And the rest is silence.

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

The only quote I attributed to you was the "harsh" comment. (And if you scroll back through the thread you can easily find that it was made toward me.)

My point is that you are concerned that my comments may lead to more inflammatory exchanges, but you comment DID lead to more inflammatory exchanges.

Is that your fault? No. Not at all.

Suggesting that someone should consider self-censorship seems safe enough. But here is another thing that is very human:
Someone else will come along and decide that you have a point, but depending on me to do it myself is not good enough. This process has happened many times in human history and, as you said, "it has brought to much pain to the world".

I simply find it amusing that your effort to be the *good guy / peace maker* precipitated the real heated exchanges.

As they say, The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

I don't try to limit anobody capacity to express their thoughts. I like freedom of expression. But IMHO you must learn to use your freedom. Your freedom finishes where other people freedom begins, we say in Spain, you are free to say anything you like, but you should try to say it in a way not hurting to other people feelings.

What freedom did I encroach? Is there some freedom to not be criticized which I am unaware of? Seriously, where in my comments that you responded to, did I cross over Michael's freedom?

And again, telling a person how they "should" express themselves is step one in someone else telling that person how they MUST express themselves. As this thread demonstrated on a very minor scale.


As to the harshness of my comment. I completely disagree with you. I am simply not at all ashamed of making an honest statment.

Michael asked for comments. I provided comments.
His reply indicated that I had given bad advice for the authors of great literature. Is it unclear at all that he was saying that I had given advice that was bad advice for him? Therefore, the advice I give to him should only be advice appropriate for a great master of literature.

The are many times that the worst thing you can do for somebody is to let them remain deluded, because you don't want to "hurt their feelings."

 

[Horacio]

What freedom did I encroach? Is there some freedom to not be criticized which I am unaware of? Seriously, where in my comments that you responded to, did I cross over Michael's freedom?

O.K., my fault again...
That 'you' wanted to be inpersonal, as 'anybody'.
My non-native English betrays me again.
It was like a general statement, 'anybodys freedom finishes when other people's freedom begins.
Not you as 'you, Axiomatic Unicorn', O.K.?

The are many times that the worst thing you can do for somebody is to let them remain deluded, because you don't want to "hurt their feelings." [/B]

Well, there you have a point. But when somebody is in a bad moment, I don't think hurting his feelings even more is a good maneuver.

To, to finish the argument, your comment seemed 'harsh' to me, so I said it. My bad choice of words almost led to a flame war, and I tried to explain myself... only to worsen things

So you think you weren't harsh but honest, no problem to me. To me you were honest AND a bit harsh, but it isn't my bussines

And this argument is becoming too fast really silly, so I think I'm going to be quiet. Sorry if I bothered you or anybody else.

 

[Desdichado]

O.K., it was partially my fault. Somebody say "not everybody is equal human" and I said I hate that line of tought, because it has brought too much pain to the world. So I don't like it even as a joke.

Dude, that's not even what that phrase means. Comparing the phrase "Some people are more human that others" to "not everybody is equal human" is a transposition of meaning.

The initial phrase was "hey, we're only human" referring to the fact that people have human foibles and faults. The follow-up, which is a fairly common phrase "some people are more human than others" refers to the fact that some people really have some foibles and faults. Ironically, you took the phrase to mean that some folks are less human, when in reality the phrase is all about folks being more human.

Any discussion about "ethnic cleansing" has no place rearing it's head in this thread.

 

[Simon Magalis]

While this started out as a discussion about something roleplay related, all I can say now is... WOW. If I was a sociology major I could do a case study on this stuff.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Horacio,

No problem. Fun to debate.

I will say that I have discussed free speech topics in the past and encountered a lot of hypocrisy.

Your comments above make it clear that you were consistent and fair.

Have a nice day.

 

[Michael Morris]

I am sorry, but I greatly disagree. I believe that the vast majority of great literature was not written because the author wasa striving for the approval of the masses, but because the author was personally devoted to the work.

The key reason that I am abandoning my setting is that I am no longer happy with it. The first audience - me - rejects it. It took me a while to realize that. That said, I didn't say that all great literature was written to appease the masses - but there is much of it that was written that way - in particular, stage plays. Shakespeare anyone? And virtually all great literature that survives to us today appeals to the larger audience regardless of whether or not the author intended such.

In the end, I alone must enjoy my work before I can realistically expect anyone to enjoy it. A million people could enjoy the setting, but I don't think that would change how I feel about it now.

A good, but loose analogy, is a marriage that ends in divorce. Such affairs can continue for a long time before it is realized that there comes an end. It has taken me a while to realize I should start again. I have, and I intend to.

And if you are going to even bring up "great literature" in the discussion of your own work, you are simply begging to be flamed.

My response to this jibe is quite simple. I do not consider myself a great author. That would be arrogance.

I do consider myself a good author. I'll go out on a limb and say that I think that I am at least as good as half the novel writers out there today. I do believe I have the talent to get published. If I didn't, I would be devoting my energies elsewhere.

In the end, I need a setting to write about for myself and maybe even a gaming group. I haven't DM'ed in far too long, and now that I'm an Over The Road Trucker it will be a long time before I can enjoy my hobby again.

Flowers in the Wind, my novel, has been read by my close friends, and they've adored it. Am I wrong to want to get it to a larger audience? I think not.

 

[thatdarncat]

I am sorry, but I greatly disagree. I believe that the vast majority of great literature was not written because the author wasa striving for the approval of the masses, but because the author was personally devoted to the work.

Indeed, what many consider the finest fantasy literature was a story written for a child (niece or nephew I believe), with languages made in the writer's spare time.

Lord of the Rings

 

[Roland Delacroix]

Indeed, what many consider the finest fantasy literature was a story written for a child (niece or nephew I believe), with languages made in the writer's spare time.

Lord of the Rings

Most of Lewis Carrols writings too, neh?

 

[PeterLind]

For what it's worth, here's my brief assessment of the Dusk Player's Guide.

1. The organization was in three basic sections: 1) Some background info on Telzoa, a part of the setting, 2) Lots of Rules, 3) A glossary, chronology, and calendar for the setting.

My comment is that far too much space was devoted to rule variants, and far too little on introducing the Dusk setting to the players. As far as variant rules go, I would like to see a lot less in future campaign setting guides. I would be very selective in introducing new variant rules. I personally use almost no variant rules introduced in D20 supplements because they are not canon, and may not be balanced well with the core rules. My preference for staying away from using D20 variants especially applies to new feats. There are plenty to pick from in the core rules + splat class books. Do we need more? Again, my point here is to be more selective in introducing new rules in supplements. I thought there were far too many feats, skills, and spells in this guide, taking space away from the stuff I wanted to see more of -- information on the Dusk campaign setting -- the various peoples, history, cultures, politics, etc. of the setting. I did like the Dusk take on gods, though. Very well done, and probably the best part of the Dusk guide. I would at least read that section, if you read anything at all in the guide.

I wish MM the best of luck in his future projects. My suggestion for your next setting is to think hard on the world "hook." What makes my world stand out in the crowd of world settings?

 

[adndgamer]

Michael-

I hadn't heard of your setting previously (though I'm going to your site as I write this). It's hard to get a lot of publicity with all the different settings available (online and offline) these days.

I agree with whomever it was that said to get it out on the shelves of gaming stores, as that will be where most people hear of it. I know for one that I hardly ever bother looking at campaign stuff online, but if I see something new on the bookshelf of my gaming store, I'll usually pick it up and at least glance through it.

Good luck in your future endeavors!

-Paul