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)