User talk:DanielDraco

In need of a rating

While unnecessary, I would like for some of my articles to have ratings. The articles that I find ready for said endeavor are as follows: Sith/Jedi (3.5e Class), Viveka Spectre (3.5e Prestige Class), and Uongo-mijusi (3.5e Race)(and some of its sub-pages). Then again, you may find some or all of those mentioned to be unworthy of your rating. In which case any advice would be most appreciated.

New request for the following pages: Intelligent Item (3.5e Class), Judge of Existence (3.5e Class), Dream Lord (3.5e Prestige Class), Sedah’s Counterspell of Superfluous Detail (3.5e Spell).--Franken Kesey (talk) 06:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

KoL Stuff

Don't know if you want to use it or not, but we have the Template:Copyright Disclaimer for articles based on copyright work like you're doing with the KoL imports. Just wanted to point it out. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 19:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, good, thanks. I'll swap that out when I make these into actual articles. --DanielDraco 20:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Ratings Update

Following the recent wiki vote on ratings granularity and display, all old ratings can be updated to make use of "love / like / neutral / dislike / hate" instead of the old values. If you would like to update your ratings, you can find a list of them at Category:Legacy Rating DanielDraco. When you update a rating, be sure to delete the "|OldRating=True" part.

Note - I know we're still doing a vote to possibly change these to a different scale, but don't let that stop you from updating if you feel like it. If the vote comes down on a different scale I'm just going to bot change all of these to numbers. Updating now instead of later won't result in any additional work for your or anyone else. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 18:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Take a Look at This

I noticed you updated your Book of Gears rating, and that rating is I think totally fair (yes my opinion on that has changed). However, given what you said in the rating I feel you may be interested in Tome Magic Items (3.5e Variant Rule). It attempts to take the magic item rules from Book of Gears and expand on them so they can, well, actually be used in a game and with the Economicon. And, most importantly I feel, provide DM guidelines. This was part of the "Tome Errata" and updated a bit by me personally for (I feel) better usability. Surgo 21:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

RoW

I haven't dismissed all of Races of War, just the armor. Some of the other stuff sounds interesting, but so far the armor is what I have encountered more often, and that is what I have been criticizing. It's a shame that the larger system has to be associated with something - as you said - "that few people actually care about". That said, I don't appreciate you joking about my mental states. I have just dipped my feet into Tome and I'll join the discussion in a civil fashion on that topic when I've read up on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quey (talk • contribs) at

I do apologize, it really wasn't meant to be targeted towards you per se. What I described was, from my experience, how most people deal with Tome. Everybody starts thinking that it's completely crazy and stupid. Then most people start to like it. Then they give up on it again. I never meant to imply anything about your mental state -- merely that you were new to Tome, and that it was understandably eyebrow-raising. --DanielDraco 03:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Multiple Ratings

Can you merge your ratings on the Bangaa (with strikethroughs or something) or just remove the older one? It's a bit weird to have two ratings by the same user on a page, even if one of them isn't being counted. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 07:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

(Responding to history summary comment) - The point of the parameter is to keep articles from suffering under an inapplicable rating from a user who hasn't updated things after changes. I understand wanting to keep a talk page relatively free from deletion or editing so the full history is present, but uncounted ratings are not ideal and multiple ratings from the same user are extra clutter. These make it harder for casual users to get a sense of what's going on with the article, and I think we should try to avoid it where possible. If you think there's a good reason to do otherwise though, I'd like to hear it. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 15:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Rating Block Notice

Your rating of Creepy Kid (3.5e Feat) has been blocked and is no longer being counted among the article ratings. Please see the rating on the talk page to determine the block reason. Once you have addressed the cause of the block, generally by updating the rating in some fashion, please delete the "|block=<-reason->" line so that your rating will be counted again. You may also remove the block parameter if you feel it was not applied in accordance with our guidelines. Assistance editing your rating may be found here. Feel free to delete this notice at any time.

NewVersion: Morality Test

It's tragic to have to block a Like rating, but it isn't nearly impossible to keep the target from dispelling the spell any more. --Foxwarrior (talk) 06:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Alrighty, thanks for the heads up. I might take another look later today. --DanielDraco (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Some deletions...

I'm not waiting for discussion, but I appreciate that you would. It was over the line though, and now it's gone. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 00:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Other admins had already begun going through the ratings process, and I didn't want to outright defy their decision that that was the way to go. That said, I doubt we'll be hearing much argument. --DanielDraco (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

WTH Mogeko deletion

Was my Mogeko stuff seriously that bad?!? The original material addressed rape themes, but I did try to keep them beneath the surface in those articles, and I'm pretty sure they were buried deep enough. --Luigifan18 (talk) 02:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

It was nowhere near buried. It was thoroughly exposed. The way that you used euphemisms and double entendres in your fluff did not demurely hide the subject matter -- it highlighted it and made it come across as a joke.

But even if the fluff had been pristine and mature, hinting obliquely and respectfully at the theme, it's just not cool to make a player class with combat abilities centered around the concept of rape. If you want to delicately touch on that very sensitive subject, that's artistically valid -- but don't gamify it or turn it into an amusement. --DanielDraco (talk) 02:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The Mogeko Snatcher's class abilities were never really centered around rape; the focus was on hunting, stalking, kidnapping, and grappling, with the implication that rape was a potential end result. There was one class feature that could explicitly be taken as tentacle rape, which I took out when the page got community opposed, and later reworked into a form that could be interpreted as tentacle rape, but could just as easily be interpreted as the tentacles secreting some sort of mindrending slime or just being really unpleasant to be wrapped up in.

As I said on the Mogeko Snatcher talk page, Mogeko Castle is a horror game. You're supposed to be horrified by the Mogekos. The intent was for the Mogeko Snatcher (and the Mogeko race in general) to be a villain that the PCs really want to kill. Being delicate would kind of have defeated the point. Still, I was seriously trying to make the articles more appropriate, so I'd have appreciated it if you told me what to cut instead of deleting them with zero warning. --Luigifan18 (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Luigi, you're a cool guy, but... I gotta call you out on this. >.> "Not centered around rape" and "horror game". And also what to cut, but I'll get to that. For the first part, all I have to say is "link to the definition of child molesting". Yeah, you're not gonna pass that when that was there.

So, fun fact, I decided to look into this game Megeko Castle. Found an entire Let's Play actually. I watched it. It's not subtle. If it's horror, it's either bad horror or horrible simply for the subject matter. It's about as much of a horror game as FATAL is horror. I think you're confusing horror with horrible, and I stand by my previous judgement of "these are shitty Moogles".

I understand my opinion is subjective, but I feel I can objectively say that the entirety of what defines Megekos are "shitty rapist moogles". When you have a source material like that... well, this is why I wasn't able to help you. No matter what mechanical or fluff changes I did, you were still trying to convert shitty rapist moogles. The source is crap. Let me put it in another way... FATAL has a bunch of items, such as the Armor of Jewy Jewishness, or the Womb Dagger which is as horrible as it sounds. I could convert it to D&D, but no matter how much I put makeup on this pig, if its anything related to the source material it's still gonna be inappropriate tasteless trash. The best you can do, dare I say the only thing I think you can do, it make fun of it. Which is what was done with the InDenial FATALite, portrayed in the view that this is something to be ridiculed and not taken seriously. And even then, it's a thin line one has to balance. That kind of humor is difficult to pull off.

So while I would help, I simply can't. I find the source material irredeemable, squicky, and very clearly fetish material. I can't make that funny, much less make it a funny race. You would have had a bit more chance with pulling them off as monsters, since then you don't need to deal with the fact a PC would have to deal with the fact his kind are child molesters, and that's their only trick. Given your last edit, about them being monsters... yes, that's exactly where you should have started.

I'm trying to help you understand man. Even if you don't understand what I'm saying, then maybe at least you can trust others judgment. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

That's where the Mogeko Sage was supposed to come in! Even some of the Mogekos are disgusted with the antics of their kin! Pretty much the whole point of a Mogeko campaign would be forcing the Mogekos to clean up their act. And playing as a Mogeko would be little different from playing as a kobold, or a goblin, or any other traditionally evil race; not being trusted by NPCs and having to work to shrug off your species' reputation and rise above it. --Luigifan18 (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hipster drows did it before it was cool. (•_•) ( •_•)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)

But seriously, that's been done. There's obviously drow and Drizzt, the noble forms of orc, more friendly forms of kobolds, and even a canonical redeemed illithid and paladin succubus! It can be done certainly. Drow are known for being backstabbers. Orcs are just violent brutes. Kobolds and goblins are untrustworthy thieves. Illithids are amoral and alien. And succubi are predators. You'll notice none of them, not even the being made of evil and built for sex, is about being a rapist. Like it or not, people tend to be much harder on rape, and double for underaged rape. When the "evil social background" your future Drizzt is fighting against is child rape instead of being violent or untrustworthy, it's a completely different tier of seriousness.

Violence is part of the game. Rape isn't. By the sheer existence of the race, the DM must deal with not only there being a group of shitty rapist moogles in their world, but also deal with explaining this evil when it comes up. And they will, because that's the point, right? Otherwise you're just furry cat thing.

Here's a challenge. Does the race have any defining traits besides "shitty rapist moogles"? Worship of ham is excluded, that's not a defining trait, that's a footnote at best.

I'll take on my own challenge too. "Drows: Underground elves who like spiders.", "Orc: Constantly given the short end of the stick.", "Kobolds: Small and craven.", "Goblins: Kobolds but green people.", "Illithids: Smart time traveling aliens.", "Succubi: Deceivers and corrupters." Can you do it? -- Eiji-kun (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I can. "Mogekos: Immoral hedonistic catlike creatures with no respect for others' boundaries." It implies that they're rapists, but not blatantly so. --Luigifan18 (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

That's... not it.

That's a better way of saying it, but that's the same racial gimmick as before. What are they BESIDES beings who can't keep their hands off you? Case in point: drows are backstabbers. They also have other traits. They like spiders. They live underground. They're light sensitive. They are magic resistant. These are all viable ways of defining what drow do. So what else do the Megeko do besides get gropy? -- Eiji-kun (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Mogekos are hilariously inept at being gropy. They're idiotic, easily distracted, easily killed with just a big knife, and only a major threat in massive numbers (with the exceptions of Moge-ko — who's really only half-Mogeko when you think about it — and King mogeko, who has near-godlike power). Mogekos also love all sorts of foods — prosciutto's just the standout example. And they have extremely quick tempers, and pick fights at the drop of a hat. Mogekos are also extreme conformists who are attempting to act as "a single entity", to the point of executing those who don't fit in. Mogekos have all sorts of quirks besides their excessive love of high school girls. --Luigifan18 (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

(RESET INDENT) "They're idiots" is closer. Anything else, these are slim pickings. The other traits, such as "dies to knife" isn't remarkable. Everyone dies to knife, even dragons (you just need enough knife).

Look, I see three traits so far. "Dumb", "swarming/pack mentality", "quick to anger". If you want to build a Megeko race, you build it around this. Don't even touch the culture of molestation yet. In fact, leave the molesting part far far away. Stick it in a footnote of a footnote in the culture section. "These are cat creatures who are dumb, work in numbers, and quick to anger. Here are the mechanics. Culture: Their culture is the worst thing ever. A few have escaped the madness."

You have a direct contraction in there though. "Extreme conformists" and "they have all sorts of quirks". They're kind of polar opposites. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

"Quirky" and "conformists" aren't contradictions, since a lot of their quirks apply to the race as a whole. Also, they're idiots and quasi-imaginary on top of that. A lot of what they do makes no sense. --Luigifan18 (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm catching up on a full day of conversation, so I'm reaching back a bit with some of these responses. Bear with me.

Hunting, stalking, capturing, and grappling are all perfectly fine concepts in isolation. The rapey theme put all of those in context, and made them totally not okay.

"There was one class feature that could explicitly be taken as tentacle rape". That's one too many.

"...and later reworked into a form that could be interpreted as tentacle rape". That's still one too many.

"Mogeko Castle is a horror game." This is no defense. It's entirely possible that Mogeko Castle is equally tasteless. Or maybe it approached the same themes, but treated them more appropriately.

"I'd have appreciated it if you told me what to cut instead of deleting them with zero warning". I think I speak for everyone when I say we regret that the baby had to be thrown out with the bathwater, but that bathwater just shouldn't have been there to begin with. Lez has extended the offer to help you retrieve the inoffensive portions of your work, and I'd like to repeat that here -- we want to help you make good material, but this was an extreme case which called for immediate action. Waiting for a democratic process to move such patently offensive material to another part of the wiki was simply not the appropriate course.

"That's where the Mogeko Sage was supposed to come in!" And you'll note that nobody objects to that page, even though the concept of rape also underlies that fluff (in that the sage is protesting against its kin's rapiness). The treatment of the subject matter is less flippant, less wink-wink nudge-nudge, less "here are some mechanics to help you rape better".

"playing as a Mogeko would be little different from playing as a kobold, or a goblin, or any other traditionally evil race". Yes, and here's another similarity: orcs also rape people. They're savage, tribal, territorial, brutish barbarians who are constantly raiding and invading. Rape is a given. I'll put money on that being at least part of why half-orcs were ever even thought of. But this is not the focus of their portrayal in the canon. If it has even been mentioned, it would have been alongside other horrors of war. It has certainly not ever been the focus of a published prestige class, and nobody would have used jocular euphemisms to describe it.

'"Mogekos: Immoral hedonistic catlike creatures with no respect for others' boundaries." It implies that they're rapists, but not blatantly so.' You don't think that's blatant? O_o

"hilariously inept at being gropy". Hilariously? The way they bumble about sexual assault is funny? The framework you're using to think about this is all wrong. --DanielDraco (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

"Also, they're idiots and quasi-imaginary on top of that. A lot of what they do makes no sense." In that case, how would they even survive as a species? As much as D&D does not conform to reality, almost always it is internally consistent (which is what maintains suspension of reality), and even the concept of these creatures does not seem internally consistent to the rest of the world--virtually any world in which D&D is played, except perhaps for some distant reach of the Plane of Madness, and in that case, they should probably be a monster instead of a player race, since those generally don't play well in groups. --Ghostwheel (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I would appreciate it if I could get the contents of those articles as soon as possible so I can patch them up and excise the rape. I would have made a genuine effort to do that beforehand if you had told me up front that you were going to delete them if I didn't, but instead, you deleted them without giving me any notice whatsoever! There were no hints that the articles were going to be deleted, so I got no chance to back up the data, and I'm hurt, insulted, and angry about that! I recognize that I don't have much in the way of tact, but seriously, I work hard on my stuff, and just completely undoing all my hard work without letting me salvage it is not cool! --Luigifan18 (talk) 02:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I emailed the contents to you. Surgo (talk) 03:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

So did I about half an hour ago. Well doublevision I guess. --Leziad (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

All right, thanks. Will get to work on removing the rape ASAP. (Please let me know if it's not cleaned up well enough; I'm about to go to bed, so I might miss some spots.) --Luigifan18 (talk) 03:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked Rating

Your rating of Fixed Bonus Types (3.5e Variant Rule) has been blocked and is no longer being counted among the article ratings. Please see the rating on the talk page to determine the block reason. Once you have addressed the cause of the block, generally by updating the rating in some fashion, please delete the "|block=<-reason->" line so that your rating will be counted again. You may also remove the block parameter if you feel it was not applied in accordance with our guidelines. Assistance editing your rating may be found here. Feel free to delete this notice at any time.

IRC Chat

You should come hang out more on there :-) --Ghostwheel (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2017 (MDT)

High five!

Nukes deployed, thanks for the spam slam. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 09:08, 24 June 2017 (MDT)

😎😎😎 --DanielDraco (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2017 (MDT)

Racism, etc.

This page is racist User:Cedric/typecasting, this page is homophobic User:Cedric/Færy, this page is transphobic User:Cedric/Feywild, and this page is sexist and idiotic User:Cedric/sex. By keeping these articles on the wiki, they are being endorsed. This is a D&D wiki, not a nazi wiki. This wiki should not be associated with white supremacy!--Franken Kesey 04:38, 3 April 2019 (MDT)

Adopted Evil Clown

Wanted to let you know that I adopted your Evil Clown (3.5e Class) (pursuant to your approval on 23 October 2016). I filled in fluff, improved some tables, cleaned up wording, and added a few features to it. I kept the original features in it. I will keep it the same as your original intent: A child's nightmare.--Franken Kesey 19:18, 15 May 2019 (MDT)