100% approve. Would strongly consider rolling something like a d4 to determine how the demon reacted (modified by species, because a palrethees isn't likely to attack). So for a palrethees it'd be like:

1 - Furious, bitter anger. Every deal it makes for the next d12 weeks is entirely centered on ruining the fighter in the most humiliating and harmful ways possible. Leaving dead innocents (like children or loose acquaintances) in their rooms to frame them, assaulting loved ones repeatedly whenever they think they're safe to cause them suffering, slandering them ahead of their travels, or even just trying to assassinate them.

2 - Cold respect and a reward for the fighter's cleverness. Maybe money or even a magic item, that comes with huge strings. (It was stolen, its cursed, someone very dangerous wants it, etc)

3 - Indifference and pulsing its fear creating affect just to be spiteful and drive away the fighter

4 - Actual amusement and a decision to follow the fighter around. Their new "friend" would probably amuse themselves in the same way any demon would, so atrocities would follow the fighter indirectly, the demon would get to make deals with those the fighter wronged/conflicted with for their souls, and maybe the demon even "helps" the fighter on occasion. As seen through the guise of a demon's idea of helpful of course. It might also just wander away after a week or so after it got bored.

Didn't the cab companies interfere with that? Or at least lobby hard against it?

Ah, the good ol' "I'm not, but actually am, but not enough that I should get a raise, but I really would like one and less work hours, but I really need to stay longer because I'm so slow at everything I do and am terrible at focusing so I should really be working harder to give you your money's worth, but you're probably not paying me as much as you should be for that work in hindsight" theoretical with yourself and your imagined boss.

Unless there's a bug. Then it is my code and I have to fix it. Immediately. No, I don't want to discuss my thought process for "why I made that decision" I want to fix it. Why are we having a chat about milk pouring technique while it is dripping off the fucking table. Prod is burning and you want to fiddle! (Meanwhile this is a minor bug that nobody has ever actually complained about but just the knowledge that it was my fault...)

Have him stab the mayor who's evil because he's greedy and selfish and borderline abusive in trade-deals with neighboring regions but is otherwise beloved (and has rewards heaped on him) because he's so good at actually keeping order in the town and keeping their goodwill (although probably at least a little bit through some passive-aggressive blackmail). That's always fun.

I can't think of any media that explores its magic at any level where that isn't true though, tbh.

There also seems to be a bit of weirdness even surrounding what "conservative" means. It used to mean an intent toward preservation of certain existing institutions/trends and preexisting stability, with a distrust for new institutions that may upset existing social calm. Which often is at odds with beneficial change but isn't inherently against it, favoring instead that it be slow and precise. When I think of myself as conservative that's the concept I have.

The problem is that "conservative" now can also include a group of people for which preserving an existing state (as in condition/mode of being ) is no longer acceptable, the demand either a reverse or entirely new directions.

As an example that's a little less hot button - vouchers for private schools. That's an active novelty and a change from an existing institution, rife with potential long-term impacts on both culture and stability that could be negative, and yet some positions push for it (often without addressing those problems). That's not a conservative position. That's a progressive one (maybe not in the direction someone on the left would want obviously).

Conservative got irrevocably linked with Right due to some preexisting social constructs and the urge to preserve them, but realistically it should hold just as well that a conservative would seek to preserve left-wing establishments as much as right-wing ones, or at least advise any changes to them be slow and incremental to avoid pop-up problems. Admittedly things like technology complicate that due to the speed with which it changes and demands response.

I guess my question's always been that since gender is (to my incomplete understanding) a social construct and can change, and transgender people seek to change to a gender that feels more appropriate, how did you (a) know what felt right, (b) that what felt right wasn't completely appropriate for your gender and the active definition of gender needed to change, and (c) where does chemical and surgical transition factor in for a gender based thing when attempting to find for comfortable self? Because that seems like a sex (in the clinical terminology) thing as much as a gender one (which of course there's probably a connection, I guess I'm just not clear where the line really breaks.)

To be clear, I think my questions are entirely too "rationalizing a deep emotional and person thing" so I don't really expect an answer, I've just never been invited to address the question to anyone before.

Devil: There are RULES, we had an AGREEMENT. I can't just lie about those!

Demon: Sure you can!

The two get into a fight in the Sigil tavern. Harmonium soldiers come in to detain them, a fight ensues, both are slain. . . . Eternal blood war continues unperturbed

A joke that keeps being told with slight variation.

Simple rules that can describe almost every situation are also rules that over-generalize characters to the detriment of options (everyone's noticing the same things, instead of perception allowing more observant characters to do what they could do), over-include the player's capabilities in place of the character's. (Players conversational skills failing to match with those of the character they intend to play), overly abstract what they describe (a monster's "power" or a character's actual abilities meaning something in adjudication but nothing consistent/concrete enough in-world), or demand a DM adjudicate without reinforcement or restriction (In the absence of rules every corner case ruling risks the danger of turning the table into a debate between PCs and the DM, inviting rapid ends and either producing embittered DMs or embittered players* - especially under the "pack it up" approach the video suggests - and helping to increase combative tables in the future.)

The games that OSR takes inspiration from did a lot right in their mortal power-level, reasonable growth, real risk of danger, and humanistic tones but if you're trying to sell me that the growth of rules that followed aren't a direct result of weaknesses in those games? I don't think we'll agree.

*The "Dorkness Rising" problem, for a slightly more light-hearted allusion.

I mean, are you miserable? Or are you just using the wrong expectation for being happy? Because overly unrealistic expectations can make any ever-present annoyance, like the day to day dealings of entropy and decay, an inescapable hell.

My players shall curse you for the fun you'll have given me on their next trek out of the city. I'm think Yeth hound stats but I'm flexible atm. Maybe a shadow.

I mean, that's arguably incredibly conservative. "The old ways" and all that.

Dirty litter boxes increase the chance of urinary tract infection and can speed up their death if the infection reaches their kidneys, literally one of the weakest parts of cats as they age. So no, not "ok whatever". You took responsibility for the life of something. Time to own up to the gross part of that. (Like changing a baby's diaper)

Also, paying close attention to your cat's feces and urine can warn you about internal issues like kidney stones by the shape of the pee or the appearance of the stool. (Seriously, once a day for cleanout isn't remotely enough, no wonder its so gross you don't want to touch it)

I'd say scoop it out, or at least check, every time you see it and dump it out when it gets too stinky, scrub it, dry it, and put in new litter. Even a functional electric one, which according to my brother does work, will need some kind of cleaning at some point so the responsibility is never completely escapable. Seriously though, my brother swears by the electric box he got after his own cat was constantly at the vets from UTIs due to him being the only person ever cleaning her box.

As for the anxiety? This seems like an extreme reaction for a litterbox in comparison to all the other never-ending chores we have to do on the day to day. The litterbox is comparatively easy to work, commute, balancing our bank accounts, or taxes. Are you okay?

I adore Minsc but feel like WoTC has started flooding him into stuff once they realized that he was popular. He's in a comic, in Magic the gathering now, and I think even showed up in modules and games. Their involvement in any of this has made me trepidatious, tbh. It sounds like Larian may have made a good game despite them. (I have my own nitpicks there but I'm a very inflexible and nostalgic person, so that's to be expected.)

Assuming its not hunger or bathroom related, in my experience its because the cat's bored. He enjoys the walks and has fun, and the walk probably fulfills a need to "patrol" his territory which he finds rewarding, but he can't go on the walk often enough - or long enough - for his tastes. So he figures if he yells you'll let him go patrol some more. I'd say redirect him . Play with him in the house for 10-15 minutes, then wrap it up with a kitty treat and he should go take a nap for a bit. You could also hide his food around the house come feeding time to encourage him to patrol his home instead of being focused on doing it outside.

I have no idea if any of that would work, every cat's different. I can distract mine from wanting in rooms (he refused to wear a leash and so cannot go outside so he's vocal at closed doors) just by playing with him or giving him attention usually. But its also temporary and he'll do it again. Alternatively you could do the earplug-ignore thing when he cries at the door/harness but invest additional time to engage him when he's quiet, that way you aren't encouraging the behavior if you don't want to be.

Thank you, I think that helps parse out where I was unclear. There's specifics in the language at play. It makes me wonder how often bad actors prevention of even small distinctions being discussed has made it muddier and harder for everyone else.

I mean the first two parts are definitely true.But then we stayed for 10+ years attempting to rebuild some form of stability, decided to finally pull out after more than a decade, and what was built broke down disappointingly in the face of the first threat. Tmu, the reasons for that are varied, although some of its definitely on us. We approached the entire region's politics wrong apparently and with a very modern western mindset of a country held together with an idea of some unified identity that doesn't seem to really hold true for the region (or any region at first probably). I believe station/position abandonment in the fracturing nation was problematically common as people rushed back to their homes/families, or just to generally flee, instead of actually being a larger regional barricade against the threat, as an example.
IIRC, there was a similar problem with even the First Continental Army and Congress early on actually. With regional interests often superseding national goals in the minds of individuals and representatives.

So far as power vacuums go, as I alluded to, they had an elected government (there's probably some debate on the accuracy of those elections while being occupied by a foreign government of course) and a standing military that was actively deployed. A not insignificant number of them tried to hold out, to not undercut their efforts, but its also true it wasn't a truly unified defense in the end. Whether or not they would have been a more effective void-filler if we'd stayed longer or left sooner are just huge what-ifs.

I want to talk about the real controversy here. What's this about "relaxing" during Arcane training? There shouldn't be time for relaxing. Being even an incompetent wizard is an educational bootcamp that consumes the first quarter of your life at best. There should be no "relax". Where would all the mad wizards come from if aspiring mages relaxes, slept, or formed meaningful connections with long-term responsibilities? =P