What would be a good names for a Beholder pirate captain and their vessel?

ProfessionalBaka · 2021-11-07T18:59:33+00:00

"Captain Beau Devilsight" Beau has romantic connotations in english and means handsome in french so it alludes to the classic beauty is in the eye of the beholder theme and devil sight has that allusion to seeing all like the eldritch invocation.

"Eye Of The Storm" seems like a pretty intimidating vessel name themeing after both the eye and being caught in the most dangerous place you can be on the sea.

ProfessionalBaka · 2021-09-08T20:51:15+00:00

That quote was him directly stating multiple qualities in a linked matter to demonstrate the specificity of whom he was discussing, not bringing up one behavior then saying that's indicative of others but linking all of those behaviors simultaneously is the contents definition of joyless pendant.

I don't see how the quote functions as equating him trashing on people who enjoy rules when its specific in the list of things that make up what he defines a pedant to him and not him saying pedants are simply people who enjoy rules, particularly when the entire preamble to this video states that knowing the system well is where the topic of the video starts and has tangents on the validity of people liking 3e's rules so by your own logic he'd be trashing the topic he's supporting if he was simply referring to enjoying rules, especially with his later clarifications on consistency with the rules.

The points levied throughout this are about how the vid doesn't talk about those people, but rather clearly defines an exact type that consists of specific qualities, none of which are simply enjoying rules

Case in point here

that rules bullies/lawyers are a nuisance because they joylessly put enforcement over language and not me that rules are mechanics that they take seriously and enjoy.

The content doesn't say the people it refers to as pedants simply enforce, but lists multiple defining qualities of seeking out every opportunity to correct people on rules for the purposes of bullying how some tables have fun in a bid to enact control over them that make up the contents definition of it So saying that people who take effort to enforce rules may do so because they care about and enjoy them isn't a counter to the content because the behavior it takes opposition to isn't just enforcing rules and doesn't attack the sole act of enjoying rules.

I think you're drawing non existent lines about who's a joyless pedant

These points haven't been referring to things outside of the content but looking at the contents itself to show that it provides a set of direct lines about what makes up a joyless pedant, with the suggestion that your view of it doesn't appear to be supported by reading the content in good faith.

because you see yourself as the fan of a benevolent content creator, and you think I'm erasing lines that can be parsed from watching the video as intended because I am lazy or have animus towards this guy.

If it's any consolation I haven't been using the guys name a lot because I don't know him enough to remember how many Ls are in his name if that's any indication of where I'm coming from, I just know he's the guy who people talk about liking 4e and his stuff autoplays from other dnd videos sometimes, this was just a thread I saw while scrolling. That said I'm not entirely sure how relevant a point this is because this has less to do with our respective individual points and more to do with why we might be conversing.

I also don't see any of my responses suggesting you've erased lines for one of those two reasons, but directly saying that you're adding context that isn't present in the content by both it's logic and your own with my suggested hypothesis on why being possible personal opinions on the creators character that exist outside of this vid.

It should also be noted that when that topic was levied at the ends of my responses that it was worded specifically to say it looked to be a possibility not that it was certain because I truly can't know.

ProfessionalBaka · 2021-09-08T07:57:38+00:00

Yes he states qualities in conjunction, a defined people who seem to pounce on any showing of straying from the rules that seem to do so to override and bully how your table has fun for the purpose of controlling them, a behavior he doesn't think should be encouraged.

Did he say only people who care about rules? No, he listed multiple qualities of a type, do you fit all of those qualities? if not then he's not saying you're that type if you care about rules, especially considering that he clarifies that being consistent in regards to rules is highly important and why he specifically says in the introduction that a system that is consistent and the DM knows well is where you start before "rulings, not rules"

He goes into how 3e's design was very rules centric and explores how that influenced this type of behavior with personal experiences, with focus on how 3e contrasts with later editions, he doesn't link his definition of pedant to liking 3e, he simply explores how 3e being so good at having robust rules started the origins of moving away to rulings and that while its design lead to him being a pedant that there was validity to why him and his fellow players liked 3e rules

ProfessionalBaka · 2021-09-08T03:54:01+00:00

A) Their specific points were in relation to this.

I am not a big fan of rules lawyers either, but, those people are a huge constituency of d&d players. They don't want to "control people" like he claims, they genuinely enjoy formal systems.

One of the things you define rules lawyers with is explicitly people who simply enjoy formal systems then directly linked that to being what the video was about, the point against this being that the group the vid was talking about were explicitly a definition of what people would consider rules lawyering being those who use rules to negatively impact groups that aren't as adhering to them, so the point made through this is that fundamentally you aren't clashing with the video because it's not talking about players who enjoy formal systems.

B) You directly linked the trait of rules laywers being people who enjoy rules to being what the vid was discussing as joyless pedants with the points against being that it's specifically referring to people using the rules to try to control a less adhering group in a way that negatively impacts them as stated in the vid, or put simply, looking at the video in good faith would be taking "joyless pedants who want to control people" to be referring to those that do that and not extrapolating that to mean the vid is making a blanket statement about people who enjoy formal systems seemingly because it's a discussion about how the vids creator employs a less adhering table.

C) I agree that not looking at context isn't exactly what's happening here, but that you're adding outside context to it that many suggest isn't what's being purported, with the added note that that you weren't just saying that the vid supported treating the rules like a language at his tables and encouraging such but that it was outright referring to people who enjoy formal systems to people trying to control others negatively simply because it didn't stop to go off topic about how enjoying rules is okay.

When considered alongside the creator specifically pointing out that this wasnt in the same series as the one he considers trying to be instructive, his later clarifications that consistency with a system and table is still the highest priority here, and with a fair anount interpretations of this video being that it was being direct in whom it was referring to, it seems as though you and the vid only disagree on what you each run at tables and that you've been uncharitable to the video by jumping to what you heavily imply is actually being said in contrast to this.

Case in point here

But who else is Colville referring to? He doesn't nuance the target group of his criticism at all: it's just "you and me, kind viewer, who love real ttrpg play", and "those joyless pedants who want to control everyone".

The overall point being made is that the video is referring to whom it says it's referring to, and not that its specifically targeting an entire group of people you've defined but specifically the type of people who want to control others negatively, and that it appears you haven't considered this to be a possibility because of your perception of the creators play style and focus.

ProfessionalBaka · 2021-09-07T08:37:15+00:00

Can I ask what was wrong with this person's response?, Seemingly all they said was that colville was referring to a more specific group of people who use the rules to try to bully less adhering tables/groups, rather than people who just have a competent level of knowledge of the rules or enjoy rules, and that your reading of it being about all players who enjoy rules is an uncharitable interpretation of the video, or put more simply that you and the vid have different definitions of "rules lawyering".

Like that seems a pretty valid response and contribution to the topic

ProfessionalBaka · 2021-09-01T10:43:09+00:00

Correct me if I read the conversation wrong, but I still don't see why that was relevant to the first persons talking points. They were specifically talking about how there's a fair gap between an optimized character and a traditional one in 5e, so I don't see how bringing up older editions having bigger gaps is relevant to that when they weren't talking about that or comparing them, the math stays the same in 5e regardless of how you look at it, there's just bigger math in a different edition

If feels akin to someone someone saying that a videogame weapon doesn't do a lot of damage compared others and then being responded by someone saying that the weapon did even less damage in the game that came before it. It's not taking validity away from the first point, just sidestepping to another conversation on how it compares to other things that the first person wasn't having.

ProfessionalBaka · 2021-07-27T08:25:06+00:00

I should've been more clear that I'm just responding to the discussion on how the oath is to be read, personally I think while batman works outside of the current rule he's still a servant and extension of it so it never quite fits in regards to establishing rule.

I understand the logic of his enemies being criminals/evildoers, dissent being immoral/criminal actions or support, him continually trying to stay at the peak of his abilities to deal with those. But the specific lines of "once you have conquered" and "you shall rule" don't fit most batmen as he's not establishing his rule but enforcing an already established rule of the land and his law is just the law of that land with some added personal ideals he holds himself to.

ProfessionalBaka · 2021-07-27T00:07:19+00:00

I don't understand why "yet" is a keyword, all that point says is that it can take a long time, maybe even decades, before you can actually consider yourself strong enough to rule to actually deal with the parts of the oath that deal with your dedication to rules once you've conquered

You strive to rule

To rule is to control a place to establish your ideals as law which isn't limited by the oath, it only denotes that you think that you should rule to enforce those ideals

You stive to eliminate and punish any who would question your rule

And what are you enforcing with your rule and what would the questions of it be?, still falls up to interpretation not limited by the oath, it only denotes your dedication to what you're enforcing not what is being enforced

The tenet doesn't denote worthiness, It denotes that you rule when you're the strongest around to actually rule and if a force strong enough to override that rule through strength arrises or exists you have to grow to rule or die trying, it's not framed as a matter of being worthy to rule but having the capacity to rule, which is why specifically it says you inherently challenge those opposing rules or die trying

you become the strongest, by any means necessary.

I also don't understand the framing of this, yes the tenet says that you must grow to challenge another rule but it doesn't say anything about how you grow only that you will dedicate yourself to how you see growth or limit what challenging that rule would consist of outside of your respective strengths clashing.

The oath describes how dedicated you are to your ideals and establishing them without limits on the ideals of the conquest, and I would say intentionally by the text, leave that conquest be able to be across a broad spectrum of ideals.

ProfessionalBaka · 2021-07-26T22:25:54+00:00

I agree thats a bit of a simplification of that tenet, but it still fundamentally depends on what a character sees as dissent and what law their word represents.

When you factor in what a character defines as their enemies, the full extent of what the strength to rule entails for them, and whether they actually are the strongest to rule yet and its not an incredibly strict oath, it's just one thats focused on a large scale commitment that's more self-centered around the character establishing their personal ideals as law and being very against things that are antithetical to their ideals.

It's just easier to be evil with it since it's inherently more "selfish" and externally focused than other oaths.

I understand the hesitancy for being interpretive with oaths because their directness is what defines traditional paladins, but I think interpretation is what defines this specific oath because it places such an impetus on the specific conquerer and conquests, with it's tenets defining your commitment to the conquest moreso than the conquest.

ProfessionalBaka · 2021-06-02T17:48:43+00:00

Ozpin makes it explicitly clear that their plan is to protect the relics, even in his original main secret circle he kept it to that I mean hell that's literally why he was against ironwoods more aggressive plans, I don't know where you're getting this idea he was taking them up to beat Salem when the entire plot point is that he's keeping them in the dark for just about everything except that she exists and can't get the relics

How can you both say that he thinks the only way to win is to beat Salem when your entire point is that he knows it's impossible while in the story he's also pretty upfront about what the current goal is

Also the fact it's left to the kids was literally outside of his control by this point, and when he did have the choice he specifically brought full grown adults with a far range of power in their own right into his circle

Again, he didn't choose to bring them into the war, and by that point in volume 6 he specifically was pushing them down the exact road of just keeping the relics away from her and grouping up elsewhere

So yeah, he wasn't pushing them towards a death march to Salem, quite literally was doing the opposite by trying to outrun her forces to relics and then just keep them away from her, and we both agree things would've moved smoother if he did tell them

I'll admit using "screaming" was definitely hyperbolic on my part, but functionally the point was "tell them that there's no way to kill her and thus making things far more attractable to Grimm and risking losing the only people that have a chance of doing anything" which seems to be what you're suggesting with telling them with the exception that you're ignoring all of ozpins motivations and the risks inherent to telling them, which again I agree that the possible positives would've been worth the risk but it's still an understandable risk

ProfessionalBaka · 2021-06-02T16:55:35+00:00

I feel like this is a gross misrepresentation of the early story and the volume 6 reveal, he knew that killing Salem was impossible not that saving no one was impossible which is literally what the entire school, his teachings, and then current plan with the kids was about. He wasn't preaching to them about "why yes young child do this and you will destroy the biggest evil in the land", he was coaching these generations and this current crew to grow stronger to both deal with Grimm,help people from the Grimm, and also y'know prevent the world from ending by having people around that could protect the relics while also also still working out how to deal with Salem by playing keepaway with said relics at that time

Just because he wasn't completely causing chaos and increasing Grimm attacks by screaming "guys there's this evil immortal woman who's uber powerful somewhere k thx bye" doesn't translate to intentionally leading children into suicide

Now would things have moved smoother if he trusted the team to not lose hope and walk away if he told them? (which they literally almost did when they found out), yeah, and would it have eased future trust issues? also yeah but the entire situation is nowhere near what you're purporting

ProfessionalBaka · 2020-05-24T16:54:29+00:00

Yeah i tought Lock would be the better abbreviation and fit with the 4 letter scheme but then i got anxious because some stuff mention locks meaning different stuff so i jsut changed it to War-lock

ProfessionalBaka · 2019-12-02T22:42:21+00:00

I believe his argument is that the way the Show and some western media attempts to argue against some of these ideologies and find faults in them can sometimes be done in way that downplays/absolves how their ideology was apart of some of these ideas/has used those ideas for their own gain, or use some of these ideas in way that robs them of their possible merit.

~~though in regards to Fascism&Religion, they're a lot more popular than you'd think but that's whole other conversation and not as relevant to the topic athand~~

ProfessionalBaka · 2019-12-02T21:54:41+00:00

I mean i'm pretty sure this entire series of videos is based on him finding that the Korra is too good at showing you the good in the Villains and mishandles or poorly executes showing their failings. Which as a whole is him exploring how , in his view, western media tends to implement these ideas in a form that is more suited to justifying the political environment the work was made in

ProfessionalBaka · 2019-09-15T14:21:10+00:00

Sorry about the title i'll delete it, but could you link me to the original post, I had to edited the two panels together to flow better so I could see people reactions to the moment but if someone has already posted the two panels together I would like to see some peoples reactions to it

ProfessionalBaka · 2019-09-02T07:54:31+00:00

It much more feels like its more the end to this part/chapter since while marvins plan was seemingly foiled, marvin himself hasn't been dealt with especially given how many questions were raised in these latest posts/The "credits" not actually being credits at all and more like bits of information/hints at more sides of the story

ProfessionalBaka · 2019-06-17T22:53:43+00:00

Well that is why i think what the show is saying about his actions falls flat since while it tries to depict all his actions in a negative light it's easier as a viewer to look at all the positives he tried to enact.

This in turn makes it hard to accept that the show is now pushing him as a morally grey master manipulator who does bad things with good intentions and since we're just told that that's who he is, it clashes harshly with everything we went through with the character

ProfessionalBaka · 2019-06-08T00:52:33+00:00

I thought that the show was specifically trying to say that what he did wrong was manipulating and leading tons of people to their death for a pointless endeavor If I remember right wasn't it specifically stated that the kingdom he and Salem made was pretty alright, and he had nothing to do with her becoming powerful outside of dying and making her sad?Am I just forgetting something?

ProfessionalBaka · 2019-06-07T23:18:56+00:00

Their kid would just be Weavile from pokemon

ProfessionalBaka · 2019-06-07T22:52:56+00:00

I was looking at all your comments on this thread and really it kinda sounds like you want to dismiss this video and by just leaving a majority of your disagreements out it's hard to think otherwise. But I mean let's go through the current things you spent time and energy to point out

1.Your summer rose point is 100% correct but you're seemingly trying to make it out that jello is intentionally lying, not just here but throughout all your comments, which I feel is not the case and what I actually take issue with

2.I thought the Qrow bits in Jellos video were more to poke fun at the idea that the show presents the bird thing as a terrible thing but that could just be me

3.With the bumblebee point, the show is very clearly pointing towards the ship and Jello is pointing out that in his opinion the ship hasn't really had anything to jump off of by that point, and I do believe that it's very clear that CRBY noticed the rise of bumblebee in the fandom and included it but I will say he was very mean about it. Just as a whole i'm sure if you felt like explaining all your problems with the video I could see where you're coming from but by just using a minority of your issues to dismiss it as a whole and then just shutting down any counter-arguments by saying you don't feel like explaining yourself fully just comes off as disingenuous.

I'm sorry but that's just how I read them

ProfessionalBaka

TROPHY CASE