The Harbinger of Ferocity

D&D 5e -- The Lost Children

The elven woman shook herself off as the bandit fell to the ground in a heap, downed by the claws she bore and which instantly vanished when he hit the dirt; no point in keeping the magic going after as it were. No less, Jamil of Azalorn wasn't wrong to ask what was to be done, if anything. She shot the jaguar a glance, then the entangled fellow being restrained by creeping vines, then on to the direction of the others. It wasn't much of a reply, the following shrug, but it was the answer he needed. There were other, more pressing foes still in the fight and so she took off at a forest footed sprint, clearly headed toward their nearest ally.

The panther would know to follow as after all her swift dash among the trees, over the woodland, and through the brush was not about to go unaccompanied or easily outpaced by his limber paws. He could easily move past and ahead of her, especially as her focus and target became clear; she was going to ward off the rest of the fighting foes, not so much the disabled ones. If they fled, they fled at this point, if they fought, however? The last bandit had quickly learned how poorly that went and the druid hadn't any bloodthirsty intent. She didn't need or want to kill all of them - in fact, she would have preferred if they all gave up!

Effects

Shaedra Galandoel retains her concentration on the Entangle spell, but uses the Dash action. She moves closer to her allies, up to 70 feet and joins combat with whoever is still under attack. She will attempt to flank them if at all possible and will not take any movement that will provoke attacks. She guides Jamil of Azalorn to do the same so they can fend off the fewer and fewer bandits. As before, an enemy who provokes from her will be attacked using her reaction for the attack of opportunity.

@Guardian Angel Haruki@JBRam2002@rush99999@ihinka@Cu Chulainn@0 Azzy 0

Local, Organic, Freerange Superheroes

Douglas Song

Best 8 Motel

Having wisely spent his time in the depths of his meditation, the man had begun to piece together the evidence of all he had bore witness to. The two criminals in black, punctuated by masks, one of who appeared to teleport were known to him, though at first in the conscious, waking, thinking world he had forgotten just who they were; there had been words, rumors of two such men and how their strange doings were never quite explained. This was clear now, at least to Song, for he recognized they together, or in some fashion, had the means to move themselves through apportation and cloud minds, befuddling those who lacked inner focus and bodily discipline. Such talents so explained their mysterious ways and how they always seemed to slip away in what little was known about them.

What came next while Song sat idle before his table, a small cup of steaming tea filling the air with its floral scent, was that they were still quite men. Fragile, feeble, fallible, still very human despite their own superhuman talents. One of them had some sort of illness or malady that caused seizures while the other seemed not to suffer the same outcome, but could only move or react so fast. They were still people in the end, not something entirely inhuman or incomprehensible. This thought was mulled over further by Song who, with both hands upon the ceramic cup, drank quietly once before returning it to the table drenched in shadows. The darkness of the room relaxed the body, allowing the mind to wander after all.

So their motives were, or so Song reasoned, comprehensible and rational. They methodically acted when they entered the broadcasting station and then so thereafter when their broadcast played, especially after the contents proposed. Men, animals, cages, supposedly - like a public service announcement. But who to? Clearly the city itself was in play, but why? Was it for them or those that would see it and know? This Song would not reconcile with himself, but it could be brought together in time. They had some sort of bond, between their dress and that they were willing to defend one another, that they had some sort of message they wished to convey for all from them both... at least in part.

Motion after motion did the serene man ponder these things until he finished his drink, hours later. Now it was time to rest, to sleep, to recollect his mind and body and repeat this pattern of insight once more, after collecting information in the night to come.

Revenge of the Dragon

My submission should be finalized and ready now for review.

Revenge of the Dragon

Lord Andhere Beaduric

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@POOHEAD189

Please don't take this the wrong way, but you saying 50% of America is deeply unsettled without proof is sounding about as plausible as 3 million fraudulent votes for Hillary Clinton.

That was not my claim, I in fact made no such motion toward it. It was a nod to conversation in the argument prior and apparently with a quick glance of those opposed, it is approximately 46% against, 41% in favor of. This is just me tapping on this here because that really is not the core of my argument or what I am addressing. Even then, that number is not far off from the sample of "half" or that they specifically note "Born As". As for their motives? In some way they clearly believe it to be a compromise of themselves or something they believe in. Unsettling? Maybe, but at least in part with that in mind, given they would not feel comfortable in such a case.

Well I am glad you yourself would not judge the person. But why would she be gone? Is this because you assume she would have hormone therapy? I don't follow.

There are a number of reasons she would be absent from duty but obviously not derelict, the most obvious being that she has at least frequent mental health appointments, appointments with command, interviews - mind you this is assuming prior regulations, which I am unsure if they still stipulate details as specific as essentially verifying she's not lying about her intent - and then less obvious, such as the mission in this case. Operations as the one nodded to here tend to remove people from serving in their role, at least temporarily, which again could be days, weeks, or months. This is also not including any presumed hormone therapy or reassignment surgery. In general it is better and less complicated to avoid these problems, among others, in the first place.

On another note I absolutely disagree it cannot somehow be both a thing people choose or in more serious cases, something that actually is theirs to own for woe and weal alike. The majority of this argument is centering on the military aspect, at least it was prior.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Almost as if I react to conversation and posts like a natural person, @Dynamo Frokane. Do you honestly, credibly, for even a moment believe I persuaded myself I could change @Penny's mind and that it wasn't more a display for everyone else and an advocacy for policy or the shooting down of pretty blatant smearing? Very selective indeed. I do actually choose my battles and like I told you before prior, I am not your mercenary to be recruited to fight your battles. Whatever I pursue is in my own interest.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@SleepingSilence

I am of the belief the current proposal in the memorandum for the President of the United States is the best course of action. In my personal opinion however, I believe any who have been extensively vetted through behavioral health and psychological evaluation should retain their position and authority. They should not be punished or removed from service in a discriminatory manner, but if found mentally unfit for service should be separated from service with a medical discharge and if need be, compensated for appropriately through the Veteran's Affairs, especially to ensure they are offered resolution to their condition, if they so choose.

I do not have an issue with them serving, but they need to be as atypical to their statistics as possible, namely in the realm of suicide and depression. Speaking from experience, deaths of this nature have catastrophic consequences to a mission and operational ends. Mitigating that as much as possible is mandatory and essential, something that has already been in the system through various other means. I myself do not believe denying most transgendered persons service in the military is any more discriminatory than denying people with issues of substance abuse or domestic violence. Some people choose these things for themselves, very few, most do not. The issue is, is that those who do not make these choices cannot just suddenly revoke it or their affects; the concept behind this is very non-discriminatory, in fact.

Serving in the armed forces is an honor one is selected for and like many things in the military, not freely handed out.

@POOHEAD189

The marginal numbers are not those supporting the transgender persons, rather the approximately transgender population itself. Even if the half of the United States population agreed and supported them, the other half would be deeply unsettled by examples as the bathroom issue. I have addressed this prior, but if someone has not completed their transition and reassignment therapy, they have no place, in my belief, to be in a restroom of their gender. For the military? This has been noted before by people more skilled than I on the details, but the issue ranges from clinical calculations for dosages, to combat life saving techniques, to minor things like dress and appearance, customs and courtesies, fitness standards among others.

I am certainly not advocating against them, they deserve to be recognized like any other person does, but I am deeply against allowing a minority of persons to hold the rest hostage and them claim moral high ground to besiege everyone else from with their supporters. No less as someone who does represent a very small number of persons in the population, it hits particularly hard to see others be so disrespectful in doing so. I disagree with affording anyone special privileges in general, be it tampering with college entrance exam scores to hiring quotas.

Do you have any proof that transgendered people make the military lesser quality.

The people themselves are not the issue so much as the impact on the role they have. Say I as a supervisor have five troops under me and I realistically need seven to do my mission per the regulation. We have an operational waiver saying we can operate with five to conduct our daily mission. One of my troops is transgendered and has a mandatory appointment weekly for a therapist, consultation, and ultimately a series of reassignment surgeries. Private Snuffy, my transgender troop, is a good soldier and does her job. I ensure she's recognized as female and treat her like a female, ensuring her peers do so as well. I have no issue with her or what she's doing.

What I have an issue with is Private Snuffy making me call in people who work other shifts to fill her slot when she's gone, because I have an instruction, regulation, or order to follow through with. I am already understaffed and am barely able to meet my mandated requirement. If I cannot find a replacement, say someone is on leave, is ill, or just worked - preventing them from working extended duty for certain occupations or mission roles - what do I do now? What do I do as a supervisor when the therapist makes recommendations I have to defer to and contact my command? What do I do when my command finds out I ended up with four people when I need five? What happens if that ends up in the documentation for an inspector?

This hypothetical sounds really silly, but this is a down to earth real problem that I can assure you is quite real. The people themselves are not bad people by and large, but the impact they have on the total force can well be. I don't need to repeat it again, but the military does not need more suicides, especially active, reserve, or guard ones, let alone veterans.

Speaking about the medication, depending upon your code, classification, career field, specialty, assignment, whatever, you can disqualify yourself from that role based on what medications or treatment you are receiving. Imagine for a moment you have, again, a role that needs to be filled now someone cannot fill it because medically they are being disqualified despite being in the regular military. Now you need to reassign them and do force management, which can take months.

Yes, I am well aware of what it is like to walk into a room designated for a person you feel with all your being should be, but physically aren't. Yes, I am very well of that and very, very familiar not just to personal challenges of that or similar issues, but contending with those who do, to include subordinates and peers who were or are homosexuals or transgender. Again, some of my friends are very gone.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

The point, actually points, I am nodding to @SleepingSilence is in part addressing. In essence it is a matter of people getting added or preferential treatment at the cost of others because they are somehow "marginalized" or subject to a phobia fixture to their title or status. I gave ample argument how this advocacy makes zero sense in context, see the seemingly offensive practice of noting gender dysphoria is a mental illness and how I compared other disqualifying mental illnesses to it. It is very much a trendy, politically correct thing to do all while willingly ignoring all the others because they don't feel good in concept, @POOHEAD189.

I still would love to see someone attempt to argue those, that I admit. After all there is truly no realistic rebuttal to the fact they are, in essence, not all different for why they are disqualifying factors or how people treat some mental illnesses favorably over others because it just seems easier, rather is more politically convenient. Looking back, this all started in conversation that this move is somehow "trash" despite the recommendation being that the Department of Defense is willing to review potential candidates who meet their criteria, but reserve their right to decline them, as they do with others who might be promising avenues.

As an edit in address to the following quote;

Stick to the narrative that transgendered people are mentally ill, which means they should be allowed special privileges.

Or they are not mentally ill, which means all genders are fluid and validated.

They deserve no such special treatment or privileges - see people with chronic depression or suicidal behavior. What they need is medical treatment or resolution of some sort for themselves, not special treatment at the expense of everyone else. The military is one of the places this belongs not at all, especially for those crying "but muh unit coheziun" crowd against this decision. One of the very last things the military needs is more special needs trainees or service members - it really does make achieving the mission more difficult.

The second is more or less just outlandish on its own in the context of psychology and psychiatry. When you represent roughly .6% of the adult population of the country and are not following the standards of being neuronormative, to borrow a loanword but related to one of my earlier examples, that is not normal. That is not how the system operates, especially not the military, and demanding the military play nice just so people feel included is stupid and how you end up with more bodies, be them at home or away.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Yes, that would be because gender dysphoria is a mental illness, @Penny, and in the context of what we are speaking to? Is classified by regulations as one, even if the newest documentation standards have changed. Now I am not going to delve into the depths of why it was changed or the controversy surrounding it, how they changed it to a "nicer" name as "Gender Identity Disorder" among other changes, see the various forms of autism and its relatives being rolled into a spectrum disorder for other controversial examples, but that is very fact of matter, that too not requiring too much digging to find it continually classified as a disorder and form of dysphoria. If memory serves, even the ICD-10 still denotes it as a mental illness, and that was touted to have changed. Again, this is utterly ignoring the supposed 36 months of stability by the memorandum's proposal, which is pretty gracious considering not everyone even gets that much.

As an addition, I did indeed go dig up a sample of the ICD-10-CM:

Clinical Information
A disorder characterized by a strong and persistent cross-gender identification (such as stating a desire to be the other sex or frequently passing as the other sex) coupled with persistent discomfort with his or her sex (manifested in adults, for example, as a preoccupation with altering primary and secondary sex characteristics through hormonal manipulation or surgery).

Clinical Information
Severe gender dysphoria, coupled with a persistent desire for the physical characteristics and social roles that connote the opposite biological sex. (apa, dsm-iv, 1994)

The urge to belong to the opposite sex that may include surgical procedures to modify the sex organs in order to appear as the opposite sex.

Clinical Information
A disorder characterized by recurrent sexual urges, fantasies, or behaviors in a heterosexual male involving cross-dressing.

Disorder characterized by recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving cross-dressing in a heterosexual male. The fantasies, urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other areas of functioning. (from apa, dsm-iv, 1994)

Severe gender dysphoria, coupled with a persistent desire for the physical characteristics and social roles that connote the opposite biological sex. (apa, dsm-iv, 1994)

The act of dressing like and adopting the behavior of the opposite sex, often for sexual gratification.

The urge to belong to the opposite sex that may include surgical procedures to modify the sex organs in order to appear as the opposite sex.

Clinical Information
A disorder characterized by a strong and persistent cross-gender identification (such as stating a desire to be the other sex or frequently passing as the other sex) coupled with persistent discomfort with his or her sex (manifested in adults, for example, as a preoccupation with altering primary and secondary sex characteristics through hormonal manipulation or surgery).

ICD-10-CM F64, F64.0, F64.1, and F64.9

As another note do try harder to insinuate I am somehow "transphobic" or discriminatory against transgender people because I find the notion they deserve any sort of special privileges or exceptions to be utter nonsense. Thus far I think you are ringing a little hollow there with those efforts, but let me be absolutely sure no one falls for them and state outright my personal opinion again. I personally do not care who or what a person is or believes themselves to be, in fact they should strive to do their best in that provided they are not harming anyone, but the rest of the world isn't obligated to play along or care. Why do I back the Department of Defense's findings and the employment of policy based on it? Because I can find no good reason or benefit this offers to the military and can find more pros in place of cons.

At the end of the day the military has the right to reject potentially problematic individuals found through their screening processes, even if that isn't a "nice" thing to say or politically correct.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Glad to know we can narrow down six paragraphs, more if previous posts are to count, on topic to something so minor and specific, @Penny. I would love to hear what specific rights transgender persons are so denied and how they so much deserve more than the rest of us. But "something, something, dog whistle" sounds far more adroit.