Nightmask wrote: Pepsi Jedi wrote:Nightmask wrote:Oh but that's just so wrong on so many levels, from misrepresenting the pacifist as a coward cowering in the corner (and Gandhi himself clearly stated that pacifism is the opposite of cowardous and felt violence was acceptable to cowardly behavior)
So? Lots of people that refuse to fight say they're braver than those that do. That's some serious 'sour grapes' sort of thing man. Hate to break it to you but MOST people too afraid to fight, aren't brave. Does it sometimes take a more mature person to walk away from a fight? yes. Does that mean all people refusing to fight are brave? no. Most times you're just too scared.
Did I represent the pacifist as cowering in a corner. Yes. Do they all? no. Some just stand there.
You've got to be insisting on that just to great conflict, I can't imagine anyone honestly believing such ridiculous stuff.
Really? You honestly think everyone that refuses to fight are some how braver than those that do? And all of them are doing so our of a sense of hightened morality, and not fear of getting their butt kicked? You must live in a "Perfect world"
I live on Earth.
Nightmask wrote: The pacifist and coward have NOTHING in common,
Neither will fight. That's something. Something big.
Nightmask wrote: and the pacifist NEVER speaks to his choices as bravery,
Why not? you've already stipulated that the pacifist think's he's better than others and looks down on them. Where's he getting this nice guy stuff you're pulling out now?
Nightmask wrote: that's other people telling them how brave they were.
Brave not to fight? Who said this?
Nightmask wrote: The pacifist simply stands by his convictions, its others who call them brave.
To be more accurate, the pacifist simply stands..... and again, who's calling him brave for not fighting? Standing by one's convictions is great. Till it hurts others.
Nightmask wrote: Only a nut would call those brave pacifists in WWII cowards after wading through withering enemy fire to rescue injured soldiers, and more doing it to mock someone with far greater bravery than they could ever hope for.
Dude.. what do you think was happening out there? Do you think people got put into the med corps just for claiming pacifisim? Being a medic does not mean you're a pacifist. You're equating one to the other. It's simply not true. Medics fight too.
Nightmask wrote: That's often why people tear down others like that, because they feel they can't live up to it and must tear them down for the sake of their ego.
I'm not tearing down doctors and medics. I just don't automatically equate them to being pacifists. Far from it. That's a FALSE and ARTIFICIAL Linking you're making.
Nightmask wrote: Pepsi Jedi wrote:Nightmask wrote: to rating everything he's done before that point as meaningless and without value because he didn't go punching on some villain that they'd have never reached the point of fighting in the first place without his non-violent help.
I'm not saying it's meaningless. I'm saying it's all to a point. The point is to capture or stop the Super Villain. The Super Villain isn't going to get talked out of Super Villainy. It's going to take force. Force is somthing the Pacifist can't do, by it's nature.
No, it's to protect and help others, sometimes that involves stopping a villain.
So, you're saying that the point is to protect others and let the villain go? Interesting... can't he hurt other victims then? And your pacifist be responsible for their pain?
Nightmask wrote: There's nothing about being able to use force that makes one somehow superior to those that don't,
Lets see here.
1) Pacifist... can't stop the villain because the villain laughs at him when the pacifists asks him to stop. Or tells him to stop.. Or..... 2) Non pacifist, whom can, if needed, stop the villain from doing villainous things, through the use of force.....
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Yep. That's something that makes um superior. Your pacifist can't do anything but ask. Everyone else can do more than ask. Thus, the inferiority.
Nightmask wrote: and too much insistence on that just comes off as sour grapes looking to tear down people who somehow manage to save the day without having to hurt someone.
How you going to do it Nightmask? The 'Forcefield' techniquic someone brought up above? Sure that works once. Maybe twice. But as also pointed out above your enemies learn real quick how to get around that one. So other than a 'one trick pony' how are you going to 'Some how manage to save the day with out having to hurt someone" when you're playing in a super powered game? Again, the Villains don't stop just for the asking.
Nightmask wrote: Pepsi Jedi wrote:Nightmask wrote:Pepsi Jedi wrote:At the end of the day though, Dr Evil has to get taken out. And if you're playing a true pacifist (( not just a wuss. There is a difference)) that means you'll take no action which would bring harm to someone, and yes, that includes telling your buddies where Dr Evil is gonna be if you know they're going to go engage in violence. A true pacifist doesn't split hairs. He doesn't go "I won't hurt him, but guys beat him till he talks" That sort of mentality would be repugnant to the true pacifist. They wouldn't buddy up with violent people because it would be directly at odds with what they believe. It'd be like a Catholic priest hanging out at a human sacrifice of some sort of demon cult because 'Hey, I'm not killin' the innocent virgin. Someone else is. That's their sin".
Sorry but that's wrong.
Sorry but it's not. You are not describing pacifists.
No, you're the one not describing pacifists, you've got them confused with cowards who're afraid to be hurt or killed. Pacifists don't fit that definition.
Some do. You're describing "Contingent pacifism" Pacifisim with.... you know. Exceptions. Contingent pacifists may accept the permissibility or even necessity of war in some circumstances and reject it in others, while absolute pacifists will always and everywhere reject war and violence.
And as I pointed out before. That's not the same thing as Absolute pacifists. Being a contingent pacifist is like being a Vegetarian that doesn't eat any meat except for beef. Meaning.. you're not a Vegetarian at all... and if you're a pacifist that believes in pacifism, except when YOU want to beat up someone. You're not a Pacifist.
Nightmask wrote: Pepsi Jedi wrote:Nightmask wrote: Plenty of true pacifists have died in WWII, Vietnam, and during the Korean conflict because while they felt it was wrong for them to harm others they weren't entitled to hinder others and lead them to harm because of their actions.
That's not a pacifist. That's a conscientious objector. A 'True pacifist" would refuse to harm others, and take their jail time. Again, you're not describing a true pacifist. you're describing someone reluctant to do stuff but DOES.
No, again YOU keep describing what a pacifist is wrongly. I mean seriously it's laughable how you keep misrepresenting things. Some of those pacifists did get jail time, others the military used as throwaway human beings considering their lives as worthless because they wouldn't kill and felt them cowards. Yet those so-called cowards were out there loading up on medals for bravery above and beyond the call going into the most dangerous situations to rescue their fellow soldiers.
Cite your source? Prove it?
Nightmask wrote: Because you'd have to be completely blind or trolling to insist that a pacifist would leave all those wounded soldiers to die because 'oh no I can't harm others so I'll just stand here doing nothing!'. Yeah that's just complete nonsense. That pacifist is right out there because he's harming his fellow man by not acting and helping him out when he's in need.
That's part of my point as to their participation in superteams. You can't get it both ways Nightmask.
Nightmask wrote: Pepsi Jedi wrote:Nightmask wrote:Not warning your teammates where the villain is at is not what a pacifist is going to do because he will be causing harm to others by actively helping the villain remain free.
So your idea of pacifism says it's ok to be violent to some people?
Pacifism isn't a single set of rules, and people disagree on what constitutes a true pacifist. Not all pacifists are completely unwilling to fight, but some refuse all forms of violence including that required to defend others.
So we're back to the vegetarians that eat hamburger...... they claim to be something, except for somthing that totally disqualifies them for what they claim to be. *nods*
Nightmask wrote: Pepsi Jedi wrote:Nightmask wrote:Pacifist heroes have no problems working front line (certainly those medics and rescue copter personnel used as cannon fodder in the past US wars, put there by contemptuous officers died valiantly saving wounded soldiers and earned many awards for bravery as a result). They've braved the same threats as everyone else out there and deserve nothing but praise for their heroism instead of dismissing it as 'well they wouldn't kill so they were just worthless'.
BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIG DIFFERENCE here Nighty. Those medics and chopper personnel LAY DOWN FIRE. They shoot back. They are troops. They fight. They fight right up till they needs to be medics and often DURING. Being a medic doesn't make you a Pacifist. Stop thinking about GI Joe's Lifeline. (( who also comes with guns and isn't a Pacifist in anything except for the cartoon and even then he had 100 team mates to slaughter around him.))
No, those medics are NOT laying down fire, and they are NOT shooting back.
On what PLANET!?!?!? Our medics most certainly ARE laying down fire and shooting back. They shoot right up untill they have someone injured. They don't just run around and hide behind rocks till they're needed!!
Nightmask wrote: They have soldiers who're doing the shooting while they're saving lives
THEY ARE SOLDIERS DOING THE SHOOTING. Right untill they NEED To be medics.
Nightmask wrote: (because it's a bit hard to shoot at someone while doing emergency medical care on someone or carrying him back to an evac chopper).
Hard? yeah, That's why it's called war. You're living in fantasy land. My father has a chest full of metals. Three different purple hearts. His last one, he got, carrying a 200lbs sergent though the jungle, while commanding a platoon of Air Cav, and FIRING HIS WEAPON and FIGHTING EVERY DAMN INCH of the way. Often having to put the guy down to fight. Pick him back up and keep going. Or shooting with the guy over his shoulder. Don't tell me you can't do it. I know you can. I'm here because you can. My dad got shot 7 different times by a sniper. Used a 203 to blow up the tree the sniper was in, PICKED UP THE SERGENT and carried him another 15 miles. 3 medics back at the base had to tackle him to get him to take medical care because my dad was ordering his troops be tended to first. So don't tell me you can't do it. I've seen the metals and I've looked into his eyes when he told me about it. To this day his right arm is crippled and his right hand a claw due to those bullets. I've seen the wounds. I've seen the medical files.
Is it hard? Yeah. But believe it or not, in the middle of war, 'easy' often isn't an option. And Medics, while they do want to save the guy they're helping. need to be alive to do it. So they carry weapons and return fire.
Nightmask wrote: That being REAL soldiers who were pacifists drafted into the war, not some cartoon character. It's obvious you haven't actually looked at the history of things like WWII or you'd know that many RL pacifists were out on the front lines rescuing troops and dying alongside them because there's NOTHING about being a pacifist that means you refuse to save lives or that you can't or won't act alongside those who are fighting.
Show me. Cite your source about these legions of pacifists on the front lines.
Nightmask wrote: Pepsi Jedi wrote:Nightmask wrote:The men they saved will vehemently disagree.
Medics and chopper crews are not pacifists. So your argument is moot. Heck chaplins can pick up their rifles and fight in the army. Priests all the way back to my ancestors time at the battle of Sterling Bridge, killed
I said pacifists were medics and chopper crews, I did not say that all of them were
You've implied it repeatedly by citing them as pacifists that don't fight.
Nightmask wrote: Your suggestion there about clergy is also moot and pointless as you well know they aren't expected to fight and just because some priests have used weapons and violence does not mean that they all do or even most do.
It's not moot. It proves that any and all kinds can and will fight when needed to. Be they clergy or chopper crews or medics. If you honestly think all those people are pacifistic you have a horribly skewed view of the military and the real world.
Nightmask wrote: Pepsi Jedi wrote:Nightmask wrote: That character is equally valuable and praiseworthy in a game dealing with the same threats as everyone else.
But your pacifists in the superhero game is not dealing with the same threats as everyone else.
They aren't my pacifists and you'd have to be blind to insist that they aren't dealing with the same threats when they're in the middle of the action along with their comrades.
But they're not in the middle of the action. When the action starts they sit out.
Nightmask wrote: Pepsi Jedi wrote:Nightmask wrote:So what you're saying is apparently that in your eyes the only thing about the game that matters is the battle and anyone not tossing fireballs or letting loose with his lightning bolts is not just worthless but not a hero worthy of the label.
No. I'm saying that's usually the climax of the game.
There is no climax to the game, the game is never-ending. That battle is rarely the climax of anything, it's just a brief pausing of things before the next battle begins.
LOL look at your own words. "The battle is rarely the climax of anything, it's just a brief pausing of things before the next battle begins" LOL sounds like it's alot more important than.... wait.. You just said it was! Thanks for again, proving my point, even though you did so accidentally.
Nightmask wrote: Pepsi Jedi wrote:Nightmask wrote:Man that's just soooooo wrong. Completely missing how the characters you're lauding are apparently so incompetent that without that pacifist they'd never get within a thousand miles of the villain to have that 'climatic moment'.
So all super heroes other than a pacifists are stupid? I think Batman would disagree. He often goes in alone and beats the hell out of dozens to100s of bad guys, after doing the smart stuff too. *GASP* Look at that!
You're the one insisting all superheroes who aren't pacifists are stupid, I've never said that.
Except.. you did,
Nightmask wrote: the characters you're lauding are apparently so incompetent that without that pacifist they'd never get within a thousand miles of the villain to have that 'climatic moment'.
So.. not the word "stupid" but the word "Incompetent" to the point they'd never get with in a thousand miles of a villian"
Same thing
Nightmask wrote:
You've made it out how the pacifist is the only one doing non-combat things and tossing out the ridiculous notion about having to make the game revolve around him and his being the only one doing the investigative stuff and research.
LOL No.. I haven't. In fact I've said REPEATEDLY the exact opposite. That anything a pacifist can do the rest of the group can do. UNLESS You SPECIFICLY build it around the Pacifist. I've challenged you repeatedly to say something the pacifist can do that non pacifists can't.
Nightmask wrote:
I'm not the one who's repeated made that point, you're the one who's been making out the violent heroes as idiots who can't do anything but fight.
Except that's exactly what you've said. REPEATEDLY.
Nightmask wrote: the characters you're lauding (Non pacifists) are apparently so incompetent that without that pacifist they'd never get within a thousand miles of the villain to have that 'climatic moment'.
That's just once with in a couple of paragraphs....
Nightmask wrote: Pepsi Jedi wrote:Nightmask wrote:Seems like those heroes were just worthless, too incompetent to get anywhere without the GM handing it to them without that pacifist doing that investigative work.
Not at all. You're missing the point, that the game should be built and played so the "Non pacifists' have the ability to track down the villain. That it shouldn't be something that ONLY The pacifist can do... because.. if you do........ You're building the game around the one guy.
THAT has always been part of my point.
Your point's always been about how combat's all that the game's about and anything else was worthless.
You don't read well. Honestly asking. Are you like 12? You claim that combat's all the game's about and everything else was worthless. but RIGHT THERE. I said
Pepsi Jedi wrote: Not at all. You're missing the point, that the game should be built and played so the "Non pacifists' have the ability to track down the villain. That it shouldn't be something that ONLY The pacifist can do.
So you're just lieing and putting words in my mouth. With in two lines of me saying the opposite.
Nightmask wrote:
You've been the one making out how the players of the violent characters have built them with nothing but combat in mind so that they couldn't find the shoestrings on the shoes on their feet.
No. I said how they don't have dozens and dozens of skills set aside for specialization in that vein, to have the entire game evolve around it. Again. You're lieing and putting words in my mouth. Stop.
Nightmask wrote: A well-rounded group can do quite a bit rather than being overly specialized.
Pepsi Jedi wrote:Nightmask wrote:Interesting how you consider the time when the game is focused on investigation and research as getting 'undue attention',
You seriously need to focus Nightmask. That's not what I said. I said that there are options, of which this is ONE OPTION, where it's unbalanced in this fashion. That if you go this way, it's undue attention, where most of your group isn't in the focus. That it's all about the one guy. It's part of the overall flow of the post. Not alone independant of the other, as you're trying to make it out. You're picking out sentences out of context and going "GASP!! OMG!!"
I can't help it if you insist on making up extreme examples that don't come into play in the average game,
You can totally help lieing and putting words in my mouth I never said. And the entire thread is an extreme example that doesn't come into play in the average game.
Nightmask wrote: where you believe that a game is all about the combat
Again. You lie to try and make your point. I've never once said that or indicated it.
Nightmask wrote: and having anyone along who isn't about combat and violence it's somehow making the game about him.
Never said that either. I said that having someone along that refuses to help out with the combat, and demands that undue time be spent to appease his special snowflake char is annoying. That there were options. 1) being ignore the snow flake and let him get 1/5th or less of the attention, where he's going around for 4/5ths of the time useless OR... give him undue attention, more than his 1/5th's worth. Both of which are annoying to the other people at the table.
Nightmask wrote: Just sounds like a lot of jealousy not wanting anyone else getting the spotlight.
Says the guy that plays a char that by it's nature will need special circumstances, or.... not be in the spotlight?
Nightmask wrote: Pepsi Jedi wrote:Nightmask wrote:leaving one to conclude you don't care for that side of things and just want to smash stuff and beat on the villains and hate that the tanks aren't the focus of the game all the time.
If you totally take it out of context which you clearly are, to try and make your point. You could conclude that. if you read it all, where that was one option, where the GM is "All investigation, no combat" As it was being explained. No. You're trying to make me out to be a thug. I'm not. I'm saying if you go with this option of focus. All the other heroes in the game that have offensive powers, are left hanging when it 100% concentrates on investigation (( or what ever)) Your pacifist is up to.
Quit trying to make your point by purposefully going out of context. It doesn't make your point. It shows you're not comprehending the entire thing.
I'm comprehending just fine
No. You're just arguing to argue. You've contradicted yourself in this reply.
Nightmask wrote: you seem to be missing the point. Including making it out as 'all or nothing' as if a game would have to be all combat or all investigation and whoever wasn't suited for the other is left out. That's not how the average GM does it, they reasonably balance things so there's a little bit of everything because adventuring and RP isn't all just one thing or another.
Pepsi Jedi wrote:Nightmask wrote:At least when Thor's chaffing in Avengers Mansion watching the investigative sorts do their thing he's capable of realizing that sometimes the tanks are in fact just worthless and have to wait on someone else being the focus before they can do their thing.
Yes. But with out Thor to use his hammer at the big fight in the issue, all that investigative stuff is moot isn't it? You need both. If you have too much of one (( in the example)) The rest get bored. 1 pacifist amist 5 or more players... the two options i've presented will usually happen. Either undue attention to the one guy... or the poor one guy gets largely ignored.
Your example though is a failing on the GM's part if he's emphasizing one part of the game to the detriment of one or more players, and you keep presenting it as a given rather than an exception.
No I give it as an option. The other side of it is that the GM gives everyone fair time and billing, and your Pacifist is useful 1/5th of the timeand 4/5ths of the time is tagging along.
Nightmask wrote: Pepsi Jedi wrote:Nightmask wrote:Sorry but no, the GM has to set up every game session with the characters in mind and the player with the pacifist is as due that part of the game where he's more necessary as the more action/combat-oriented sorts when their time comes.
So in a group of 5 players, the Pacifist should get one fifth time to shine right? So the investigative part of the story if all things are equal, he'll be sitting out for 4/5ths of the stuff?
WOW... that's pretty much exactly the problem I put forth. Huh? The guy sitting around for 4/5th of the time when his char isn't in the spotlight because the game isn't designed around him. Thanks for coming around to my point of view.
Too bad for your example that's just not how anything works. You're presenting an unrealistic extreme as if it were a given and it's not.
Sure it is. You said they should all get equal time. So in a group with 5 heroes. That's 1/5th of the time or... 20% if you prefer, that focuses on the Pacifist. The other 4/5ths of the game, by fairness would focus on the non pacifists. So... for 80% of the time. Your guy is just following along.
Nightmask wrote: Pepsi Jedi wrote:Nightmask wrote:You just seem to hate any character that's not beating on things
Not at all. I dislike the PLAYER, that chooses to put something like this into the game, to try and be the special snow flake, and makes things harder on others around them. I've often said it's not impossible. Just annoying. How many Pacifists do you honestly know in the world? I'd wager none... maybe one or two depending on how spirutal or godly or what ever *Waves hand* But MOST people aren't even remotely pacifistic... nor do they hang around with um much. they're annoying.
So you have problems with someone wanting to play what he likes rather than what you approve of?
If they're annoying. yes. I'm human. If it's annoying to the entire group. More so. Not every type char fits with every group. My group and myself loathe mini/maxers too. And twinks. Hate um. Mock um. Look down on um. The works. We think they're stupid.
Nightmask wrote: Pepsi Jedi wrote:Nightmask wrote:and worse make the mistake thinking that any character not getting shot at next to yours is somehow worthless or even cowardly and that's just not so.
So again name something that a pacifist can do that a non pacifist can't.
Anything the non-pacifist doesn't know how to do that the pacifist does. So the Hardware: Analytical can do everything that Ancient Weapons Master who doesn't even have more than basic math and first aid can't do.
So your answer is 'Nothing'. There's nothing that a pacifist can do that someone who's not, can't do. That anything a pacifist can learn to do, so can the non pacifist.