produce what little food they can.
Thanks for playing.
Next session we'll be going to post-apocalyptic neofeudal far orient where we will see 9 familial exterminations being carried out for a traitor turned drug pushing bandit where we can debate ontological evil being carried genetically, echoing a modern dillema about aborting rape babies, try to keep up.

>>98165443
Because that argument is retarded and dishonest. Stealing food because you're starving is at best comparable to killing in self defence. Being in immediate risk of death is not normal and personal safety is not a "privilege". Extreme circumstances may override conventional morality.

>>98165443
Sorry but you aren't in a position to judge me since I'm not privileged.

We'll be robbing a bank tomorrow. What's a cool funny thing to do there?

>>98164565
>Are you willing to have that discussion?
The discussion on how fiction with ontological good and evil affect the people that experience those stories? Sure.
I think that unless you are a child, a retard, or crazy, you can separate reality from fiction. People who are capable of abstract thoughts can engage in thought experiments that they recognize are different from reality and can be flat out impossible.
To wit, I believe that reasonable human beings would not be greatly affected by stories in which there is ontological good or evil outside of momentary entertainment and perhaps feelings of positivity, hope, or other feelings in much the same way that imaging world peace might cause in a well adjusted human being.
>It doesn't seem likely to me.
That's because you are a retard.

>>98164699
No doubt.

>>98163388
People who speak like this are just constantly projecting. They are guilty of everything they accuse the other side of doing. Their entire ideology revolves around trying to genocide White people just for existing. Every lying word out of their scum mouths is an inversion of the truth.

File: images.jpg (26 KB, 665x300)

26 KB JPG

>>98164545
>What race am I?
Desperate shoppers
Despicable Goon
Reality TV star
Pint sized perps
Unarmed Thieves
Certain customers
Masked assailants
Persons of interest
Lunchtime rowdies
Restaurant patrons
Peaceful protesters
Fellow Companions
Substitute Teachers
Unhinged strangers
Unhappy customers
Former NFL players
Unhinged Strangers
Unruly young adults
Community activists
Black Friday crowds
Former NFL players
Unhappy customers
Troubled young men
Dinnertime Burglars
Airline Door Openers
Neighborhood bullies
High school students
Troubled young men
Attempted rescuers
Urban demographics
Spring break partiers
Hotheaded youngsters
Unsupervised juveniles
Scholarship recipients
Cannabis-Smoking Teens
Purse-snatching bullies
Vending machine vandals
Bill Gates Scholarship Recipents
Youths and adults of highest promise
Motorbike-riding gunman
A notorious butt sniffing freak
Uninvited guests
Pipe-wielding NYC screwball
Olympic hopeful
Changing Consumer Habits

>>98172920
Redesign your logo
We know how to do it

>>98172920
>Youths and adults of highest promise
Dem orc just need some more gps for dem programs!

>>98163388
>your kingdom is currently being invaded by an orc army
>a bunch of armed orcs approach your front gate and ask for you to open the gate and let them in
>if you say no, the all-powerful creators of your universe officially declare you an "objectively evil and irredeemable villain" for the crime of assuming the orcs must be hostile just because they're orcs