What would the Dungeons & Dragons Players Handbook look like in the 1950's?

[Blackrook]

(Please delete dupe thread posted in Humor Section).

I started a thread here:

Message to LGBTQ people -- stop pushing your agenda into my beloved roleplaying games!!!

A quote from the character creation section of the Dungeon & Dragons Next (5th ed.) Players Handbook:

You don't need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender. The elf god Corellon Larethian is often seen as androgynous or hermaphroditic, for example, and some elves in the multiverse are made in Corellon's image. You could also play a female character who presents herself as a man, a man who feels trapped in a female body, or a bearded female dwarf who hates being mistaken for a male. Likewise, your character's sexual orientation is for you to decide.

This kind of paragraph now appears universally in the character creation sections of role playing games, reflecting a changing society where people pushing the radical LGBTQ agenda have more power to blackball a game publisher than traditionalists who might oppose the LGBTQ agenda.

But let us say we return to a more traditional age, an age of more traditional values, say the 1950's before the dawn of the sexual revolution, before the radicalization caused by the Vietnam War, and when homosexuality was the "love that dares not speak its name."

A simpler time, when men were men, and women were women, and never any confusion between the two (or so it appeared).

And let's say that traditional values groups who cared about keeping men in the office/factory and women in the kitchen pressured Wizards of the Coast to rewrite the character creation chapters of the Players Handbook to reflect traditional gender roles. And that these traditional values people were willing to blackball Wizards of the Coast if it didn't comply, the way the LGBTQ threatens to blackball Wizards of the Coast today if it doesn't put in the mandatory "gender identity" paragraph above.

And let's keep in mind that the 1950's was an era of "pushback" against progress for women. During World War II, women worked in factories to take the place of men who fought in the war, and women started wearing pants. After the war, traditionalists tried to set the clock back, causing such "advice" sections like this to be published in women's magazines:

The Good Wife's Guide (5/13/55 Houskeeping Monthly)

So what would that PHB look like if Wizards of the Coast was forced to rewrite it by traditionalists in the 1950's?

Here's some examples I think would be in there:

CHAPTER 2: RACES

Dwarf

Men are men, and dwarves are dwarves, but male dwarves are even more manly than men! You like to drink, fight, kill monsters, and search for treasure to support your wife and little ones, like any good dwarf male would. You will not do anything a female dwarf might do, like help tidy the dwarf cave, that's female dwarf work! Also, you will not cook, change little dwarf baby diapers, or lift one finger to help your wife in any way with HER WORK, though you will take out the dwarf garbage because that's a dwarf male job that requires you to be strong like a good dwarf male should be.

If you are a female dwarf character, you cannot leave the dwarf cave, because it is your job to stay at home and mind the hearth, you have no business adventuring with the males! Therefore it is not advised to roleplay a female dwarf character, which is why you never see one on a Tolkien adventure.

Elf

An elf is an androgynous creature who giggles like a schoolgirl, sings fruity songs in the forest, and prances about the meadows like a queer. Therefore, roleplaying an elf is not allowed in this game!

Halfling

If you are a male halfling, you are only half a man, but we will let you adventure with us since your kind is so good at sneaking into evil kingdoms and throwing away the ring that would destroy the world. But don't think you're one of the guys! We'll treat you like the woman of the adventuring party and make you cook dinner and clean up the camp, you'll be a good bitch like Samwise Gamgee!

If you are a female halfling, the only character class allowed to you is Housewife! Housewife is not an adventuring class! Stay home and watch the hobbit children, and be ready with slippers, a newspaper, and a pipe full of hobbit-weed when your husband comes home. And have lots of hobbit babies, that's your job!

Human

Male humans are the straight white males of the D&D world. Assume you are in charge in every adventuring party, because that's your privilege. You belong to the youngest race, but you are ambitious, flexible, and willing to try new ideas. In other words, your culture is the D&D equivalent to Western Europe. You are not bound to old, musty traditions like elves and dwarves, who represent ancient civilizations that are now backwards third-world-countries in decline.

Some female humans, like Joan of Arc, think they can cut their hair like a man, dress like a man, wear armor like a man, and fight like a man. They would be wrong! Stay home female humans, you are not wanted on the battlefield!

Gnome

Male gnomes have beards, so we know they are males. In every other way, their high squeaky voices, their excitable personalities, their flighty temper, their inability to admit they are wrong, they are just like females. We allow them on adventuring parties out of respect for the beard, nothing more.

I don't think there even is such a thing as a female gnome. Certainly we have no use for them, because male gnomes tinker with gadgets and clockwork devices, and females certainly don't know how to do that! If there are female gnomes, their silly little heads are filled with loving small furry creatures like squirrels and chipmunks. No need for anyone like that on an adventure! Stay home like a good female gnome should and gather nuts for your friends! And when your husband comes home, give him some nuts, or better yet, let him give his nuts to you!

Half-elf

You are still part-way an elf, which makes you queer, so we don't want you in the adventuring party! Stay home and do whatever you do with your other half-elf friends. We don't want to know about it!

Half-orc

If you are a male half-orc you are quite the manly male, and your orcish heritage makes you tough, mean, and mysogynistic, certainly good qualities for any male. You are certainly welcome with all your manliness!

Female half-orcs, a more difficult question! You are mostly manly, but not all the way. Your gender confusion makes us confused, but maybe we'll just pretend you're a male and allow you in the adventure! Just don't break our balls over the fact that you're really a female and we'll get along just fine!

CHAPTER 3: CLASSES

If you are a female the following classes are prohibited to you: Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard.

Classes that are allowed to females: Housewife, Cleaning Lady, Teacher, Nurse, Librarian, none of these are adventuring classes! Stay home, the adventuring life is not for you! When your adventurer husband comes home, coo to him sweetly and tell him how manly and brave he is, and promise to keep him warm at night with your female-ly goodness! And if you don't want to have sex with your husband, too bad! That's the job you signed up for when you married him! Do your job, you ungrateful wench!

DISCLAIMER: THIS IS MEANT TO BE HUMOROUS AND DOES NOT REFLECT MY PERSONAL VIEWS ON THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN THE HOME AND THE WORKPLACE. I AM JUST TRYING TO MAKE A POINT, WHICH IS THAT POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IN THE 1950'S REQUIRED MAGAZINES TO PRINT STUFF LIKE THIS, AND IT WAS WRONG THEN TO FORCE MAGAZINES AND GAME PUBLISHERS TO PRINT POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GARBAGE, AND IT'S WRONG NOW.

 

[EverCurious]

Antolle ulua sulrim… We are not be surprised by the lesser races jealousy of our Eldar’s natural grace and beauty. After all, it must be quite difficult to live with oneself when even our lowliest of commoners make your kings look as mere paupers on the throne. Be gone with your petty foolishness, we have battles to plan and wars to win - and do not worry little one, we will be generous in victory and allow you the scraps from our tables.

 

[The Great Goose]

Basically they ruin the fun of being a female character, because you have to be a man that wears female clothes instead. Lol

 

[Blackrook]

We have always had political correctness in America:

"When an opinion has taken root in a democracy and established itself in the minds of the majority, it afterward persists by itself, needing no effort to maintain it since no one attacks it. Those who at first rejected it as false come in the end to adopt it as accepted, and even those who still at the bottom of their hearts oppose it keep their views to themselves, taking great care to avoid a dangerous and futile contest."

-- Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Volume II (1840), Book Three, Chapter XXI.


In the 1950's, the forces of political correctness said the woman's place was in the home, and that it was deeply wrong for a woman to have a career (except in certain woman only jobs), especially if she had children.

So it was not men, per se, that were holding down women from having a career, it was all of society imposing that view on those who disagreed.

I remember a movie called "Kisses for My President" about the first woman President, made in 1964:

Kisses for My President - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The movie is not very good, but it has an even worse ending. The President finds out she is pregnant, so she resigns from office to devote to being a full-time housewife and stay-at-home Mom. When I watched this movie as a kid, I did not expect this weird ending, because my mother was a working woman, and I saw this as normal. It never occurred to me that she should quit her job as a professor to stay home with me and my brother full-time.

But in 1964, political correctness demanded that ending. The whole movie was devoted to the notion that it was absurd to have a male "first gentleman" but what the movie was really saying is that it was absurd to have a woman President, and the ending proved that was the true message. The out-of-control children, who did not have Mom watching over them because she was too busy being President, is more proof that the message was that women shouldn't have a career.

By today's standards, the movie is misogynic. But by the standards of the day, it was bold for even presenting the notion that a woman COULD be President, though the makers of the movie bowed to political correctness by portraying that possibility in an entirely negative light.

And political correctness has been a hallmark of American life since America became a nation. Here's another quote from de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Volume I (1835):

• I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America.
  • Chapter XV.

• In America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them.
  • Chapter XV.

My father once told me that in Greece, you can have any opinion you want and speak it openly. You can believe in democracy, you can be a fascist, can be an outright Communist, and no one cares. In America, we do not have this freedom of thought.

True, we have the legal right to say what we want. But a democratic society has ways to impose uniformity of opinion in ways that no government, no matter how oppressive, can achieve.

de Tocqueville had this to say:

• The public, therefore, among a democratic people, has a singular power, which aristocratic nations cannot conceive; for it does not persuade others to its beliefs, but it imposes them and makes them permeate the thinking of everyone by a sort of enormous pressure of the mind of all upon the individual intelligence.

• In the United States, the majority undertakes to supply a multitude of ready-made opinions for the use of individuals, who are thus relieved from the necessity of forming opinions of their own.

-- Democracy in America, Volume II (1840), Book One, Chapter II.

So here are two examples. In 1964, when the movie "Kisses for My President" it was politically incorrect to portray a woman as President, so they had to show it as having a harmful effect on the children, and have her resign to be a housewife when she got pregnant.

In 2014, when the D&D PHB was published, political correctness required the mandatory "gender identity" paragraph, which now all roleplaying games must include in their book somewhere, to avoid a blackball from the LGBTQ community.

I posit that the opinion of political correctness has changed in the 50 years between 1964 and 2014, but it is the same kind of bossy busybody people who are threatening the blackball. They used to blackball Communists, now they blackball people who oppose same-sex marriage. But the goal is the same, oppression of freedom of thought, not through government sanction, but through sheer force of societal disapproval and even loathing for anyone who dares get out of step.

And what's weird about it, is no one questions the legitimacy of this tactic, and every side of every argument uses it. The Catholic Church uses blackballing to stop black masses. The LGBTQ community uses blackballing to punish North Carolina and Mississippi for passing restroom laws. A science fiction author is blackballed for failing to support same-sex marriage fast enough. And it goes on.

What we are doing to ourselves, and each other, is using our influence in society to destroy our own freedom, and I'm talking about real freedom to really speak your mind. It doesn't matter that the government doesn't punish you. If you lose your job and career because you said something opposing what is politically correct, then none of us are truly free.

And this has been going on since at least 1835, so a foreigner says we Americans actually have less freedom to speak our mind than in any other country.

 

[The Great Goose]

We have always had political correctness in America:

"When an opinion has taken root in a democracy and established itself in the minds of the majority, it afterward persists by itself, needing no effort to maintain it since no one attacks it. Those who at first rejected it as false come in the end to adopt it as accepted, and even those who still at the bottom of their hearts oppose it keep their views to themselves, taking great care to avoid a dangerous and futile contest."

-- Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Volume II (1840), Book Three, Chapter XXI.


In the 1950's, the forces of political correctness said the woman's place was in the home, and that it was deeply wrong for a woman to have a career (except in certain woman only jobs), especially if she had children.

So it was not men, per se, that were holding down women from having a career, it was all of society imposing that view on those who disagreed.

I remember a movie called "Kisses for My President" about the first woman President, made in 1964:

Kisses for My President - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The movie is not very good, but it has an even worse ending. The President finds out she is pregnant, so she resigns from office to devote to being a full-time housewife and stay-at-home Mom. When I watched this movie as a kid, I did not expect this weird ending, because my mother was a working woman, and I saw this as normal. It never occurred to me that she should quit her job as a professor to stay home with me and my brother full-time.

But in 1964, political correctness demanded that ending. The whole movie was devoted to the notion that it was absurd to have a male "first gentleman" but what the movie was really saying is that it was absurd to have a woman President, and the ending proved that was the true message. The out-of-control children, who did not have Mom watching over them because she was too busy being President, is more proof that the message was that women shouldn't have a career.

By today's standards, the movie is misogynic. But by the standards of the day, it was bold for even presenting the notion that a woman COULD be President, though the makers of the movie bowed to political correctness by portraying that possibility in an entirely negative light.

And political correctness has been a hallmark of American life since America became a nation. Here's another quote from de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Volume I (1835):

• 
  
  
  • I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America.
    • Chapter XV.

• 
  
  
  • In America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them.
    • Chapter XV.

My father once told me that in Greece, you can have any opinion you want and speak it openly. You can believe in democracy, you can be a fascist, can be an outright Communist, and no one cares. In America, we do not have this freedom of thought.

True, we have the legal right to say what we want. But a democratic society has ways to impose uniformity of opinion in ways that no government, no matter how oppressive, can achieve.

de Tocqueville had this to say:

• 
  
  
  • The public, therefore, among a democratic people, has a singular power, which aristocratic nations cannot conceive; for it does not persuade others to its beliefs, but it imposes them and makes them permeate the thinking of everyone by a sort of enormous pressure of the mind of all upon the individual intelligence.

• 
  
  
  • In the United States, the majority undertakes to supply a multitude of ready-made opinions for the use of individuals, who are thus relieved from the necessity of forming opinions of their own.

-- Democracy in America, Volume II (1840), Book One, Chapter II.

So here are two examples. In 1964, when the movie "Kisses for My President" it was politically incorrect to portray a woman as President, so they had to show it as having a harmful effect on the children, and have her resign to be a housewife when she got pregnant.

In 2014, when the D&D PHB was published, political correctness required the mandatory "gender identity" paragraph, which now all roleplaying games must include in their book somewhere, to avoid a blackball from the LGBTQ community.

I posit that the opinion of political correctness has changed in the 50 years between 1964 and 2014, but it is the same kind of bossy busybody people who are threatening the blackball. They used to blackball Communists, now they blackball people who oppose same-sex marriage. But the goal is the same, oppression of freedom of thought, not through government sanction, but through sheer force of societal disapproval and even loathing for anyone who dares get out of step.

And what's weird about it, is no one questions the legitimacy of this tactic, and every side of every argument uses it. The Catholic Church uses blackballing to stop black masses. The LGBTQ community uses blackballing to punish North Carolina and Mississippi for passing restroom laws. A science fiction author is blackballed for failing to support same-sex marriage fast enough. And it goes on.

What we are doing to ourselves, and each other, is using our influence in society to destroy our own freedom, and I'm talking about real freedom to really speak your mind. It doesn't matter that the government doesn't punish you. If you lose your job and career because you said something opposing what is politically correct, then none of us are truly free.

And this has been going on since at least 1835, so a foreigner says we Americans actually have less freedom to speak our mind than in any other country.

Common consensus =/= political correctness.

 

[LoneLaugher]

We have always had political correctness in America:

"When an opinion has taken root in a democracy and established itself in the minds of the majority, it afterward persists by itself, needing no effort to maintain it since no one attacks it. Those who at first rejected it as false come in the end to adopt it as accepted, and even those who still at the bottom of their hearts oppose it keep their views to themselves, taking great care to avoid a dangerous and futile contest."

-- Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Volume II (1840), Book Three, Chapter XXI.


In the 1950's, the forces of political correctness said the woman's place was in the home, and that it was deeply wrong for a woman to have a career (except in certain woman only jobs), especially if she had children.

So it was not men, per se, that were holding down women from having a career, it was all of society imposing that view on those who disagreed.

I remember a movie called "Kisses for My President" about the first woman President, made in 1964:

Kisses for My President - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The movie is not very good, but it has an even worse ending. The President finds out she is pregnant, so she resigns from office to devote to being a full-time housewife and stay-at-home Mom. When I watched this movie as a kid, I did not expect this weird ending, because my mother was a working woman, and I saw this as normal. It never occurred to me that she should quit her job as a professor to stay home with me and my brother full-time.

But in 1964, political correctness demanded that ending. The whole movie was devoted to the notion that it was absurd to have a male "first gentleman" but what the movie was really saying is that it was absurd to have a woman President, and the ending proved that was the true message. The out-of-control children, who did not have Mom watching over them because she was too busy being President, is more proof that the message was that women shouldn't have a career.

By today's standards, the movie is misogynic. But by the standards of the day, it was bold for even presenting the notion that a woman COULD be President, though the makers of the movie bowed to political correctness by portraying that possibility in an entirely negative light.

And political correctness has been a hallmark of American life since America became a nation. Here's another quote from de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Volume I (1835):

• 
  
  
  • I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America.
    • Chapter XV.

• 
  
  
  • In America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them.
    • Chapter XV.

My father once told me that in Greece, you can have any opinion you want and speak it openly. You can believe in democracy, you can be a fascist, can be an outright Communist, and no one cares. In America, we do not have this freedom of thought.

True, we have the legal right to say what we want. But a democratic society has ways to impose uniformity of opinion in ways that no government, no matter how oppressive, can achieve.

de Tocqueville had this to say:

• 
  
  
  • The public, therefore, among a democratic people, has a singular power, which aristocratic nations cannot conceive; for it does not persuade others to its beliefs, but it imposes them and makes them permeate the thinking of everyone by a sort of enormous pressure of the mind of all upon the individual intelligence.

• 
  
  
  • In the United States, the majority undertakes to supply a multitude of ready-made opinions for the use of individuals, who are thus relieved from the necessity of forming opinions of their own.

-- Democracy in America, Volume II (1840), Book One, Chapter II.

So here are two examples. In 1964, when the movie "Kisses for My President" it was politically incorrect to portray a woman as President, so they had to show it as having a harmful effect on the children, and have her resign to be a housewife when she got pregnant.

In 2014, when the D&D PHB was published, political correctness required the mandatory "gender identity" paragraph, which now all roleplaying games must include in their book somewhere, to avoid a blackball from the LGBTQ community.

I posit that the opinion of political correctness has changed in the 50 years between 1964 and 2014, but it is the same kind of bossy busybody people who are threatening the blackball. They used to blackball Communists, now they blackball people who oppose same-sex marriage. But the goal is the same, oppression of freedom of thought, not through government sanction, but through sheer force of societal disapproval and even loathing for anyone who dares get out of step.

And what's weird about it, is no one questions the legitimacy of this tactic, and every side of every argument uses it. The Catholic Church uses blackballing to stop black masses. The LGBTQ community uses blackballing to punish North Carolina and Mississippi for passing restroom laws. A science fiction author is blackballed for failing to support same-sex marriage fast enough. And it goes on.

What we are doing to ourselves, and each other, is using our influence in society to destroy our own freedom, and I'm talking about real freedom to really speak your mind. It doesn't matter that the government doesn't punish you. If you lose your job and career because you said something opposing what is politically correct, then none of us are truly free.

And this has been going on since at least 1835, so a foreigner says we Americans actually have less freedom to speak our mind than in any other country.

Nah......you don't have too much free time. Not at all.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

(Please delete dupe thread posted in Humor Section).

I started a thread here:

Message to LGBTQ people -- stop pushing your agenda into my beloved roleplaying games!!!

A quote from the character creation section of the Dungeon & Dragons Next (5th ed.) Players Handbook:

You don't need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender. The elf god Corellon Larethian is often seen as androgynous or hermaphroditic, for example, and some elves in the multiverse are made in Corellon's image. You could also play a female character who presents herself as a man, a man who feels trapped in a female body, or a bearded female dwarf who hates being mistaken for a male. Likewise, your character's sexual orientation is for you to decide.

This kind of paragraph now appears universally in the character creation sections of role playing games, reflecting a changing society where people pushing the radical LGBTQ agenda have more power to blackball a game publisher than traditionalists who might oppose the LGBTQ agenda.

But let us say we return to a more traditional age, an age of more traditional values, say the 1950's before the dawn of the sexual revolution, before the radicalization caused by the Vietnam War, and when homosexuality was the "love that dares not speak its name."

A simpler time, when men were men, and women were women, and never any confusion between the two (or so it appeared).

And let's say that traditional values groups who cared about keeping men in the office/factory and women in the kitchen pressured Wizards of the Coast to rewrite the character creation chapters of the Players Handbook to reflect traditional gender roles. And that these traditional values people were willing to blackball Wizards of the Coast if it didn't comply, the way the LGBTQ threatens to blackball Wizards of the Coast today if it doesn't put in the mandatory "gender identity" paragraph above.

And let's keep in mind that the 1950's was an era of "pushback" against progress for women. During World War II, women worked in factories to take the place of men who fought in the war, and women started wearing pants. After the war, traditionalists tried to set the clock back, causing such "advice" sections like this to be published in women's magazines:

The Good Wife's Guide (5/13/55 Houskeeping Monthly)

So what would that PHB look like if Wizards of the Coast was forced to rewrite it by traditionalists in the 1950's?

Here's some examples I think would be in there:

CHAPTER 2: RACES

Dwarf

Men are men, and dwarves are dwarves, but male dwarves are even more manly than men! You like to drink, fight, kill monsters, and search for treasure to support your wife and little ones, like any good dwarf male would. You will not do anything a female dwarf might do, like help tidy the dwarf cave, that's female dwarf work! Also, you will not cook, change little dwarf baby diapers, or lift one finger to help your wife in any way with HER WORK, though you will take out the dwarf garbage because that's a dwarf male job that requires you to be strong like a good dwarf male should be.

If you are a female dwarf character, you cannot leave the dwarf cave, because it is your job to stay at home and mind the hearth, you have no business adventuring with the males! Therefore it is not advised to roleplay a female dwarf character, which is why you never see one on a Tolkien adventure.

Elf

An elf is an androgynous creature who giggles like a schoolgirl, sings fruity songs in the forest, and prances about the meadows like a queer. Therefore, roleplaying an elf is not allowed in this game!

Halfling

If you are a male halfling, you are only half a man, but we will let you adventure with us since your kind is so good at sneaking into evil kingdoms and throwing away the ring that would destroy the world. But don't think you're one of the guys! We'll treat you like the woman of the adventuring party and make you cook dinner and clean up the camp, you'll be a good bitch like Samwise Gamgee!

If you are a female halfling, the only character class allowed to you is Housewife! Housewife is not an adventuring class! Stay home and watch the hobbit children, and be ready with slippers, a newspaper, and a pipe full of hobbit-weed when your husband comes home. And have lots of hobbit babies, that's your job!

Human

Male humans are the straight white males of the D&D world. Assume you are in charge in every adventuring party, because that's your privilege. You belong to the youngest race, but you are ambitious, flexible, and willing to try new ideas. In other words, your culture is the D&D equivalent to Western Europe. You are not bound to old, musty traditions like elves and dwarves, who represent ancient civilizations that are now backwards third-world-countries in decline.

Some female humans, like Joan of Arc, think they can cut their hair like a man, dress like a man, wear armor like a man, and fight like a man. They would be wrong! Stay home female humans, you are not wanted on the battlefield!

Gnome

Male gnomes have beards, so we know they are males. In every other way, their high squeaky voices, their excitable personalities, their flighty temper, their inability to admit they are wrong, they are just like females. We allow them on adventuring parties out of respect for the beard, nothing more.

I don't think there even is such a thing as a female gnome. Certainly we have no use for them, because male gnomes tinker with gadgets and clockwork devices, and females certainly don't know how to do that! If there are female gnomes, their silly little heads are filled with loving small furry creatures like squirrels and chipmunks. No need for anyone like that on an adventure! Stay home like a good female gnome should and gather nuts for your friends! And when your husband comes home, give him some nuts, or better yet, let him give his nuts to you!

Half-elf

You are still part-way an elf, which makes you queer, so we don't want you in the adventuring party! Stay home and do whatever you do with your other half-elf friends. We don't want to know about it!

Half-orc

If you are a male half-orc you are quite the manly male, and your orcish heritage makes you tough, mean, and mysogynistic, certainly good qualities for any male. You are certainly welcome with all your manliness!

Female half-orcs, a more difficult question! You are mostly manly, but not all the way. Your gender confusion makes us confused, but maybe we'll just pretend you're a male and allow you in the adventure! Just don't break our balls over the fact that you're really a female and we'll get along just fine!

CHAPTER 3: CLASSES

If you are a female the following classes are prohibited to you: Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard.

Classes that are allowed to females: Housewife, Cleaning Lady, Teacher, Nurse, Librarian, none of these are adventuring classes! Stay home, the adventuring life is not for you! When your adventurer husband comes home, coo to him sweetly and tell him how manly and brave he is, and promise to keep him warm at night with your female-ly goodness! And if you don't want to have sex with your husband, too bad! That's the job you signed up for when you married him! Do your job, you ungrateful wench!

DISCLAIMER: THIS IS MEANT TO BE HUMOROUS AND DOES NOT REFLECT MY PERSONAL VIEWS ON THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN THE HOME AND THE WORKPLACE. I AM JUST TRYING TO MAKE A POINT, WHICH IS THAT POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IN THE 1950'S REQUIRED MAGAZINES TO PRINT STUFF LIKE THIS, AND IT WAS WRONG THEN TO FORCE MAGAZINES AND GAME PUBLISHERS TO PRINT POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GARBAGE, AND IT'S WRONG NOW.

America ran like a Swiss clock in the 50s when women knew their place and worked to please her man in every way. That list for housewives needs to be published again. Perhaps modernized as daily tweets #pleasingHim.

 

[August West]

(Please delete dupe thread posted in Humor Section).

I started a thread here:

Message to LGBTQ people -- stop pushing your agenda into my beloved roleplaying games!!!

A quote from the character creation section of the Dungeon & Dragons Next (5th ed.) Players Handbook:

You don't need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender. The elf god Corellon Larethian is often seen as androgynous or hermaphroditic, for example, and some elves in the multiverse are made in Corellon's image. You could also play a female character who presents herself as a man, a man who feels trapped in a female body, or a bearded female dwarf who hates being mistaken for a male. Likewise, your character's sexual orientation is for you to decide.

This kind of paragraph now appears universally in the character creation sections of role playing games, reflecting a changing society where people pushing the radical LGBTQ agenda have more power to blackball a game publisher than traditionalists who might oppose the LGBTQ agenda.

But let us say we return to a more traditional age, an age of more traditional values, say the 1950's before the dawn of the sexual revolution, before the radicalization caused by the Vietnam War, and when homosexuality was the "love that dares not speak its name."

A simpler time, when men were men, and women were women, and never any confusion between the two (or so it appeared).

And let's say that traditional values groups who cared about keeping men in the office/factory and women in the kitchen pressured Wizards of the Coast to rewrite the character creation chapters of the Players Handbook to reflect traditional gender roles. And that these traditional values people were willing to blackball Wizards of the Coast if it didn't comply, the way the LGBTQ threatens to blackball Wizards of the Coast today if it doesn't put in the mandatory "gender identity" paragraph above.

And let's keep in mind that the 1950's was an era of "pushback" against progress for women. During World War II, women worked in factories to take the place of men who fought in the war, and women started wearing pants. After the war, traditionalists tried to set the clock back, causing such "advice" sections like this to be published in women's magazines:

The Good Wife's Guide (5/13/55 Houskeeping Monthly)

So what would that PHB look like if Wizards of the Coast was forced to rewrite it by traditionalists in the 1950's?

Here's some examples I think would be in there:

CHAPTER 2: RACES

Dwarf

Men are men, and dwarves are dwarves, but male dwarves are even more manly than men! You like to drink, fight, kill monsters, and search for treasure to support your wife and little ones, like any good dwarf male would. You will not do anything a female dwarf might do, like help tidy the dwarf cave, that's female dwarf work! Also, you will not cook, change little dwarf baby diapers, or lift one finger to help your wife in any way with HER WORK, though you will take out the dwarf garbage because that's a dwarf male job that requires you to be strong like a good dwarf male should be.

If you are a female dwarf character, you cannot leave the dwarf cave, because it is your job to stay at home and mind the hearth, you have no business adventuring with the males! Therefore it is not advised to roleplay a female dwarf character, which is why you never see one on a Tolkien adventure.

Elf

An elf is an androgynous creature who giggles like a schoolgirl, sings fruity songs in the forest, and prances about the meadows like a queer. Therefore, roleplaying an elf is not allowed in this game!

Halfling

If you are a male halfling, you are only half a man, but we will let you adventure with us since your kind is so good at sneaking into evil kingdoms and throwing away the ring that would destroy the world. But don't think you're one of the guys! We'll treat you like the woman of the adventuring party and make you cook dinner and clean up the camp, you'll be a good bitch like Samwise Gamgee!

If you are a female halfling, the only character class allowed to you is Housewife! Housewife is not an adventuring class! Stay home and watch the hobbit children, and be ready with slippers, a newspaper, and a pipe full of hobbit-weed when your husband comes home. And have lots of hobbit babies, that's your job!

Human

Male humans are the straight white males of the D&D world. Assume you are in charge in every adventuring party, because that's your privilege. You belong to the youngest race, but you are ambitious, flexible, and willing to try new ideas. In other words, your culture is the D&D equivalent to Western Europe. You are not bound to old, musty traditions like elves and dwarves, who represent ancient civilizations that are now backwards third-world-countries in decline.

Some female humans, like Joan of Arc, think they can cut their hair like a man, dress like a man, wear armor like a man, and fight like a man. They would be wrong! Stay home female humans, you are not wanted on the battlefield!

Gnome

Male gnomes have beards, so we know they are males. In every other way, their high squeaky voices, their excitable personalities, their flighty temper, their inability to admit they are wrong, they are just like females. We allow them on adventuring parties out of respect for the beard, nothing more.

I don't think there even is such a thing as a female gnome. Certainly we have no use for them, because male gnomes tinker with gadgets and clockwork devices, and females certainly don't know how to do that! If there are female gnomes, their silly little heads are filled with loving small furry creatures like squirrels and chipmunks. No need for anyone like that on an adventure! Stay home like a good female gnome should and gather nuts for your friends! And when your husband comes home, give him some nuts, or better yet, let him give his nuts to you!

Half-elf

You are still part-way an elf, which makes you queer, so we don't want you in the adventuring party! Stay home and do whatever you do with your other half-elf friends. We don't want to know about it!

Half-orc

If you are a male half-orc you are quite the manly male, and your orcish heritage makes you tough, mean, and mysogynistic, certainly good qualities for any male. You are certainly welcome with all your manliness!

Female half-orcs, a more difficult question! You are mostly manly, but not all the way. Your gender confusion makes us confused, but maybe we'll just pretend you're a male and allow you in the adventure! Just don't break our balls over the fact that you're really a female and we'll get along just fine!

CHAPTER 3: CLASSES

If you are a female the following classes are prohibited to you: Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard.

Classes that are allowed to females: Housewife, Cleaning Lady, Teacher, Nurse, Librarian, none of these are adventuring classes! Stay home, the adventuring life is not for you! When your adventurer husband comes home, coo to him sweetly and tell him how manly and brave he is, and promise to keep him warm at night with your female-ly goodness! And if you don't want to have sex with your husband, too bad! That's the job you signed up for when you married him! Do your job, you ungrateful wench!

DISCLAIMER: THIS IS MEANT TO BE HUMOROUS AND DOES NOT REFLECT MY PERSONAL VIEWS ON THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN THE HOME AND THE WORKPLACE. I AM JUST TRYING TO MAKE A POINT, WHICH IS THAT POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IN THE 1950'S REQUIRED MAGAZINES TO PRINT STUFF LIKE THIS, AND IT WAS WRONG THEN TO FORCE MAGAZINES AND GAME PUBLISHERS TO PRINT POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GARBAGE, AND IT'S WRONG NOW.

For those of us over the age of 12, wtf is dungeons and dragons?

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

What would D & D handbook look like in the 1950's? A heap of ashes! Christian parents in the 1950's would have demanded that the demon inspired D & D handbook be burned to a crisp! Today? Most Christian parents have no idea that it is a door to the occult due to ignorance of the Word of God. We are to have nothing to do with such evil / role playing with demons. It's purely satanic.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

No Christian should have anything to do with D & D games nor should they permit their children to be involved with it.

Straight Talk on Dungeons and Dragons

y William Schnoebelen

Should a Christian play D&D?Schnoebelen's first 'Straight Talk' on D&D (at left) raised lots of questions. Here are his well-researched answers on this controversy.

Dungeons and Dragons is a tragic and tangled subject. It is essentially a feeding program for occultism and witchcraft. For Christians, the first scriptural problem is the fact that Dungeons and Dragons violates the commandment of I Ths. 5:22 "Abstain from all appearance of evil." Much of the trappings, art, figurines, and writing within D&D certainly appears evil-to say the least of it.

On top of that, the second issue is that the materials themselves, in many cases, contain authentic magical rituals. I can tell you this from my own experience. I was a witch high priest (Alexandrian tradition) during the period 1973-84. During some of that period (1976-80) I was also involved in hardcore Satanism. We studied and practiced and trained more than 175 people in the Craft. Our "covendom" was in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; just a short drive away from the world headquarters of TSR, the company which makes Dungeons and Dragons in Lake Geneva, WI. In the late 1970's, a couple of the game writers actually came to my wife and I as prominent "sorcerers" in the community. They wanted to make certain the rituals were authentic. For the most part, they are.

These two guys sat in our living room and took copious notes from us on how to make sure the rituals were truly right "from the book," (this meaning that they actually came from magic grimoires or workbooks). They seemed satisfied with what they got and left us thankfully.

Back in 1986, a fellow appeared on The 700 Club who was a former employee and game writer for TSR. He testified right on the show that he got into a wrangle with the management there because he saw that the rituals were too authentic and could be dangerous. He protested to his boss and was basically told that this was the intent—to make the games as real as possible. He felt conscience-stricken (even though he was not a Christian at the time), and felt he had to resign from the company.

Now, the question becomes—if a person "innocently" works an authentic ritual that conjures up a demon, or curses someone; thinking that they are only playing a game-might not the ritual still have efficacy? I think we know the answer to that question. If you play at shooting your friend in the head with what you think is an unloaded pistol and don't know a shell is in the chamber, is your friend any less dead because you were playing?

People need to understand that God's universe runs on laws no less real in the spiritual realm than the laws of physics that propel a bullet out of a gun-and those laws are just as irreversible. God says that if you tamper with magic and the occult, you are stepping out from under His will and His protection (assuming you are a Christian). If you are not a Christian, then you are REALLY playing with fire. Some verses which clearly teach this are found in Exod. 22:18, Lev. 19:31, Lev. 20:6, Deut. 18:10, 1Sam. 15:23, 2Kgs. 21:6, Is. 8:19, Gal. 5:20, Rev. 21:8, Rev. 22:15.

Deadly Games?
To quote an old proverb, "Though the boys throw stones at the frogs in sport, the frogs die in earnest." Just because the people playing D&D think they are playing a game doesn't mean that the evil spirits (who ARE very real) will regard it as a game. If you are doing rituals or saying spells that invite them into your life, then they will come-believe me! We have prayed with enough people our age and younger who were former D&D fans, and they were totally in bondage to it.

This brings us to other unsavory aspects of the game. One pro-D&D psychologist wrote that "There is hardly a game in which the players do not indulge in murder, arson, torture, rape or highway 1 In fact, the Dungeon Master's Guide gives the celebrated Adolph Hitler as an example of a real historical person that exhibited D&D charisma! The values contained in the game are, at the very best, "might makes right."

Additionally, much of the game contains overtones that reek of illicit sex and sexual violence. For example, the cover of one D&D supplement, called Eldrich Wizardry, shows a naked woman reclining on an obviously satanic ritual altar. This tragic scene is compelling because it is really what is done in genuine satanic groups all over the2 It is extremely sado-masochistic because the fate of such a woman is to be either raped, gang-raped, tortured or sacrificed to a demon god. This kind of imagery can be very provocative and seductive to adolescent males or even adults.

Additionally, male characters in the game often try to seduce female characters; and references abound to things like venereal disease and satyriasis (a male condition of permanent sexual arousal). Can these sorts of things be appropriate for Christians or even for any decent person of whatever faith?
_____________
The short answer? No.

 

[Blackrook]

And there are certain things I believe, that I never say on this forum, even anonymously, because they are beyond the barrier our society has imposed on what is acceptable for an American to believe.

I will give one example, and I expect to catch serious heat for it:

I believe that some veterans, even when they are conservatives who bash welfare recipients, constantly have their own hand out for their own kind of welfare, which they believe they have earned through their service, but which still comes out of the pocket of the taxpayer.

Veterans get free healthcare for life, free college education, 0% down home loans, and life-time pensions after 20 years, and all of it is very expensive.

Also, some veterans have a feeling of entitlement that irks me, as if their service makes them "super-citizens" with more right to an opinion about war than those who did not serve. If a non-veteran favors a war, veterans may call him a "chicken-hawk." If a non-veteran opposes a war, veterans may despise him as a coward. I am not saying all veterans are like this, but enough. That is why I rarely start a conversation about any of our many wars, because I don't want veterans piling on me.

The reason I am mentioning this as an example is that it is considered un-American and downright unpatriotic to not kiss veteran/serviceman ass every time they show up in uniform. When they show up in uniform, we are expected to thank them for their service. When we see them in uniforms at the airport, we are expected to applaud. If we don't do this, they get upset that we are ungrateful for the dangers and sacrifices they endured.

I am grateful. But I no longer think that we are fighting all these wars for "freedom" or even to fight terrorism anymore. I think we're fighting these wars because we got into them, and we have no clue how to get out. The people who run our government, through sheer incompetence, continue to send men and women to fight these wars because they have lost any concept that there might be alternatives. And under American supervision, the countries we invaded have cracked down on Christians and driven them out, Islam has become more radicalized and divided against itself, and Afghanistan has become the number one source of heroin in the world. Also, in Afghanistan, our troops are under strict orders to allow Afghan officers to molest little boys and not to interfere.

So what are we fighting for? Christian persecution? Islamic extremism and civil war? The opium trade? Child molesters? We are fighting for all these things, and in the process a lot of American corporations are making a big profit while American boys and girls lose their lives and limbs.

Are veterans to blame for any of this? In a way, they are. They've been there, so they know how fucked up the situation really is, but I don't see enough of them speaking out about it. We now have many thousands of combat veterans and the way I see it, they should all be doing their damndest to stop these fucked up wars any way they can.

What got me really going on this topic is that the Marines tried to recruit my son when he turned 18-years-old. The Marines promised him they would make a man out of him, but in my opinion they would turn him into the kind of man that is no longer my son. My son is a gentle soul, who has never lifted a hand of violence against anyone in his entire life, or spoken a harsh word about anyone. He always finds the good in everyone, and is friends with people that very few other people would give the time of day to. He is my son, and I love him more than any other person in the world, even my wife and daughters. I do not want the Marines to turn him into a killer, and I do not want him to kill. Also, I have devoted 20 years of my life to raising him, and I do not want to hand him over to the government so they can get him killed or maimed in a war that I believe is stupid, and then spit his maimed or dead body back to me so I can pick up the pieces. And also, there is PTSD. It seems that almost everyone who comes back from these wars has PTSD. I do not want my son to suffer like that.

Am I selfish? Am I unpatriotic? Am I un-American? You can call me all of those things. I just want my son to live, and keep his arms and legs, and to be always happy. Him going in the military goes against all these goals, and for what? A stupid medal that I can pin to his picture after he is dead? No, I'm not foolish enough to think that's enough consolation for a stupid death in a stupid war fighting for bad people who don't deserve our help.

So I talked my son out of joining the Marines, and now he has a civilian job doing tech support for a console game company. And if all goes well, he will live a long and healthy, and happy life. And I am content that even if I did the unpatriotic thing, I did the right thing by my son.

Now you may bash me, and wave the flag at me, but I regret nothing.

 

[LoneLaugher]

No Christian should have anything to do with D & D games nor should they permit their children to be involved with it.

Straight Talk on Dungeons and Dragons

y William Schnoebelen

Should a Christian play D&D?Schnoebelen's first 'Straight Talk' on D&D (at left) raised lots of questions. Here are his well-researched answers on this controversy.

Dungeons and Dragons is a tragic and tangled subject. It is essentially a feeding program for occultism and witchcraft. For Christians, the first scriptural problem is the fact that Dungeons and Dragons violates the commandment of I Ths. 5:22 "Abstain from all appearance of evil." Much of the trappings, art, figurines, and writing within D&D certainly appears evil-to say the least of it.

On top of that, the second issue is that the materials themselves, in many cases, contain authentic magical rituals. I can tell you this from my own experience. I was a witch high priest (Alexandrian tradition) during the period 1973-84. During some of that period (1976-80) I was also involved in hardcore Satanism. We studied and practiced and trained more than 175 people in the Craft. Our "covendom" was in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; just a short drive away from the world headquarters of TSR, the company which makes Dungeons and Dragons in Lake Geneva, WI. In the late 1970's, a couple of the game writers actually came to my wife and I as prominent "sorcerers" in the community. They wanted to make certain the rituals were authentic. For the most part, they are.

These two guys sat in our living room and took copious notes from us on how to make sure the rituals were truly right "from the book," (this meaning that they actually came from magic grimoires or workbooks). They seemed satisfied with what they got and left us thankfully.

Back in 1986, a fellow appeared on The 700 Club who was a former employee and game writer for TSR. He testified right on the show that he got into a wrangle with the management there because he saw that the rituals were too authentic and could be dangerous. He protested to his boss and was basically told that this was the intent—to make the games as real as possible. He felt conscience-stricken (even though he was not a Christian at the time), and felt he had to resign from the company.

Now, the question becomes—if a person "innocently" works an authentic ritual that conjures up a demon, or curses someone; thinking that they are only playing a game-might not the ritual still have efficacy? I think we know the answer to that question. If you play at shooting your friend in the head with what you think is an unloaded pistol and don't know a shell is in the chamber, is your friend any less dead because you were playing?

People need to understand that God's universe runs on laws no less real in the spiritual realm than the laws of physics that propel a bullet out of a gun-and those laws are just as irreversible. God says that if you tamper with magic and the occult, you are stepping out from under His will and His protection (assuming you are a Christian). If you are not a Christian, then you are REALLY playing with fire. Some verses which clearly teach this are found in Exod. 22:18, Lev. 19:31, Lev. 20:6, Deut. 18:10, 1Sam. 15:23, 2Kgs. 21:6, Is. 8:19, Gal. 5:20, Rev. 21:8, Rev. 22:15.



Deadly Games?


To quote an old proverb, "Though the boys throw stones at the frogs in sport, the frogs die in earnest." Just because the people playing D&D think they are playing a game doesn't mean that the evil spirits (who ARE very real) will regard it as a game. If you are doing rituals or saying spells that invite them into your life, then they will come-believe me! We have prayed with enough people our age and younger who were former D&D fans, and they were totally in bondage to it.

This brings us to other unsavory aspects of the game. One pro-D&D psychologist wrote that "There is hardly a game in which the players do not indulge in murder, arson, torture, rape or highway 1 In fact, the Dungeon Master's Guide gives the celebrated Adolph Hitler as an example of a real historical person that exhibited D&D charisma! The values contained in the game are, at the very best, "might makes right."

Additionally, much of the game contains overtones that reek of illicit sex and sexual violence. For example, the cover of one D&D supplement, called Eldrich Wizardry, shows a naked woman reclining on an obviously satanic ritual altar. This tragic scene is compelling because it is really what is done in genuine satanic groups all over the2 It is extremely sado-masochistic because the fate of such a woman is to be either raped, gang-raped, tortured or sacrificed to a demon god. This kind of imagery can be very provocative and seductive to adolescent males or even adults.

Additionally, male characters in the game often try to seduce female characters; and references abound to things like venereal disease and satyriasis (a male condition of permanent sexual arousal). Can these sorts of things be appropriate for Christians or even for any decent person of whatever faith?



Do-It-Yourself Brainwashing


Additionally, Fantasy-Role-Playing (FRP) games like D&D do employ brainwashing techniques:

1. Fear generation-via spells and mental imaging about fear-filled, emotional scenes, and threats to survival of FRP characters.
2. Isolation-psychological removal from traditional support structures (family, church, etc.) into an imaginary world. Physical isolation due to extremely time-consuming play activities outside the family atmosphere.
3. Physical torture and killings-images in the mind can be almost as real as the actual experiences. Focus of the games is upon killings and torture for power, acquisition of wealth, and survival of characters.
4. Erosion of family values-the Dungeon Master (DM) demands an all-encompassing and total loyalty, control and allegiance.
5. Situational Ethics-any act can be justified in the mind of the player, therefore there are no absolutes of right or wrong; no morality other than "point" morality needed to ensure survival and advancement. There are no win-win situations and good forces seldom triumph over evil forces.
6. Religion-values and belief systems (see below) are restructured from traditional Judeo-Christian ethics (which most people in Western culture adhere to) to belief in multiple gods and deities. Players align themselves with specific deities they select; patron deities are strongly urged. These are not fantasy deities, but are drawn from genuine ancient religions and beliefs! Only occult gods are included. In addition, defilement is urged in many ways, such as excrement or urinating to "defile a font."
7. Loss of Self-control-authority over self is surrendered to the DM. Depending on the personality and ego-strength of the player, this loss can be near absolute.
8. Degradation-pain and torture are heavily involved in sadistic, sexual situations that graphically appeal to visceral impulses. Much of the material (as mentioned above) is well into pornographic areas and stresses the defilement of3

Ruh Roh! Two nutbags who both think Obama isn't legit and God should be POTUS are about to throw down over child's play.

This could be fun.

 

[LoneLaugher]

And there are certain things I believe, that I never say on this forum, even anonymously, because they are beyond the barrier our society has imposed on what is acceptable for an American to believe.

I will give one example, and I expect to catch serious heat for it:

I believe that some veterans, even when they are conservatives who bash welfare recipients, constantly have their own hand out for their own kind of welfare, which they believe they have earned through their service, but which still comes out of the pocket of the taxpayer.

Veterans get free healthcare for life, free college education, 0% down home loans, and life-time pensions after 20 years, and all of it is very expensive.

Also, some veterans have a feeling of entitlement that irks me, as if their service makes them "super-citizens" with more right to an opinion about war than those who did not serve. If a non-veteran favors a war, veterans may call him a "chicken-hawk." If a non-veteran opposes a war, veterans may despise him as a coward. I am not saying all veterans are like this, but enough. That is why I rarely start a conversation about any of our many wars, because I don't want veterans piling on me.

The reason I am mentioning this as an example is that it is considered un-American and downright unpatriotic to not kiss veteran/serviceman ass every time they show up in uniform. When they show up in uniform, we are expected to thank them for their service. When we see them in uniforms at the airport, we are expected to applaud. If we don't do this, they get upset that we are ungrateful for the dangers and sacrifices they endured.

I am grateful. But I no longer think that we are fighting all these wars for "freedom" or even to fight terrorism anymore. I think we're fighting these wars because we got into them, and we have no clue how to get out. The people who run our government, through sheer incompetence, continue to send men and women to fight these wars because they have lost any concept that there might be alternatives. And under American supervision, the countries we invaded have cracked down on Christians and driven them out, Islam has become more radicalized and divided against itself, and Afghanistan has become the number one source of heroin in the world. Also, in Afghanistan, our troops are under strict orders to allow Afghan officers not to interfere when they molest little boys.

So what are we fighting for? Christian persecution? Islamic extremism and civil war? The opium trade? Child molesters? We are fighting for all these things, and in the process a lot of American corporations are making a big profit while American boys and girls lose their lives and limbs.

Are veterans to blame for any of this? In a way, they are. They've been there, so they know how fucked up the situation really is, but I don't see enough of them speaking out about it. We now have many thousands of combat veterans and the way I see it, they should all be doing their damndest to stop these fucked up wars any way they can.

What got me really going on this topic is that the Marines tried to recruit my son when he turned 18-years-old. The Marines promised him they would make a man out of him, but in my opinion they would turn him into the kind of man that is no longer my son. My son is a gentle soul, who has never lifted a hand of violence against anyone in his entire life, or spoken a harsh word about anyone. He always finds the good in everyone, and is friends with people that very few other people would give the time of day to. He is my son, and I love him more than any other person in the world, even my wife and daughters. I do not want the Marines to turn him into a killer, and I do not want him to kill. Also, I have devoted 20 years of my life to raising him, and I do not want to hand him over to the government so they can get him killed or maimed in a war that I believe is stupid, and then spit his maimed or dead body back to me so I can pick up the pieces. And also, there is PTSD. It seems that almost everyone who comes back from these wars has PTSD. I do not want my son to suffer like that.

Am I selfish? Am I unpatriotic? Am I un-American? You can call me all of those things. I just want my son to live, and keep his arms and legs, and to be always happy. Him going in the military goes against all these goals, and for what? A stupid medal that I can pin to his picture after he is dead? No, I'm not foolish enough to think that's enough consolation for a stupid death in a stupid war fighting for bad people who don't deserve our help.

So I talked my son out of joining the Marines, and now he has a civilian job doing tech support for a console game company. And if all goes well, he will live a long and healthy, and happy life.

Now you may bash at me, but I regret nothing.

Has anyone ever told you that you have a talent for brevity?

 

[LoneLaugher]

You love your son more than you love your wife and daughters?

As an honest man.....have you told them this fact?

 

[LoneLaugher]

And....vets don't get upset if you don't thank them or applaud for them. You are a weird dude.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

And there are certain things I believe, that I never say on this forum, even anonymously, because they are beyond the barrier our society has imposed on what is acceptable for an American to believe.

I will give one example, and I expect to catch serious heat for it:

I believe that some veterans, even when they are conservatives who bash welfare recipients, constantly have their own hand out for their own kind of welfare, which they believe they have earned through their service, but which still comes out of the pocket of the taxpayer.

Veterans get free healthcare for life, free college education, 0% down home loans, and life-time pensions after 20 years, and all of it is very expensive.

Also, some veterans have a feeling of entitlement that irks me, as if their service makes them "super-citizens" with more right to an opinion about war than those who did not serve. If a non-veteran favors a war, veterans may call him a "chicken-hawk." If a non-veteran opposes a war, veterans may despise him as a coward. I am not saying all veterans are like this, but enough. That is why I rarely start a conversation about any of our many wars, because I don't want veterans piling on me.

The reason I am mentioning this as an example is that it is considered un-American and downright unpatriotic to not kiss veteran/serviceman ass every time they show up in uniform. When they show up in uniform, we are expected to thank them for their service. When we see them in uniforms at the airport, we are expected to applaud. If we don't do this, they get upset that we are ungrateful for the dangers and sacrifices they endured.

I am grateful. But I no longer think that we are fighting all these wars for "freedom" or even to fight terrorism anymore. I think we're fighting these wars because we got into them, and we have no clue how to get out. The people who run our government, through sheer incompetence, continue to send men and women to fight these wars because they have lost any concept that there might be alternatives. And under American supervision, the countries we invaded have cracked down on Christians and driven them out, Islam has become more radicalized and divided against itself, and Afghanistan has become the number one source of heroin in the world. Also, in Afghanistan, our troops are under strict orders to allow Afghan officers to molest little boys and not to interfere.

So what are we fighting for? Christian persecution? Islamic extremism and civil war? The opium trade? Child molesters? We are fighting for all these things, and in the process a lot of American corporations are making a big profit while American boys and girls lose their lives and limbs.

Are veterans to blame for any of this? In a way, they are. They've been there, so they know how fucked up the situation really is, but I don't see enough of them speaking out about it. We now have many thousands of combat veterans and the way I see it, they should all be doing their damndest to stop these fucked up wars any way they can.

What got me really going on this topic is that the Marines tried to recruit my son when he turned 18-years-old. The Marines promised him they would make a man out of him, but in my opinion they would turn him into the kind of man that is no longer my son. My son is a gentle soul, who has never lifted a hand of violence against anyone in his entire life, or spoken a harsh word about anyone. He always finds the good in everyone, and is friends with people that very few other people would give the time of day to. He is my son, and I love him more than any other person in the world, even my wife and daughters. I do not want the Marines to turn him into a killer, and I do not want him to kill. Also, I have devoted 20 years of my life to raising him, and I do not want to hand him over to the government so they can get him killed or maimed in a war that I believe is stupid, and then spit his maimed or dead body back to me so I can pick up the pieces. And also, there is PTSD. It seems that almost everyone who comes back from these wars has PTSD. I do not want my son to suffer like that.

Am I selfish? Am I unpatriotic? Am I un-American? You can call me all of those things. I just want my son to live, and keep his arms and legs, and to be always happy. Him going in the military goes against all these goals, and for what? A stupid medal that I can pin to his picture after he is dead? No, I'm not foolish enough to think that's enough consolation for a stupid death in a stupid war fighting for bad people who don't deserve our help.

So I talked my son out of joining the Marines, and now he has a civilian job doing tech support for a console game company. And if all goes well, he will live a long and healthy, and happy life. And I am content that even if I did the unpatriotic thing, I did the right thing by my son.

Now you may bash me, and wave the flag at me, but I regret nothing.

As you've already defended some very dark aspects of Catholicism, nothing really surprises me about you, Blackrook. D & D games are nothing to play around with. They are utterly satanic. Just like your religion of Catholicism - which is rooted in the Babylonian Occult. Ask HaShev

 

[Blackrook]

Jeremiah, reading what you have posted makes me sad. Mr. Schnoebelen is lying about D&D, and it is sad for me that you have been taken in by his lies. I have been playing D&D off and on since 1983, and in all that time, I have never seen anyone cast a spell, or worship a false god, or kill or rape anyone.

Everything is done by characters within a game, and the spells cast are not said out loud, they are rolled with dice, the prayers are not said out loud, they simply cause you to restock your daily allotment of spells on your character sheet, and any killing done is done to creatures that are entirely imaginary, and there are no real weapons only dice, and I've never seen anyone roleplay a rape.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Yeah Jeremiah! It's so unlike you to believe things that aren't true. Blackrook is very disappointed in you.

 

[Blackrook]

And....vets don't get upset if you don't thank them or applaud for them. You are a weird dude.

You added one more post to your 39,000 just to say that? Why don't you add something useful to the discussion, otherwise you are a useless person in this thread, as you are in life.

 

[Blackrook]

And there are certain things I believe, that I never say on this forum, even anonymously, because they are beyond the barrier our society has imposed on what is acceptable for an American to believe.

I will give one example, and I expect to catch serious heat for it:

I believe that some veterans, even when they are conservatives who bash welfare recipients, constantly have their own hand out for their own kind of welfare, which they believe they have earned through their service, but which still comes out of the pocket of the taxpayer.

Veterans get free healthcare for life, free college education, 0% down home loans, and life-time pensions after 20 years, and all of it is very expensive.

Also, some veterans have a feeling of entitlement that irks me, as if their service makes them "super-citizens" with more right to an opinion about war than those who did not serve. If a non-veteran favors a war, veterans may call him a "chicken-hawk." If a non-veteran opposes a war, veterans may despise him as a coward. I am not saying all veterans are like this, but enough. That is why I rarely start a conversation about any of our many wars, because I don't want veterans piling on me.

The reason I am mentioning this as an example is that it is considered un-American and downright unpatriotic to not kiss veteran/serviceman ass every time they show up in uniform. When they show up in uniform, we are expected to thank them for their service. When we see them in uniforms at the airport, we are expected to applaud. If we don't do this, they get upset that we are ungrateful for the dangers and sacrifices they endured.

I am grateful. But I no longer think that we are fighting all these wars for "freedom" or even to fight terrorism anymore. I think we're fighting these wars because we got into them, and we have no clue how to get out. The people who run our government, through sheer incompetence, continue to send men and women to fight these wars because they have lost any concept that there might be alternatives. And under American supervision, the countries we invaded have cracked down on Christians and driven them out, Islam has become more radicalized and divided against itself, and Afghanistan has become the number one source of heroin in the world. Also, in Afghanistan, our troops are under strict orders to allow Afghan officers to molest little boys and not to interfere.

So what are we fighting for? Christian persecution? Islamic extremism and civil war? The opium trade? Child molesters? We are fighting for all these things, and in the process a lot of American corporations are making a big profit while American boys and girls lose their lives and limbs.

Are veterans to blame for any of this? In a way, they are. They've been there, so they know how fucked up the situation really is, but I don't see enough of them speaking out about it. We now have many thousands of combat veterans and the way I see it, they should all be doing their damndest to stop these fucked up wars any way they can.

What got me really going on this topic is that the Marines tried to recruit my son when he turned 18-years-old. The Marines promised him they would make a man out of him, but in my opinion they would turn him into the kind of man that is no longer my son. My son is a gentle soul, who has never lifted a hand of violence against anyone in his entire life, or spoken a harsh word about anyone. He always finds the good in everyone, and is friends with people that very few other people would give the time of day to. He is my son, and I love him more than any other person in the world, even my wife and daughters. I do not want the Marines to turn him into a killer, and I do not want him to kill. Also, I have devoted 20 years of my life to raising him, and I do not want to hand him over to the government so they can get him killed or maimed in a war that I believe is stupid, and then spit his maimed or dead body back to me so I can pick up the pieces. And also, there is PTSD. It seems that almost everyone who comes back from these wars has PTSD. I do not want my son to suffer like that.

Am I selfish? Am I unpatriotic? Am I un-American? You can call me all of those things. I just want my son to live, and keep his arms and legs, and to be always happy. Him going in the military goes against all these goals, and for what? A stupid medal that I can pin to his picture after he is dead? No, I'm not foolish enough to think that's enough consolation for a stupid death in a stupid war fighting for bad people who don't deserve our help.

So I talked my son out of joining the Marines, and now he has a civilian job doing tech support for a console game company. And if all goes well, he will live a long and healthy, and happy life. And I am content that even if I did the unpatriotic thing, I did the right thing by my son.

Now you may bash me, and wave the flag at me, but I regret nothing.

As you've already defended some very dark aspects of Catholicism, nothing really surprises me about you, Blackrook. D & D games are nothing to play around with. They are utterly satanic. Just like your religion of Catholicism - which is rooted in the Babylonian Occult. Ask HaShev

According to Vatican II, you are no longer a heretic, you are a "separated brethren in Christ." If the Catholics can bury the hatchet, why can't you?