RPGnet Forums

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Africa: Warriors across several cultures carry spears. State flags and coat of arms feature spears.
RPGNet: Das rayciss

View attachment 5974172
"You can't reduce an entire continent to a single aesthetic, that's deeply racist and problematic."

Black-Panther-Dora-Milaje.jpg
 
Trigger warning: racism against indigenous people (hill giants).

View attachment 6012771
I feel I could do a dissertation about how wrong this cunt of a moderator is, but that would be an exercise on chewing on my anger at his foolish sanctimoniousness. Specially regarding giants, them being so palpably european, if not global in the mythological representation of a big scary brute.
This people would ask for demons to have rights.
 
I feel I could do a dissertation about how wrong this cunt of a moderator is, but that would be an exercise on chewing on my anger at his foolish sanctimoniousness.
"You still have humanoids in this setting."

No, the poster specifically does not. That's their point, the moderator twisted that to make the argument, "giants are people too," which makes them a racist in their own regard since they have reduced all sentient species to humanoids.

Fucking rpg.net mods.
 
You notice that both these faggots have signatures that demean (real) women? Tranny moment
>She whispered the sweetest words I've ever heard: hey, pretty woman, throw a fucking tantrum.
>There's nothin' wrong with goin' nowhere, baby
I'd also have assumed anything from the Lupin III anime would be on the no-no list for avatars.
 
Trigger warning: racism against indigenous people (hill giants).

View attachment 6012771

That setting actually sounds interesting. Although i wonder why the "once-settled land whose original inhabitants died" trope would be "rather sensitive" for "historical reasons".

Why would the land not be resettled? What's so goddamn sensitive? What historical reasons?
 
That setting actually sounds interesting. Although i wonder why the "once-settled land whose original inhabitants died" trope would be "rather sensitive" for "historical reasons".

Why would the land not be resettled? What's so goddamn sensitive? What historical reasons?
Because that's what historically happened in eastern North America when the Spanish expeditions traveled up the Mississippi. The diseases they carried spread through trade networks and wiped out whole civilizations like the Mississippi Mound Builders. The more sparsely settled east coast tribes got hit hard but survived as distinct entities but it was pretty apocalyptic in the river valleys. The tribes that the English settlers later encountered along the Ohio and Mississippi weren't the original inhabitants: they were migrants who moved into the vacuum.
 
It's also what happened in the Mexico Valley. The Aztecs discovered a whole-ass dead city we now call Teotihuacan and based their entire cannibal cult around it. But something tells me the purple forum crowd doesn't consider the experience of Toltecs under Aztec rule to be "problematic."
 
Sorry but the moment reinforcement arrive, that knight would get instantly swarmed and have a sharp object shoved into his visor. So would end the sad tale of Saveahoe.
Good choreography but it's Marvel-tier crap.
 
Sorry but the moment reinforcement arrive, that knight would get instantly swarmed and have a sharp object shoved into his visor. So would end the sad tale of Saveahoe.
Good choreography but it's Marvel-tier crap.
Are you sure about that? Ye olden poorfags were weak as fuck, malnourished, had garbage equipment as a rule, and were untrained.
 
Sorry but the moment reinforcement arrive, that knight would get instantly swarmed and have a sharp object shoved into his visor. So would end the sad tale of Saveahoe.
Good choreography but it's Marvel-tier crap.
You say this like the peasants are trained warriors like the knights, and not just untrained levies who wanted to live to see tomorrow.
 
Back