Tomas Elliot

Skeleton has been infected... RUN AWAY WHILE YOU STILL CAN SKELETON!

Long story short: I've found this forum that is about D&D. You can discuss the game over there, you can have experienced people tach you, and you even get to play by post, which is a Godsend for me given my time and internet restrictions. One of the ideas they are helping me with is that of a cute girl who is a Wild Magic Sorcerer: basically, she's the classic cute clumsy girl you see in anime. Her clumsiness is used to justify Wild Magic Surges from an in-character point of view (she is clumsy, so she randomly screws up with spectacular effects), and her cuteness is used to justify her high Charisma (she weaponizes her cuteness to get her way). Of course, I just HAD to make a chibi for this character concept, but since the race is usually the last thing I decide when making a character (the idea is, pick the race whose racial bonuses can patch up any unlucky stat roll you got), I made her in 3 different flavors: Human: http://i.imgur.com/HO2zCvw.png Elf: http://i.imgur.com/V0CwyKQ.png Drow: http://i.imgur.com/BlcOefm.png Which one do you find to be cuter?

Leaving aside how convenient it is that you ignored everything I said in my NUMEROUS posts, bar the bit about you being a former auth, I would like to address how cowardly of yours it is to play this card. Basically what you are saying is "you better arm yourself, or the bad guys will kill your family and it will be your fault". Instead of addressing my points, you are trying to play with my emotions... ... Which is without even mentioning the fact that I AGREE. People DO need ways of defending themselves in some extreme cases, and in fact I, since I live in one of those extreme cases, own a gun myself, as I have stated multiple times in the past, INCLUDING IN THIS VERY TOPIC. Not once in this topic have I ever stated that all citizens should be forbidden from owning any kind of weapon. What I DID say is that weapons are dangerous things, and thus there should be a strict set of rules to regulate who can own them, under what circumstances, and how they must handle them. Because, again, administering justice is NOT the duty of common citizens. You can NOT make yourself the judge, the jury and the executioner, killing a person because you felt threatened by them. And while there may be cases when that is inevitable, it is still a fact that a civil country should have a strict legislation on the matter. I am not against people owning guns (I OWN ONE MYSELF), I am against people opposing all sorts of rules, and claiming that rules would equal common citizens being defenseless against criminals. THAT is the claim that pisses me off, because firstly, defending citizens is normally the duty of police (if you let everyone go around armed all the time and open fire whenever they feel threatened, that's pure and simple chaos), and secondly because, again, I live in a country with strict gun control, and yet I am not defenseless. Which proves that it is possible to enforce rules while still allowing citizens to defend themselves. Now, Kurotsune is right in saying that we should address points, instead of engaging in purely dialectic squabbles. But the fact is: I DID. I eviscerated how and why I believe there should be rules on gun ownership, and how and why America is a terrible country for steadfastly refusing to enforce such rules. You, on the other hand, keep focusing on minor side aspects of what I say, addressing only one line out of one of the FOUR posts I made, all the while avoiding the crux of the issue: the very existance of a guy like me, a gun owner in a country with strict gun control, proves that it is perfectly possible to strike a balance, between the right to self-defense and the need to enforce rules to keep something as dangerous as weapons in check. Why is America so steadfastly refusing to pursue such balance? Why are you so strenuously defending the current lack of rules, despite the fact that it has caused, by your own admission, Columbine-like incidents to be five times more frequent in America than in Europe?

*bitches more about YGO cards* In all seriousness, the "getting wife to watch anime" thing made me think: it is clear that you want to get your wife to try an interest of yours. My suggestion is to put, in this list, a point that is the other way around as well: just like she should share a passion of yours, you should share a passion of hers too!

Realise that all Sacred Beasts suck and you should never play them, unless you are a Crystal Beast player and you like killing your consistency with Amon. Then again, you'd need to be someone who really hates consistency in order to play Crystal Beast, so I guess that, if you really hate it that much, you would probably bring yourself to killing it with Amon

About the trans-friendly restrooms thingy, that actually made national news in Italy at one point. See, there is a long-time career politician in Italy who is a trans (name's Vladimir Luxuria, YES SHE PICKED "LUST" AS HER OWN SURNAME WHEN SHE LEGALLY CHANGED HER NAME, I'm not sure that helps in changing the mind of those who think trans are perverts). Once she went to the (female) toilet of the house of parliament, and a female politician who was already in there threw a huge tantrum, even stating that she would quit her role (she didn't). In front of the cameras, she claimed that the mere presence of "the trans" (that she said, she didn't use the person's name, she simply said "the trans") in the toilet had made her "feel like someone was trying to rape her" (I am quoting the exact words). It is worth noticing that Vladimir Luxuria, as mentioned, is a career politician, so she had been sitting in the parliament for quite some time at that point (which presumably means she had been using the restroom for a while), and nobody had ever had a problem with that. Then again, the female politician in question was from a party that was the direct competitor of the party the trans politician was from (I am tempted to say that the female politician was the granddaughter of Benito Mussolini, because yes, we actually have the granddaughter of Benito Mussolini sitting in our parliament, but I am not sure it was actually her, I might remember incorrectly), so I don't know how much she really felt that way, and how much she made it up to discredit her political adversaries. Either way, I thought you might be interested in hearing this anecdote.

Those in charge of enforcing laws are uneffective, so the solution is no laws. #logic EDIT: to clarify, using the (alleged) inefficiency of police as an excuse for not regulamenting weapons, thus allowing everyone to make justice for themselves, is a very dangerous mindset. It is one step away from "hey, it's ok to kill people, as long as you have a solid reason for doing it!" and two steps away from full-on anarchy. If a governor realizes that laws in his country are not enforced properly, he should invest in improving the police, not allow common citizens to take matters in their own hands. And he certainly shouldn't use it as an excuse to not have rules on such a delicate matter. EDIT EDIT: something I just realized. Hunter you used to be an auth in this forum, right? What is the thing auths tell people all the time, in all forums? "Don't attack other users just because they break rules, if you see someone misbehaving report them to the mods". If that should apply to a silly forum, where the worst that can happen is a flame war, why shouldn't it apply to a situation where lives are at stake? If your answer to this question is "because if you don't shoot the criminal first, he will shoot you", then we are back to square one: LITERALLY square one, the prehistoric world, the Natural State. Kill or be killed. But wasn't the concept of "state" created SPECIFICALLY to eliminate that? EDIT EDIT EDIT: and besides yes, Columbine and all similar incidents ARE a direct consequence of the murderers owning guns. Had they gone to school armed with slings, they probably wouldn't have managed to kill that many people. EDIT EDIT EDIT EDIT: and the solution to "the only weapon in campus being the one of the murderer" is not "allowing teachers to pack heat". The correct solution is to have metal detectors and other such measures, to ensure NOBODY packs heat on campus. Because, again, if you being armed is a valid reason for me being armed, then everyone should go around armed all the time, and feel free to shoot down people whenever they feel threatened. Which doesn't sound like a healthy society to me.

I can help you with this. Talking about emulators and sharing links is currently forbidden on the main forum, so shoot me a PM.

Added Juu's latest tracks!

Two things I would like to point out: 1) Brigit's full name is Brigit Q WITHOUT THE DOT. Like, the Q is not an initial, she really is named "Brigit Q". Of course, it's not her real name. 2) The 3 themes I posted all share a leitmotiv. I don't mean to say anything in particular with this, it's just that I am a huge fan of Wagner (who popularized the use of the leitmotiv), so I'm mad that people didn't notice.

Ok I'm bringing this topic back on track with a minor announcement: despite the fact that, as of late, Juu hasn't been much active around the forum (exams are to blame), he still has been rather active when it comes to making our game's OST. So I figured tonight I would give you proof of this, by revealing 3 new masterful tracks of his creation! https://soundcloud.com/juuzou-72353936/track-1/s-WTpgF https://soundcloud.com/juuzou-72353936/track-2/s-vqOVL https://soundcloud.com/juuzou-72353936/track-3/s-IdCTO They are simply named "Track 1", "Track 2" and "Track 3" because, at this stage, we don't want to reveal what they shall be used for. You are welcome to try and guess: all I can say is that they are NOT in cronological order, meaning that "Track 1" is NOT the first one you will hear in the game. Please enjoy, and make sure you share your opinions!

I should also point out that I own a gun. I live in a country with significantly stricter gun control (and significantly less shootings) than USA, and I still have access to "ways of defending myself", to put it in terms pro-weapons people like. Having said that, in an ideal world, nobody would need weapons at all, it is clear that we don't live in an ideal world: still, it is perfectly possible to create a system that allows citizens to arm themselves if they so desire, but only after they have proved that they subscribe to a strict set of rules and respect a strict set of criteria. Basically, in Italy (and in many other european countries) you need to be in possession of a very specific document, if you want to own a weapon. And proving that you are eligible for said document requires you to go through quite a lot of bureaucracy which, if nothing else, gives you time to reconsider your decision (and most importantly, gives the authorities time to make sure that you aren't a murderous psycho). And even then, you are restricted on how and where you can carry/use it, it's not like you can go around with a gun in full display at your side, like those cowboys in western movies. Meanwhile, in America, any emo high school student, who is sooooooo depressed because life is pain and nobody understands, can go to a shop, buy a weapon, then go to school and start gunning down his classmates and teachers. European systems are not perfect, they do not prevent criminality/mafia, but they do prevent Columbine. It's better than not having any rules.

How Shade got his job:

Leaving aside all the other reasonings, debates, petty squabbles over how logically inconsistent your post that points out my logical inconsistencies is, and all the other only-on-Reborn stuff that is inevitably going to happen in this discussion (and has already started), I would like to go on record and state that this picture right here, this image Chase posted, summarizes perfectly why I despise America as a country. Every time I have to face one of the many problems of my country, I console myself thinking "welp, at least I wasn't born in the U.S.A", and this is why. In Italy we do this crazy little thing called law enforcement. Basically, what we do is to make laws and then (get this) we punish those who break them. And mind you, I am talking about ITALY, the country that invented mafia, the country whose level of fiscal evasion is higher than its PIL, the country that had Berlusconi as president for 20 years, so it's not like we are a shining beacon of morality. But even we managed to grasp this concept: you make the laws, and then you punish those who break them. "Criminals don't care about laws, so might as well not have laws" is tied with "we are going to war to protect peace" as the most idiotic statement I've ever heard. And they have one little thing in common: both were said by an american. So yeah, american people please don't take this too personally, but your country is the one I loathe even more than my own, which is saying A LOT. And no amount of sophisticated arguments you may make, to prove that I am an evil logic twister whose arguments meet some obscure definition of some equally obscure fallacy quoted from some equally obscure wikia, is going to change my mind: if anything, you'll prove my point even more. While you keep on making your exquisite arguments about gun control, people keep getting shot down in the streets of your country. Which can be said for my own country as well, but at least we give free medical assistence to the wounded.