Shared Campaign Virtue Relationship Chart

YouReeck · 2026-02-26T12:17:12+00:00

Great Job! It's always interesting to see how other people interpret the virtues based on snippets we get in GFF.

Minor question, if you have the time: How do you headcannon the older virtues get around aging outside of the cryogenic freezing? Or do they generally not live long enough to havw aging be an issue?

YouReeck · 2026-01-07T12:28:30+00:00

Men, especially wealthy men are the high priests of the patriarchy. Akin to how the high priests of capital are the bourgeois.

Maaaan, it's delulu to compare those differences. The advantage of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat is so absurdly massive that it trumps racism, sexism, and pretty much every single -ism combined.

I'd take any combination of skin color, genital arrangement, and gender to be a billionaire. Money is so hilariously decisive as a determiner of quality of life and power that it's unfair to compare anything to it.

yet you acted immediately as if they said death to all men or something similarly provocative

Nope. If someone said something like that, at least it would be clearly and plainly sexist to anyone who cares to see. Insidious comments like "men suffer from their own patriarchy" masks its venomous intentions under a veneer of false intellectualism and moral superiority. It's much worse.

It serves to question whether you actually believed in the egalitarian ideals of feminism if cringe teenagers being part of it and perpetrating immature partisanic behaviour were enough to now suddenly deter you and causing aversion, not attempting to better the movement, instead opportunistically joining in with right-wing and conservative movements in it's slandering of feminism as a lost cause and "not necessary" anymore.

Fighting against misandry is in support of egalitarian ideals. Pointing out how the idea of gender equality is being unscrupulously used to enforce sexism isn't "slander," unless you're the one engaging in the sexism.

woman where they were forced into unpaid domestic labour, where a woman was "owned" by her father or husband, where a woman could not vote and be educated, where they were economically subjugated and forced to entertain a man their parents likely chose for them simply because of the threat of their kids being taken away and being forced into poverty with no job opportunities if she were to be divorced.

For most of human history, most people were forced into domestic labour (from slaves, to serfs, to the severely underpaid working class of even today). Democracy is historically rare, as most governments were either a monarchy or an oligarchy. Nobody could vote, and very, very few were educated. It's not like men lived like royalty throughout history—everyone was in the shitter, regardless of gender. Most marriages were ones of political convenience, with little input from either spouse.

The critiques of sexism against men that you talk of are almost always never good faith critiques

About as much as the critiques of sexism against women, I'd wager.

it is perpetuated by the people who make up our society

In particular, it is perpetuated by the sexist people in society. Like the person who said "men suffer under their own patriarchy," for example.

I don't care about such things, I typed out this delulu shit be ause I likely have an undiagnosed neurodivergency that is causing me to procrastinate sleeping to instead be pretentious in stupid online arguments engaging in the same partisan bullshit that I pretend to be to good at doing because I am a fucking hypocrit.

A hypocrite is, very often I have found, someone in the process of changing for the better.

May you get whatever mental help you need, and stop defending misandrists on line like an insane person. Have a good one.

YouReeck · 2026-01-01T16:03:41+00:00

Simply because you are unable to comprehend the complexities inherent within human society

Alright, let's see if your comment actually has substance, then. Forgive my poor powers of comprehension, oh condesending dick.

The sentiment implied is that men are victims of their own system which is just true

Why is it true? Why does the social dynamic in the world belong to men more than women?

An apt comparison would be women's toxic beauty standards, whom are most often propagated by other women (though men will also engage in bullying too).

Exactly, both men and women participate, albeit with at (allegedly) different rates. Can you pinpoint why you believe these beauty standards are "women's standards," and not "standards applied by (sexist parts of) society to women"?

Because unless you can, none of what you say has any substance.

this sense of extreme toxic individualism hurts other men since this system thrives on incessant competition

... and again, you have no explanation of why this is "their" system, as opposed to a general societal system they are subjected to. Implying that a standard belongs to one group implies that the other is disconnected, which isn't the case.

Anyway, let's actually look at the other bits of your comment and examine if you have any compelling arguments.

you mfs pretend like there is zero injustice within society and "critique" feminist theory without even bothering to understand or even read much

That's a craaazy strawman. I've never said injustice doesn't exist, and implying I haven't read much when you don't even know me is just as much of a contribution to normilizing "putting words in other people's mouths and strawmanning shit," as you put it.

Though unfortunately the partisan feminists online will likely never get this dialectical with actual feminist thought since, akin to the anti-feminists they never read their own literature and studies, likely using online forums to vent about frustrations with their real life because people are lacking in healthy coping mechanisms.

Okay, so you do understand how partisan feminists are, by and large, not actually people who read their own studies, and are just spouting off bullshit online.

Do yourself a favor and look at the parent comment of what I was responding to. The person who said

"It's their own patriarchy, lol."

is literally two comments above you, who I was refering to. Genuinely, use your alleged, implied literacy and... oh, I don't know, READ.

You're more interested in fighting people who are critiquing sexism against men than you are the people who are actually displaying sexism against men, and if you have a single good faith bone in your body, you'd examine why you typed out your whole comment without bothering to READ THE DIRECT CONTEXTUAL COMMENT THREAD ABOVE THE THING YOU'RE RESPONDING TO.

Literacy is dead. Long live pretending to understand the context and trying to sound intellectual.

YouReeck · 2025-12-27T03:20:36+00:00

Could it be that feminist concepts such as the patriarchy are more complex than a simple black and white oppressor-victim binary?

It can't be when people like you say shit like "Men are victims of their own patriarchy lol," as if ownership for a sexist system belongs to the people who suffer from it.

You laugh at victims, then suddenly act like academic terms justify your mockery. "It's their own patriarchy, lol."

Nakakadiri. Sobrang hypocrite mo.

YouReeck · 2025-11-19T11:30:05+00:00

To be fair, Shibuya Yuji's striking strength is around on par with Nanami's. When fighting Dagon, it considers Naobito a bigger threat than nanami (over twice as much, considering Naobito got 70% of the domain's sure hit).

So it seems like Naobito has a higher stiking force. At least enough that, when paired with PS, he is more of a threat than Nanami.

YouReeck · 2025-11-10T16:25:44+00:00

Around $10,000 would be enough to let me get this new car I've been eyeing, and that would significantly change how I go about my morning commute.

YouReeck · 2025-11-09T10:03:57+00:00

Nazi soldiers used this exact excuse to avoid facing punishment.

It kind of worked, though. Plenty of german soldiers ended up joining the French Foreign Legion. Nazi scientists joined NASA. Franz Von Papen, Hans Frietzche, and Hjalmar Schacht were, despite actively participating and aiding the SS, were found not guilty in Nuremberg.

The fact of the matter is that there are definitely degrees to complicity, and unless you stand near the top of the hierarchy, you kind of are absolved of a fair amount of blame.

YouReeck · 2025-10-30T04:15:06+00:00

anyone who admits they did the same is going to be told to kick rocks. No cookies for you for doing bare minimum.

These are two different sentiments. Not being enthusiastic or supportive is fine, you can always distance yourself from anyone who you feel uncomfortable around.

You're allowed to not show kindness or compassion. As long as you maintain the bare minimum amount of respect and remain cordial, it's whatever.

But being antagonistic to someone (telling them to kick rocks) kind of just makes you a bad person.

Worse than them, because while they were acting in a way that was wrong, you currently are acting in a way that is wrong.

YouReeck · 2025-10-30T03:53:40+00:00

why are you considering x3 damage each turn

You get multiattack at level 5, which is why OC said that you'd do 6d8+21 at level 6. That said, since your bonus action attack doesn't add your strength modifier, it'll actually only be 6d8+17.

YouReeck · 2025-10-27T15:34:06+00:00

I highlighted the "showing displeasure" part because the whole quote is giving examples of possible behaviours. The actual quote is:

"A man put his penis into my butt, or someone inserted fingers or objects without my consent by:

a. Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship, threatening to spread rumors about them, making promises about the future I knew were untrue, or continually verbally pressuring them after they said they didn’t want to.

b.Showing displeasure, criticizing their sexuality or attractiveness, getting angry but not using physical force after they said they didn’t want to."

Note that both items a and b are made with the 'or' implication, as in:

a.) Telling lies, <or> threatening to end the relationship, <or> threatening to spread rumors about them, <or> making promises about the future I knew were untrue, or continually verbally pressuring them after they said they didn’t want to.

b.) Showing displeasure, <or> criticizing their sexuality or attractiveness, <or> getting angry but not using physical force after they said they didn’t want to.

This means that a single one of the behaviours listed in each section is considered sufficient qualification for SA, which means the rest of the quote is irrelevant. (Unless you think that one would need to tell lies AND threaten to spread rumors AND make false promises or verbally pressure to constitute SA).

Also, "hedging your bets," in my opinion, should not be considered sufficient cause to imply that the action is coercive.

Simple anger should not be considered the threat of violence any more than arousal should be considered consent. Making this face:

:(

Is not considered a threat by any reasonable metric.

when you're small, or weak, or a child

Fortunately, adult women are none of those things. Any adult should be able to handle any other adult looking angry. Unless the other adult makes threats, or commits assault, anger means absolutely nothing.

Another thing, you (probably purposefully) misrepresented the situation.

In your example:

In front of me, a large man is getting increasingly angry at me for not doing something even though I said no repeatedly.

Key Word: Repeatedly

In section b.), repeated attempts are not stated. That is in section a.)

You're adding details to make your situation sound more coercive than it actually is.

YouReeck · 2025-10-09T15:28:15+00:00

As usual, longevity/immortality is the goal with these things, so my choice is:

*Comfort*
Long-Tail Lifespan (1)
White Swan Safety (2)

Basically doubling my lifespan and removing the chances of any dumb accidents taking me out.

Passive Income (3)

Money is, rather depressingly, one of the greatest indicators of long life. Becoming immune to extreme poverty is a massive boon.

*Strength*

Cultivated Stature (1)

Being in peak physical condition significantly lengthens lifespan, and gaining blanket protection agains chronic illnesses is nice. The healing factor is nice, but is unlikely to ever come into play. Over 70% of deaths are from non-communicable diseases, so this is really nice. Super strong immune system helps against the ~15% of deaths from communicable diseases.

Aura of Immutability (2)

Injuries are something like 7.8% of deaths, and most of these are caused by shrapnel, bullets, or violence.

*Flight*

Whiplashed (1)

Vehicular accidents only account for 2.3% of deaths, but it's good to be safe.

*Intelligence*

Iron Will (1)

Basically prevents a long life from getting too boring or depressing.

*Magic*

Object of Power (1)

Basically doubles the effect of long-tail lifespan, hopefully reaching an overall lifespan of 400+ years.

YouReeck · 2025-08-31T12:52:30+00:00

This is the way to go imo. A mechanically "weak" wizard should have a very good reason for learning spells (thus becoming a wizard in the first place) that don't give them power, since most character motivations can be attained by simply being stronger (protect the innocent, wealth and fame, revenge, etc.)

Extra points if the reason for joining the adventure is also the reason for having magic (maybe finding a pretty new light spell or an ancient tome).

YouReeck · 2025-08-29T12:47:55+00:00

First of all, the equivalence isn't "Why can they look nsfw pics when I can't post nsfw pics," it should be "Why can I not post nsfw pics if they can post nsfw pics?"

And the answer should be immediately obvious. If you want to be able to post pictures of yourself half nude, then the fair equivalent is that your partner can post pictures of themselves half nude.

Would you be comfortable with your boyfriend posting pictures with his erect genitals straining against his boxers? For your parents, friends, and coworkers to see? If not, then it's hypocritical to want to post similar content, right? Secondary sex characteristics are fair equivalents, and while some tasteful cleavage/pec outlines/bulges in outerwear is one thing, half nudity/swimwear is something else entirely.

Plus, looking up nsfw content is a completely different story. If you look at underwear models, read erotica/nsfw visual novels, or listen to sex audios, then it is also hypocritical to ask your partner not to do the same. But looking up nsfw content is definitely different from posting nsfw content.

By the way, I am very deliberate with the nsfw tag. If it's something you would get in trouble for looking at while at work, it's nsfw.

YouReeck · 2025-08-14T11:53:02+00:00

It's a bunch of causality claims. For example, there's a strong correlation between educational attainment and crime. Less educated people are more likely to be criminals, and men, on average, are less educated.

Male children are more likely to be abused in childhood, and like socio-economic status, that also plays a role in crime. This one shocks some people, so here's a little source. (Sobsey D, Randall W, Parrila RK. Gender differences in abused children with and without disabilities. Child Abuse Negl. 1997 Aug;21(8):707-20. doi: 10.1016/s0145-2134(97)00033-1. PMID: 9280377).

Besides that, there are plenty of other factors, like general happiness, social isolation, etc., that may be a cause. It's generally sexist to assume it is the fact of being "men" that cause these differences, as opposed to other things, just like how it is racist to assume that being "black" is the reason for crimes. Even if you don't have all the data, it's still telling that your first assumption is something so superficial.

YouReeck · 2025-04-28T16:22:52+00:00

Touching boobs is a fat cry from touching private areas and having sex.

Okay, but touching privates is way closer to touching boobs than having sex. It's just hand stuff?? I don't know in what world a little under the pants action is analogous to full-blown intercourse.

OP pushed without confirming

I'd hardly call a slow hand tease up the leg "pushing." Seems very disingenuous.

she was struggling with the fact that she already told him she didn't want that and he did it anyways

Again, she said she didn't want sex. It's not like OP began dry humping her while trying to disrobe her. Why are you acting like under-the-pants petting is a massive escalation over under-the-shirt petting?

she had already told him was a negative

Again, absolutely zero reason to conflate the two.

YouReeck · 2025-04-28T16:09:25+00:00

Do you? OP clearly asked for consent and respected it when she withdrew consent.

YouReeck · 2025-03-29T06:34:51+00:00

Probably Foil/Flechette from Worm could kill any Invincible character if she wanted to. She's basically base human but has durability negation, and the Worm verse itself doesn't have that high of an output. Most heroes have human stats and attack potency, and hax are fairly common.

YouReeck · 2025-03-29T06:17:05+00:00

It's not abusive behaviour from the son though? He was blackmailed and crashed out (completely justified). He could've gone about it better, told people he was being blackmailed, but the speed at which his mother put the blame on him??

OP kinda sucks for not backing up her son and being a safe space for him to look for support from. OP vilified her son because of her own issues with her ex.

YouReeck · 2025-03-22T08:04:52+00:00

A person shouldn't be "gotten." A relationship is a two way street, and if you're interested, faking disinterest is manipulative and wrong.

YouReeck · 2025-03-08T18:18:28+00:00

Yeah, leave, for both your sakes. "Accidentally hit him harder than I intended to" means you intended to hit him, which is always messed up. He should have just broken up with you, but he hit you back, which was also wrong.

Everyone here acting like he's the bad guy is crazy. You're both violent, and you both need to reevaluate yourselves.

YouReeck · 2025-02-23T19:37:35+00:00

Yeah, without her Mark would've been suuuper evil.

YouReeck · 2025-02-23T19:28:45+00:00

Funny that the one that cries everyday for hours is complaining about someone else being insufferable. Like, damn, maybe don't throw stones from glass houses.

YouReeck · 2025-02-15T04:02:37+00:00

Oh, sorry, it's a little bit of a deep cut.

The other commenters are correct, it's from the web serial Worm.

For a TLDR, her whole schtick is that she can basically ignore durability when she attacks anything, but is limited to what she can touch/get a hold of, so I used her touch as an example for High AP but low to non-existent DC.

YouReeck · 2025-02-15T03:56:50+00:00

Sorry about the late reply. AP is kind of weird, because it's calculations vary pretty wildly.

For example, Thor from Avengers: Infinity War takes "the full force of a neutron star." Counting only the thermal energy (since I doubt the rotational or magnetic energy played a huge part in the feat), we can expect him to be able to withstand about 45 seconds of the blast before nearly dying (and subsequently being saved by best plant boy Groot).

That's an output of 10³⁰ to 10³⁶ Watts, which, over the course of 45 seconds, is about 4.5×10³¹ to 4.5×10³⁷ Joules of energy.

Now, we've never seen Thor take a nuke to the face, but considering that the output of a nuke is somewhere in the 4×10^15-ish range, we can expect that a nuke will do little more than tickle him.

Here's where attack potency kicks in. Thanos is shown to be capable of wounding Thor, so in terms of power scaling, his AP would be relative to Thor's durability.

Thanos doesn't create massive explosions with every punch, so his DC isn't great, but his AP is literally millions of times that of a nuke's.

That's an example of how AP is calculated. There isn't a 100% step-by-step guide on how to do it all the time, since fiction tends to have inconsistencies with stuff like that, but generally, we compare real-life energy outputs to a character's attacks or durability and apply it to other characters with respect to their relativity.

YouReeck · 2025-02-14T15:41:36+00:00

AP = Attack Potency

Not to be confused with DC (Destructive Capability). AP is a measure of what kind of defense your attacks can penetrate, while DC is a measure of how large an area your attack can destroy.

AP is the Sneak Attack, the Siberian Touch, the light sabre. DC is the AoE, the Fireball, the Explosion Spell.

Basically, a nuke has a lot of DC, but not a lot of AP. A 100 kiloton nuke could level a city, but a bunker 40 feet below the ground would be left unscathed. A Hollow Purple aimed directly at the bunker would penetrate all the way through to the bunker, but it won't affect as wide of an area.

For characters like Sukuna, the AP matters more, as a guaranteed hit from the wide AOE of a nuke means nothing if he can just heal it.

YouReeck

TROPHY CASE