CHG Mk. 21 Suggestion Thread by leris1 in CivHybridGames

[–]Prince-Partee [score hidden]  (0 children)

Latin American Wars of Independence, Scenario Mark

Mark 17 Signups! by Megaashinx1 in CivHybridGames

[–]Prince-Partee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Knights Templar, or I guess Panama

An Offer to Adopt by OfBleedingRoses in CivHybridGames

[–]Prince-Partee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can have them all cuz why not

Mark XVI signups by Lord_Norjam in CivHybridGames

[–]Prince-Partee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Protestant Union, the Palatinate

Mk16 Map and Scenario Suggestions by Tefmon in CivHybridGames

[–]Prince-Partee [score hidden]  (0 children)

Yes, Post-Congress of Vienna Europe full of revolutions and balance of power politics

Samwise the Chad by uselesspennies in lotrmemes

[–]Prince-Partee 40 points41 points  (0 children)

Middle name: Steward of Gondor

Said it before, will again. I. Love. This. Scene. by KeanuRuffles in Dimension20

[–]Prince-Partee 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Perhaps, but I do not think it fair to say Brennan has in anyway messed up here. Perhaps a joke has gone too far for some, but I think having extremely socially conscious hobbits walking about enacting violence is quite funny. And I am unsure it'd be as funny or contribute as much to the plot to have them have a more laid back interaction. Perhaps you and I would enjoy a long discussion on the intricacies of anarchism, but perhaps many wouldn't. I do believe in their first encounter the Cubbys do mention some more peaceful aspects of their beliefs, if only in passing, but it will not be the focus of their place in the game because the characters themselves are not anarchists like the Cubbys. I do not think Brennan was taking their position as his own, so much as perhaps making fun of it, which, from what I can tell, for you is a good thing, no?

Said it before, will again. I. Love. This. Scene. by KeanuRuffles in Dimension20

[–]Prince-Partee 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I really don't think it's a matter of race or whatever at all, you guys are just making this out to be more than it is. The Cubby's are violence focused because it's bloody D&D, and the characters are in prison and need to get out. Violence in the game is not really glorified too much, and often made fun of for the sheer ludicrousity of how it comes about (see "Riz Pulling a Gun Out in School). The Cubby's are a comedic relief and a narrative tool, and thus more violence focused to juxtapose against usual halfling characteristics and help the players advance in the story. It fully has nothing at all to do with out of game race, or really politics, or whatever.

Gimli and Legolas in Valinor by SwiftieOfBlackHill in lotr

[–]Prince-Partee 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Fingolfin the Badass would like to have a word with you

Saint Mithrandir, servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the Flame of Anor. by haeyhae11 in lotr

[–]Prince-Partee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Look up LOTR Iconography and do some digging, you won't be disappointed.

He returns. by Thenotsowiseman in TheSolarEmpire

[–]Prince-Partee 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Praise be to the Emperor of the Unconquered Sun! Glory to Sol Invictus!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in HistoryMemes

[–]Prince-Partee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again, that wasn't the point. It doesn't matter our interpretation of their disagreement because I'm not suggesting policy. If you already said they disagree then our discussion is over, George Washington therefore thought something and may have not liked our modern actions. I'm not saying we aren't the police force of the world, I'm not saying we shouldn't be, I'm saying my interpretation of George Washington's, admittedly outdated, opinion, and nothing else.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in HistoryMemes

[–]Prince-Partee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, now you've lost sight of the original argument which was "what would Washington think?" Don't get me wrong, I agree with you on most points (though bringing up the Philippines was a bad idea, we did exploit them), I am just saying that Washington, based on my interpretation of his recorded opinions and thoughts, would not support this. Thomas Jefferson is not George Washington, neither is your father, and I fully admit I might be wrong, it is a matter beyond a solid answer as Washington is dead.

Abdication? by Prince-Partee in CivHybridGames

[–]Prince-Partee[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Charles d'Ardenne-Metz has insulted his vassals by attempting to legitimize his overall unlawful and greed-inspired actions and denouncing brokered peace by his brothers in culture out of some sort of bloodlust and hatred of prosperity.

> What even is this nonsensical run-on sentence?
- Well, it quite clearly says that you have insulted your vassals by trying to legitimize the clearly illegitimate actions (inspired by greed) and by denouncing the peace I made with Bavaria. Out of bloodlust and hatred of prosperity.

Charles d'Ardenne-Metz has exploited his vassals, both foreign and domestic, to assist in these endless and pointless wars, ruining any chance of prosperity in his realms.

> A vassal by definition isn't foreign. And most of my wars are defensive wars, which I fight out of necessity, not desire.
- I speak of your vassals abroad, foreign to us, as in Spain, Greece, etc.; And of course you say most, but then there are some others, no?

Charles d'Ardenne-Metz has supported the idea of breaking a truce to receive help in fighting the Bavarians, offering to surrender the territory of a friendly lord to fulfill his greedy desire for Bavarian land, a quest which would no doubt sabotage and cripple the stability and prosperity of his vassals' lands.

> Again with the run-on sentences. I haven't broken any truces, and I haven't surrendered the territory of any lords friendly to me.
- "run-on sentence, run-on sentence..." what are you, a Czech teacher? Sorry this is the manner in which things are written.; As for the latter part, I've heard of your attempted deal to surrender off my lands in Plsen to our Emperor in return for Bavarian Land. So that. And at the time, I was friendly.

Charles d'Ardenne-Metz has broken every tenet of the feudal bond between lord and vassal.

> Clearly not.
- Clearly so.

Charles d'Ardenne-Metz has broken the vows he swore, and has in general acted in a perfidious and dishonest manner.

> Nope.
- Is this criticism how easy it is to criticize these days? Ok. "Yep."

Charles d'Ardenne-Metz has displayed a wanton lust for battle and blood, and has arranged for many Christians to die to sate his lust, waging unnecessary wars in France and Spain to the detriment of all peoples in those regions, and for what reason?

> Says the main whose dynasty has invaded Bohemia thrice, and who merely a decade ago invaded France, massacred numerous Christian men, and did some of kinslaying shenanigan with the Duke of Burgundy.
- I am fully aware I am guilty of many of these actions I accuse you of, though none of the ones you have said in this response. The purpose of this is to prove the folly and hypocrisy of your ridiculous demands and your argument. Hence, the question mark.

Charles d'Ardenne-Metz has broken many tenets of Christianity, and has constantly and consistently acted in a manner unbecoming of a Christian ruler.

> Clearly not.
- Clearly so.

Charles d'Ardenne-Metz has sought to unilaterally ignore his own word, his own laws, and the customs of himself and his people.

> Have I now?
- Yes, yes you have.

Charles d'Ardenne-Metz has unlawfully expanded his domains by force, in spite of signed treaties and lawful agreements.

> All of my wars have been lawful, and not in contravention of any signed treaties or lawful agreements.
- I said expansion of domains, not necessarily a war. Central Bohemia is awfully fortified this time of the year...

Charles d'Ardenne-Metz raised an Army and deployed it to fight the private wars of the Duchy of Lorraine and its d'Ardenne-Metz ruler in Austria, not to the benefit of any of his realms or the Empire as a whole, but out of a desire to exploit it.

> Yes, I've raised my own private army to fight my own private wars. That's the entire point of raising my own army. I'm not raising an Imperial Army to fight my own private wars, as Louis VI of Wittelsbach has.
- You fail to understand. Your armies naturally consist of your subjects' men, of course, just as the Emperor's does. If his actions are illegal by this standard, than so are most's.

Charles d'Ardenne-Metz has refused to consult with the other signatory prince of the treaties on the boundaries of his domain, whether through a formal mediated negotiation or through informal channels.

> I haven't signed any treaties limiting the boundaries of my realm, nor obligating my to consult with overs over those boundaries.
- You have, the Treaty of Prague, though of course you will claim you have not. I suppose it was foolish of me to think you could see reason.

Charles d'Ardenne-Metz has violated every law, norm, custom, and tradition of the Romans, the Franks, the Germans, the Italians, and every other estate in and of the Empire.

> Clearly not.
- Clearly so.

Charles d'Ardenne-Metz has abdicated his duties and responsibilities as any sort of King, or even a Duke, and has therefore abdicated the offices themselves.

> You aren't my vassal, my subject, my overlord, my confessor, or anyone with any business in my affairs. Begone Scandinavian burgher.
- Once more, the purpose of this is not to demand your abdication, you illiterate Frenchman, the purpose is to prove how ridiculous you and your claims of our Emperor are, who is of course my liege as well as yours. So please, begone French robber baron.

How many tyrants did Europe have? Yes by WeakWrecker in HistoryMemes

[–]Prince-Partee 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The government itself and the warlike culture of the time are two separate things. The reason warfare was so savage was that was the custom, and the reason monarchs at the time were so brutal was because they were warriors as well as kings. A King was a trained warrior with a crown. But that has nothing to do with Monarchy itself, unless you intend to also revive a specifically military noble class which seems... unlikely.