The Harbinger of Ferocity

Anya Alexi

@Dark Light
As I said in another user's sheet, if an ability is considered a "low" end of a tier, just grade it down to the next tier. Meaning a "Low Tier (3)" is a (2) by any other name. This is becoming too specific at this point and suggests, not that I am accusing you of this, that the numbers are there to just ward off nay sayers.

Until that change is made, I can not reasonably offer an approval. The distinction at the moment is that abilities should not be broken that far. It is suggested that the most simple route is taken. This also lowers the overall aggregate score as we would like; less high powered characters.

John [EDITED]

@ChickenTeriyaki
As I said before, until the changes I cited are made, I cannot approve those attributes. This character ranges from Tier (3) on up to Tier (5) with several inconsistencies such as marking things "low" and others "high". If that is true, please shift those numbers and overall rating.

We have already stated we are aiming for the vast majority of characters to be at Tier (3) at best with a few exceptions being Tier (4). I believe this as written goes against the intent.

John [EDITED]

@ChickenTeriyaki
At the moment, I feel as though this character has too many Tier (4) abilities. I suggest that you lower that to one ability of choice, with the rest of the (4)s becoming Tier (3)s. If you consider something to be a "Low Tier (3)", adjust it to a rating of (2). This helps make the information a bit more concise and balanced.

For myself, until that is done, I abstain from providing approval.

Siven Jeyer

@Mistiel
Much better, thank you. @Circ, this profile should be ready to lock.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

The post has been completed, @Vilageidiotx.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@Vilageidiotx

The margin of error in this case is an example of how utterly negligible 2% or so of the entire United States population is skewed. This is such a relatively insignificant number, the point was to show this is not an issue of "majority vote" and "minority rule". It is a comparison that it has not enough of a factor to be weighted as extreme or important and there was not even a close race. The fact that the Trump administration won 46% of the popular vote to the Hillary campaign's 48% shows there's not a significant enough difference to bring issue here, hence the 2000 election example used which was closer by both popular and electoral vote; there's no issue at all here. Had the 2008 election been 52% to 45% with an electoral victory for the McCain campaign despite massive losses under popular vote, there might be an argument; that never happened however.

You can still use that concept in this comparison, because it shows that the system works as designed.

As for my argument for the electoral college, that is not at all what I stated. I stated that based upon the representatives of my state, that even my "minority" is represented because where I would be - in this hypothetical. If my state is a Deep Red state but I am a blue member and my community is blue, they put forward their votes accordingly. However, if the majority of the state is red - as it is - this will generally lead to that being a Republican collective vote. I was represented, fairly at that, even if I did not win; which is true, because while my district skewed for the Trump administration, the general blueness of the state that represented more of it superseded my little island. That is entirely fair that my minority did not win but was allowed to have a voice in the system.

And no, it is not that easy to communicate or sway voters because of density alone. It is far easier to influence 100,000 people in a single city than it is across an entire county of 100,000 people. This might be the 21st Century where this is easier than ever, but that does not solve the issue of concentration, because availability isn't the issue; mass is easier to market to. Getting more people together in a single place is easier to pander to and talk to their collective situation rather than make pock marks across multiple areas, especially when those people are predisposition to be more sympathetic or interested in your platform or product. This is generally true with just about any marketing.

The system already is a product of legitimacy. It is written, codified, documented, and implemented, no less it includes a history to base itself on that is not part of the modern era. This is not a new process, neither is it one that is not in part a representative democratic process. It is meeting its own criteria, with people crying foul now only because they lost, not because there seems to be any legitimacy to the argument. It is continuing to behave and be validated by its design and its historical track record.

People are undisciplined. If the general population is so hopeless that they cannot be bothered to cast their vote if they win or lose, they more or less lose the right to complain about it. I still voted for the Romney campaign despite the fact I knew the Obama administration was likely to sweep the electoral and popular vote again, which it did. That is discipline and execution of duty. My vote "might not have mattered", but I exercised my right and did what I was supposed to do, regardless of my feelings on it. I do not accept the thought that "peoples votes do not matter". They do, especially en masse.

The electoral voters are supposed to represent their people in ideology. Again, if I was a voter for my district, as much as it would hurt me to vote for the Clinton campaign personally, my objective is to represent the interests of the area I am responsible for as unbiased and impartial as I can be. I have a duty to perform, not a moral obligation to challenge what is "unjust". I would be out of my lane if I did that.

While this time I believe the electoral vote to have been in my personal favor, again I cannot fault it for the previous two elections which I Was strongly against. It did what it was designed to do and I resigned myself to going on with my life and keeping tabs on what I hoped would be a turning tide; which it was. This is not a matter of "technicality", this is a matter of the system doing exactly what it was meant to do. If anything that should legitimize the system because it worked as intended. Again, if the Trump administration had lost by 5%, they might have an argument, but this is a clear cut case that the United States' approach to voting for leaders works within its design. The popular vote was relatively close, especially if we look back to recent events and then further back. A 2% win of popular vote is very, very little.

D&D 5e - The Lost Lands

The Vale

The Town,
Currently

With the party marching on and soon finding themselves before the gates, having followed only the faint path through the rolling grassland that still existed, they discovered the town was indeed as quiet as they had seen from an hour's walk away. Their hail never found an answer, as unusual as that was, so when they came to push open the gates, they discovered those too were unlocked and open. Both giant wooden doors, heavy and great as they were, swung inward and allowed the heroes to witness the calm of the town. It was as strange as anything else, but the clear signs of inhabitance were here; a few carts loaded with hay, a few wooden merchant's stalls with their wares gone for the evening, baskets and pots set out in stacks.

Yet not a soul to be seen...

Not initially at least until a ways down what appeared to be the main road, a very small figure dressed in rich purple robes ran from one end of the street to the others, darting between buildings. Before the wardens of light could even react, the tiny person was already gone - until of course a kaleidoscope of colors erupted from where he ran and he again crossed the street back toward where he came. This time, now ready for whatever was going on, they noted the figure wearing an equally purple, albeit absurdly tall and pointed hat near as large as he, and sprinting for his apparent life back the other direction after whatever magic just happened. His hands in the air during his flight, they could faintly make out him yelling incoherently.

In his wake followed a gang of shadows, but not just any shadows, several of them large enough to be the size of a man and all of whom were wielding longswords and armored shields made out of inky blackness that fit the rest of their unsettlingly humanoid look. They chased him back from where he came across the street in their mob, with one lingering further behind the rest, seemingly staggering around dazed and confused.

"Someone!? Anyone?! Help!"

The voice peaked louder and clearly as another rainbow eruption occurred throughout the town in a burst of light and twinkling sounds; bits of glittering color drifting wildly. It seems the gnome was in desperate trouble and they had arrived none too late. The real question was, what now would they do? Time was short to think and act.

Effects

A Gnome in Need
The party witnesses what appears to be a wizard fighting off very unusual shadows in the abandoned town. He is badly outnumbered and is apparently seeking help. He does not seem aware of the party. If the party wishes to engage, the first player who rolls for initiative puts the rest of the players into combat.

Wick and Katia decide that they need to act to defeat the mysterious shadows. They put the rest of the party into initiative order.

Score
Countdown

Map
Town

Initiative Order

• Katia (20)
• Wick (19)
• Thea (18)
• Haemar (17)
• Cesar (14)
• Theodore (12)
• Shadow Soldiers (3)
• Violet Gnome (2)

@Big Dread, @Cu Chulainn, @Gordian Nought, @Hekazu, @JBRam2002, @Zverda

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@Vilageidiotx

I have yet to see how it does not work as intended, but more so my focus is on what is considered "the majority". In the strictest definition that additional 2% of the population does skew the numbers into a "majority" over the other percentage, but even that is not really much of a majority; there might be grounds to claim the system is broken and rigged if it were a difference of five percent or so. The actual difference between 46% and a 48% are negligible when factoring in that once again, a number of these people are concentrated in cities. The difference falls into the realm of margin of error - not that there was any - yet more that I mean its difference is statistically negligible to the outcome, which it was.

The election of 2000 was far, far closer in terms of numbers both in popular vote and electoral vote, yet the Bush administration was the one that found itself in office "against the popular vote". The disparity of 2000 was 271 to 266, a far cry from the massive difference of 2016 where the 304 to 227 occurred. Granted I know a number of people do not remember well the election in 2000, myself included, but that information is freely available. There is not much ground to argue that the popular vote is the deciding factor or that this was an upset victory created by a broken system; the win was not even close.

To answer the other component, do I think majority rule to be "evil"? Yes to an extent, because I know for a fact that the "Deep Blue States" do not speak for me or my beliefs. Just because you have a larger, more concentrated number of like minded people does not make you right; it just means you have a larger, more concentrated population of like minds - my state and lifestyle still want to be legally represented, especially as our own local "majority" that is a part of a union. Furthermore, this would have a better basis if, and only if, the numbers were heavily skewed for the majority or for the minority. The electoral college, as dysfunctional as any other system built by man, more or less did what it was designed to do by and large; barring of course the faithless electors, who I view personally as traitors to their people, regardless of their party because of their motives and actions.

But I digress, the notion of "only swing states" is inaccurate within itself; a few of those heavy blue states that have not voted red in many years did vote this time around for them. Swing states are battlegrounds of course however, the argument that if it were a popular vote that you could come in and "Sweep up what the other side doesn't pander to." is not going to work well in a system that games towards a legitimate popularity contest versus the current metric. By the numbers and by location, the rural voters are going to be fewer and further between, it is not as easy to communicate with them, sway them, gather them, motivate them or compel them. No less, their goals and objectives in life are going to be naturally more diverse than major population centers.

Off the cuff but on topic, United States itself never was or is a true democracy, it is an electoral republic, those officials represent on behalf their peoples' districts, or at least should be. It is a democratic process certainly, although in a different forum. The popular vote is mostly irrelevant and only needs to aggregate enough in regions to push an electoral vote. I am not saying this as if you do not know, because that would be arrogant and foolish, but because I cannot see a basis of argument for "Popular vote wins."

About the electoral college ignoring the vote altogether, I am fairly certain they would not do so unless under a situation of extreme duress. If it comes to that, the United States is already beyond repair and likely in a flaming spiral downward that no amount of voting or politicking will save it from.

The disinterest of Americans voting is under their own lack of discipline and nothing but it. I live and work in a traditionally blue state and knew that even if my county was to be particularly red leaning, our electoral votes were going to the Democrats. I still voted out of principal and obligation. If people do not believe their vote matters, not only are they very wrong, they are doing a disservice to the people of the United States. Then again, I find that an unsettling number of American citizens are complacent, so this is not news either.

Even if a Republican won the popular vote, I know that accounts for nothing. It is a relatively meaningless number, not entirely true I will say as the electoral votes are more important, that should not really be used to gauge anything. I remember clearly the Obama administration sweeping the first election they won and a strong follow-up on the second. I would call that more disheartening than having a difference of 1-2% popularity, but life still went on.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

I continue to keep hearing this thing about the popular vote, but my question is if everyone in the United States is more or less aware of the electoral college, why is this an ongoing point to gesture to? Going solely with the popular vote is nothing but mob rule and heavily favors places with high population centers that do not speak for the vastness of the country. Why is this still brought up? It has never actually meant anything in the United States. To this day, half a year in, I still see this get referred to, no less given it was within the margin of error difference - in part meaning it barely mattered as a difference of no greater than 2.5% or so percent.

Sulk

@Dead Cruiser
My largest suggestion is that you follow the format many other users are using, as @Rilla said and break down each section by individual rating rather than a paragraph for them all together and carefully detailing each with its own individual rating. I would say until you receive your answer from @Circ who built on the rules, that should be your first step in approximating your own character.