TwiLyghtSansSparkles

I hate customers.

Here's the replies I would've gotten on most other sites: "Caribou? Why caribou? Wouldn't polar bears be more of a threat? And by does Khione care so much about oil if she can just power everything by wind?" "A cloak made out of a polar bear? That is so cruel! I can't believe you'd put that in a story, especially one praising a woman for being so mean to animals!" "Uh...okay, that was weird." On this site? "That was so awesome I upvoted another post of yours too!" "You're the George R. R. Martin of zombie caribou stories." I honestly don't know why that is--why some people would find a story like that odd. Maybe reading Sanderson changes your perspective of what is and isn't "normal" storytelling.

All of you lovely folks have expressed my reasons for loving the Shard better than I could, so I'll just add one: On almost any other site, the Oregon RP would've gotten more raised eyebrows than requests to join. Here? Everyone embraces the insanity and adds to it. Case in point: I wrote a scene where a stampede of zombie caribou got sucked into a tornado, and I received upvotes and praise instead of questions about my sanity. I love this place.

Maybe math isn't found in religious texts because it's one of those things a divine being would simply expect humans to take as a given? There's nothing about the sky being blue, or grass being green, or the sun being warm in the Bible at least, and I think it's because that's one of those things God thought we were smart enough to figure out on our own. I think religious texts aim to teach adherents about morals and the history of their religion. Math, like the color of the sky, is one thing that doesn't need to be factored into a religion, because it is true apart from religion. It's a part of our world. Anyway, I think that leaving math out of the Bible was one way God showed he thought we were smart—he left it out, so we could figure it out on our own. That's how I choose to look at it, anyway.

If that were his Rending, I think you'd be justified in giving him a bit of leeway, since we know Epics aren't really in control when they Rend. But I'm with Edge on this one—destroying a city or even a small town because the Reckoners went after him (thus showing him they didn't consider him a hero, making it an ego issue) would take a lot of explaining to keep him from descending into Complete Monster territory. And even then, I think he'd still be a Complete Monster, so I say just go with it. You can still play up his angst over his anger issues, but with something like that in his past, it will definitely show that he's more monster than hero. A sleazeball versus this guy? Yikes. Just be glad your Epic isn't female, Bridge Boy.

Please tell me he sings please tell me he sings please tell me he sings please tell me he sings….

If he's done awful things like that in the name of heroism, I say just embrace that aspect of his character. He's not a gifter, correct? So he wouldn't have Prof's excuse for staving off the corruption. A character who fancies himself a hero, yet has no qualms against destroying an entire town in his rage, could be extremely chilling.

Diesel is a fine actor, but there is no way on Earth he could channel Caviezel's soft-spoken intensity. Diesel would make Obliteration imposing, but Caviezel's quiet energy would make Obliteration terrifying.

One thing I've noticed about the Stormlight books is that Sanderson plays with gender stereotypes in a very unusual way: As most characters are Alethi, they are forced into Alethi gender stereotypes, but very few of them recognize those stereotypes as such. Kaladin, for instance, expresses horror at the thought of learning to read, while Jasnah—who has publicly rejected the highly gender segregated Vorin religion—still conforms to Vorin standards of modesty and conduct without complaint or comment. If there is any commentary on Vorin gender stereotypes, it's likely to come through interludes, which cast characters from non-Vorin societies as foils for the Alethi characters; or through Dalinar's visions, which plunge him into scenes from a more egalitarian past. Subtle as it is, I think Stormlight offers one of the best commentary on gender stereotypes I've seen in fantasy literature. We not only see how deeply segregated Alethi society is along gender lines—to the point where men eat spicy food while women dine on sweet vegetables—but we see how natural it is for the Alethi characters to conform to this segregation. We as readers see their stereotypes for what they are, but the characters have been brought up in that segregation and have come to see it as normal, if not natural. It's a fascinating look at how insidious stereotypes can be, once they've been firmly ingrained into a society.

If he thinks he's a hero, that's a good basis for Calamity to corrupt from. What kinds of atrocities does he usually perform in the name of heroism?

I'd wait a while to give Edge a chance to respond in full. (And try to avoid double- or triple-posting. Just edit your previous post. )

Give both Edge and Voidus. (Astoria and Salem GMs, respectively) a chance to give their two cents.

Whhhyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy Why must they cram in all these unrelated characters Just make a Justice League movie and call it a day

As Kasimir pointed out, interpretations of Scripture aren't immune to cultural changes. And sometimes, culture gets it wrong. Just look at how the American South interpreted Paul's exhortation in Ephesians for slaves to obey their masters: Plantation owners took it not only as a ringing endorsement for slavery, but as a command straight from God to their slaves to obey their masters without question. What these plantation owners didn't realize (or willfully ignored) is the fact that in ancient Rome, slaves were basically the working class, encompassing people of all races and former social classes. A better transliteration to modern day parlance would be an exhortation for employees to obey their bosses with respect and sincerity. It was not an endorsement of slavery in general, and most certainly not an endorsement of slavery as it was in the American South. That institution flew in the face of multiple passages exhorting people to treat one another as equals, most notably "For there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus." The translation of that one is pretty clear: No one is better than anyone else. We're all equal in God's eyes, so we ought to act that way. An institution claiming one group of people was inherently less human because of their skin tone stands in direct violation of that verse. And that's another thing about interpreting Scripture: The Bible doesn't come with an interpretation manual. We can look at history and deduce, from the context in which a particular book was written, what the original author meant by a strange verse or two, but there are no discussion guides. Interpretation is left up to the reader, and if the reader hasn't done their homework, they're bound to walk away with an interpretation far from what the original author intended. Throughout history, you'll see incorrect interpretations causing all sorts of problems, and one of the most common problems is that a verse will be taken on its own, without considering the larger context. Such has been the case with "Wives, submit to your husbands." This has been misinterpreted to mean that women must stay in the home and cook and clean while men get to have the final say in everything; when a better interpretation takes into account not only the surrounding verses about love and mutual respect, but the stories of Old Testament women like Deborah and Jael who took on "male" roles (Deborah was a prophetess and Jael killed an enemy general) with God's approval. Now, as for astronomy and the Bible, I think the best thing I can say here is "I don't know." I do personally believe in Intelligent Design, which is more of an umbrella term encompassing all theories that the universe was designed by a mind. I don't know if the six days of Creation in Genesis are meant to be literal or figurative. I don't know, and I have no way to know for sure. I choose to focus more on the present.

Right. You will be asked more than a few questions about your character, and these questions are meant to help you flesh out your character better, smooth out the rough edges, etc. They're not intended as an attack or anything, and they really do help. Heck, I'm GM over there and I've had to answer a not-insignificant number of questions about characters I've had since the beginning, and answering those questions really helped me improve those characters. Our end goal is to…well, destroy Oregon, but also to tell a good story, and questions to clarify unclear things help tell a better story. And then Nighthound died.

Sorry not sorry.

Go to the latest Question thread, which happens to be Question 12. (You'll be able to tell which one is current because the others are all locked. ) I'd also suggest reading Rules and Etiquette and, if you haven't done free-form role playing before, the What Is Free-Form Role Playing? thread will give you an idea of what we expect from new players. (TL;DR version: We'd rather have an interesting, engaging character with boring powers or no powers at all than a boring character with the most interesting powers in the world.) The Rules and Etiquette thread will also tell you which threads are currently accepting Epics, if you want to play with an Epic character. However, since so many people have already entered with Epic characters, regular humans are very much welcome. Once you have a character in mind, post what you have in the latest Question thread. This could be a full bio, or just a few notes. If you have a thread in mind, say which thread you'd like to join in your post; if not, ask where other players think this character would fit best.

I recently learned about the Manul Cat, a wildcat with such a wide array of facial expressions that nearly every one of them would make a perfect meme. Some think it's creepy. I think it's adorable.

Vin Diesel as Obliteration? Sorry, but Jim Caviezel is the only actor allowed to play that Epic.

Spikes to pop the zeppelin, diamond pillars and waves to push it out of the way, the option of encasing it and watching the splat at the end...yeah, the Ballooner would have some serious trouble there.

That was exactly that movie's problem (and also that dance scene we don't talk about). You had all of these spotlight-stealing villains and only three hours to showcase them all, so nobody got the development they needed and Harry's character arc was a mess. Avengers, on the other hand, had a bunch of popular heroes, most of whom already had their own films, and could just rely on that to keep the fans grounded.

That is perfect. I want it on iTunes so I can play it always. I know, but whyyyyy? You already have two icons facing off against each other. I'm all for a Justice League movie, but shoehorning a bunch of heroes who don't fit into this movie is just asking for it to flop.

They're transmutable if she relinquishes control of them, or has control taken from her. I….don't know if they could be convinced to work together. Maybe? If they both had the right incentive and someone tied Lucentia's mouth with several feet of duct tape?

It's not his powers that bother me—Quiver and others pointed out how useful and terrifying Aquaman's powers can be. It's that he doesn't fit in this movie. So you have Superman, who is being pushed in a darker direction by the director, fighting Batman, who may be the darkest hero in mainstream comics aside from the Punisher. Where does Aquaman fit? How do you shoehorn him in? ​What is he even doing in this movie it makes no sense please save me

I used to think Zack Snyder would do a pretty decent job if he directed a Steelheart movie adaptation. I mean, he's already forcing Superman, the Big Blue Boy Scout, to become darker and edgier, so why not just give him material about an evil Superman? After hearing he plans to shoehorn Aquaman of all people into Batman vs. Superman, I no longer believe Snyder is the one to direct anything Brandon. We would get Shia LaBeouf as Fortuity. If that were the case, on the bright side—and this is a tiny, two-watt bright side—the marketing team would be able to use this song for promotional purposes.