User talk:George the Hippy

Please

Please do avoid the urge to edit our newspaper. I will continue to police my people to stop the one vandal from messing with yours. If you have a comment on what we have posted, put it on the talk page, not in the article. The reason there is a By line is because the article was written By that person. Changing what they wrote is akin to putting words in their mouth. The one fool who vandalized your paper didn't know better. You should. --Habap 00:15, 16 February 2007 (CET)

Yeah, I was going to put that but was like... no. I'll just be being an idiot so I changed back.

I'll be commenting.... George the Hippy 00:18, 16 February 2007 (CET)

Thanks! --Habap 14:54, 16 February 2007 (CET)

Qualms

I was reading your user page and got confused. You state that "A qualm I experience with characters, is making ones that are wonderfully devoted to their realms." So, you have an uneasy feeling about creating characters who are devoted their realms? --Habap 23:52, 26 February 2007 (CET)

No... those who are insanely devoted. The Medieval era was a time of bottomless greed and endless ambition... and I see none of that. Sure, having a big old family of characters who are all friends is fine and great... but honestly, it gets boring. Of course, it is difficult for some to be creative or witty, and I understand that. George the Hippy 23:16, 5 March 2007 (CET)

Actually, I would tend to disagree with you that the medieval era was one of any more bottomless greed and endless ambition than any other era. Study the rise of capitalism and imperialism. Study ancient Rome or the wars of the Greek city-states. I'm not an expert on world history, but in every era and culture I've ever studied, greed and ambition play significant roles. --Habap 23:20, 6 March 2007 (CET)

It could be argued, and, in fact, has been argued by many respectable scholars, that medieval Europe was frequently a more moral society than the modern one. I personally don't think that, but the Medieval period wasn't a time of bottomless greed and endless ambition. It was a time in which there was a different social consciousness which is hard for modern people to understand. It was a society of paradoxes. I would go so far as to say that, while Medieval Europe had it's vices, on the level of greed and ambition... it may have been better than, say, modern day America. The advent of free market capitalism, and even government mercantilism, created the consumer middle class and the bourgeousie, which are where the modern ideas of greed come from. In medieval Europe greed was a luxury that really only a few people would have had: the vast majority would have been fighting for their lives. Vellos 23:57, 6 March 2007 (CET)

But then again, those who had the luxury of being able to be greedy were usually the ones at the top of the feudal ladders. And they also had the luxury of having vassals sworn to follow them. -Pizarro 00:46, 7 March 2007 (CET)

A more moral society? I would think perhaps the peasants had some moral fibre, but for nobles greed was a force to be feared. In the game, we are the few who had that "luxury". George the Hippy 00:52, 7 March 2007 (CET)

Yes, but you are avoiding my statement. I never said it was more greedy or ambition-ful than other eras. It just so happens that in your attempt at self-fulfuillment you decided to pull those in. George the Hippy 00:52, 7 March 2007 (CET)

Surely, you can't be serious. Why mention the greed and ambition if it wasn't unusual?

I'm sorry, but you lost me in regards to self-fulfillment. Could you clarify what you mean? --Habap 04:37, 7 March 2007 (CET)

I'm with Habap. Also, yes, the nobles would be that priveliged few, but lesser nobles (non-lords) owed nigh-unto-unbreakable oaths of loyalty to their lords, and I'm at a loss for examples when they were broken. And you can count the number of times that dukes and such violated their oaths on, well, fingers and toes. When that happens it's called a "Civil war" or "Secession". Perhaps the middle ages were full of greed and ambition... but no more so than other times, and I personally believe it MIGHT have been less so, though it was likely to be more or less the same. Among all people in all times greed was a force to be feared and, similarly, virtue is a force to be feared. It's terribly reductionistic to characterize an era like that. Similarly, we might say that The 1930's and 1940's were a time of unprecedented genocide and horror in the world, because of the Holocaust, yet that was hardly a worldwide thing. Vellos 05:01, 7 March 2007 (CET)

I mean, that you have a thing with acting high and mighty. Study the rise of capitalism and imperialism. Study ancient Rome or the wars of the Greek city-states. I don't take kindly to being told to study things. Nor do I like having my usage of words questioned. I used qualm in a non-distinct sense, perhaps I should've written "grievance" instead of qualm. But honestly, doesn't qualm sound more... exciting? Refer to the post below in referance to greed and ambition.George the Hippy 01:41, 8 March 2007 (CET)

But this is not an exact replica of Medieval times. The least important noble here can overthrow a ruler in a rebellion.

The medieval era might've not had more greed and ambition than other eras BUT those were the greatest factors of the time.

As much as I hate it, greed should be feared more than virtue. The virtuous man will work hard, but that doesn't stop the greedy man from stabbing him in the heart and taking what was his.

The 30's and 40's were were a time of genocide and horror. Imperial Japan was exterminating foreign populations and conducting human tests. Colonies in Africa and Asia had to deal with an oppressive white elite. (British) India experienced a massacre (the name escapes me). Ethiopia (Abyssnia at the time) experienced a genocide from fascist Italy, flying planes in intervals dumping mustard gas on civilian populations. Revolutions were left and right. Famine was widespread. But the thing that most people associate with the time was Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. Strange, no? George the Hippy 01:43, 8 March 2007 (CET)

You don't appreciate being told to study things? I believe that Habap meant it more as a recomendation, not a command. You don't like your usage of words questioned? Well jugs apples red herring pine tree to you then fine sir! Words have meanings, hence why we have words. In my personal experience with Habap (unless I have him confused with someone else I had a lively discussion with about some various philosophical/religious points of discussion a while back on the Wiki?) he's just sort of... a grammar person. It's a community: we try to understand each other';s quirks. If somebody really likes things to be precise, okay, we play like we're all friends.

The least important noble can't overthrow a ruler. Having been heavily involved in many rebellions I can vouch for this. A noble must have supporters to achieve anything in a realm. If he has supporters then he is not the least important noble or, if he is, it's a realm in whicch even the least is great.

The greatest factors of the time in the Middle Ages are the same things that have been the greatest factors in all of human history: resource needs (need fulfillment and greed are different things in my book), philosophy/religion (Catholic Church in Europe, with some Eastern Orthodox in areas), and the desire to just live life. Human beings have remained fundamentally similar through most of recorded history. Yes, great events have changed the mindset (example being the Bubonic Plague) but for the most part the average joe of 1000 years ago is psychologically similar to the average joe of today.

I believe virtue is the single strongest motivator, but I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

The 30's and 40's would be much, much better characterized as a time of economic collapse, then war. Also, having been raised by parents who lived in Kenya/Tanzania for some time, the "oppressive white elite" were the best thing to happen there for a long time. But we needn't have a massive political arguement about east african history on here unless it's absolutely necessary. As far as recent history goes, I'm not at my forte. Medieval and Early Iron/Bronze ages are my specialty. I care little for modern history as well as classical history. But what I do know seems to me to indicate that the Medieval period was certainly no more greedy than other times, possibly less so. I tend to think the modern world has some good and virtuous people left in it, as well as a rather large number of ardent patriots. Similarly, I believe the Medieval period had a good number of good and virtuous people in it, and a rather large number of ardent patriots (though more to local lord than to nation, due to the political system of the time. Vellos 06:08, 8 March 2007 (CET)

I believe virtue is the single strongest motivator, but I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

"...for a man who wishes to profess goodness at all times will come to ruin among so many who are not good."

Also, about the words thing - you mix up i.e. and e.g., Vellos... --The1exile 08:12, 8 March 2007 (CET)

Studying

George, I suggested those areas to study to learn more about history. While I have read a great deal, I know only a small fraction of what could be known - even about Gettysburg or US paratroopers in World War II, the two topics about which I have studied the most. I suggested studying capitalism and imperialism as those are known far more for their greed and ambition and I assumed that if you thought the medieval area trumped them in that area, it was simply because you hadn't read about them yet. Lack of knowledge doesn't indicate lack of ability to learn. I simply have had more years to read, so, on certain topics, I may currently know more. I expect that once you're 40, you'll know at least as much as I do, if not more. No insult was intended.

I'd loan you books if you lived nearby. One of the best things about having a regular job is that I can buy a lot of books.... --Habap 01:11, 9 March 2007 (CET)

Well, I'm sorry but I'm a tad thin-skinned... I have read up on those two things (I have time). I didn't take that as a suggestion, so that prompted my response. ANYWAYS. It's cool then. George the Hippy 01:55, 9 March 2007 (CET)

Chocxal News

I hope you don't mind if I remark that the formatting for the Chocxal News renders it terribly difficult to read. Might I suggest that you use a consistent template through, rather than shifting suddenly from small left & right to fullpage to minor columns? Or if you wish to keep these, that you at least include a date in the articles ;) You can find a listing of generic newspaper templates here. thanks--RubyDragon 02:52, 6 April 2007 (CEST)

I only use major article templates; left, right or centre. And I started including dates today.

Yay, thank you :) Although I'd like to note that the articles "Capashinia" and "Peace! One one front!" both use the fullpage template ;) --RubyDragon 19:03, 6 April 2007 (CEST)

Huh. Fancy that.By centre I meant full page though :p So I'll use the 4 templates.

lol, alright. --RubyDragon 08:13, 7 April 2007 (CEST)

The Great Family a high-noble family?

If I may speak freely, I don't think your family belongs to the categories of high-noble families -- yet. Xanio hasn't had any position thus far, Torsaan is a priest, and Karibash has been a Baron, and a general for less than two weeks. I believe a family is only considered high-nobles when several characters of that family have had several council positions and lordships. Van Peteghem 20:56, 27 May 2007 (CEST)