Before I begin, let me warn you by saying that some plot points in this story could be seen as offensive or dark in tone. Reader discretion is advised.
So I have been playing dnd for about 5 years, and last year I decided to finally begin GMing. I got 5 friends together and began a pretty standard home brew campaign. The party consisted of an elf mage, a human paladin, a tiefling Ranger, a human cleric, and... a Dragonborn fighter. All six of us had been playing dnd for a few years together by that point. Our normal GM was the Dragonborn, who agreed to let ME GM for this game. I think Itβs because of the fact that our Dragonborn is normally a GM that he ended up trying to make the story all about him.
We were about 2 sessions in when I revealed that the big-bad-evil-guy was trying to start a war between the worldβs 2 main factions, the United alliance and the supreme empire. I told the party that their goal was to find the BBEG and stop him from beginning a war. Now, the Dragonborn had been trying to hijack the campaign multiple times by now. He tried to convince the party that HIS Dragonborn clan had an artifact that we needed, and also tried to convince me that his fire breath could 1 shot an enemy. Basically, he had a tendency to make himself the main character. However, nothing he did was all that bad... until I revealed the big badβs master plan. After revealing the plan, the Dragonborn yelled, β that means the big bad is hitler!β ... silence...
The whole table was in awe. I hadnβt given an official name for the villain, just calling him βthe dictator.β I tried saying βNo, hitler doesnβt exist, and neither does Germany.β But he wasnβt having it. He argued that, βan evil dictator trying to bring the world to war, and murder a race that he doesnβt like is obviously hitler!β (Btw, the dictator was also trying to exterminate Dragonborns, which OUR Dragonborn used as a reason for HIM to be the one that kills the big bad). I ended the session there, and had a conversation with the Dragonborn afterwards. I told him that I wouldnβt let Nazi Germany be the end all be all of the story. But he put me in an awful position. He said that he wouldnβt let me be in any more game that he GMed, and he would quit the game I was GMing, if I didnβt use his idea. This was really bad, because if he left, then the paladin, and mage would also leave, because the mage was his girlfriend and the paladin was his brother. So I was basically threatened into using hitler and
... keep reading on reddit β‘And if that all did happen, what would historyβs view on it be?
Would this be the most cursed timeline?
Iβm in the middle of reading Christopher Hitchens book βgod is not greatβ, and the chapter about how religion affects health got me thinking. First off all, I stand by the assumption that humanity as a whole would be better off without any religion. (I know itβs just wishful dreaming, but we could be so much further with our technology, the overall living standarts, medicine, space travel etc) After reading (and fact-checking with various studies and journals) how religios leaders in africa prohibited drugs, vaccinations and condoms not even 2 decades ago, with that allowing the further spreading of HIV and polio, I started looking for similar events, where religion seriously worsened the given situation.
What are, in your opinion the most heinous crimes committed in religion? Would we really be better of without religion? Are there any global benefits thanks to religion?
Please share your thoughts:)
June 17, 2015, a violent racist committed an act of terrorism in Charleston, South Carolina, cutting down ten black members of the congregation. Revelations of his worship of the Confederacy has reinvigorated discussion of the proper legacy of that bygone institution, and most importantly, its legacy of racism. There has been no lack of vocal, and often offensive, attempts to defend the Confederacy in one way or another, both here on reddit and in other media. I won't be focusing on any specific one, and rather be speaking generally. Nor will I be tackling the entirety of the "Lost Cause", an undertaking that would cover a far larger scope than can be dealt with in a short essay such as this. The purpose of this piece is solely to look at the causes of the American Civil War, and apologist claims regarding whether the South seceded over slavery, whether states' rights justified it, and whether the North cared about slavery as well.
-Abe Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861
It is a canard of Confederate apologia that war aims must be perfectly opposite. It is simply a fact that in his public statements, President Lincoln made clear that he was not out to abolish slavery, and that the Union undertook its campaign to prevent southern secession, since, in his words, the Union was perpetual, that "Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments". So, their logic goes however, that if the Union did not launch its war to end slavery, then slavery was not the cause of the war. Nothing could be further from the truth. This work will attack this position from multiple angles, demonstrating not only that the protection of slavery was a principal aim of southern secession, but that the mere right to secede was never a clearly established legal one, at best subject to major debate, and indeed, only entering the national discussion as slavery became a more and more divisive issue for the young nation, and further, that aside from legal/Constitutional concerns, secession as performed by the South was an immoral and illiberal act.
>Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed
... keep reading on reddit β‘