Stat me tg

Stat me tg

He's a human male commoner with a ghost template slapped on.

he's a KOOK right? thats the maymay?

stats are a social construct & he would only play freeform

This

This, but he would exclusively play freeform in unmoderated games where there aren't any big mean gamemasters / mods to come down on him when he inevitably godmodes his way out of any situation and tries to ensure the best possible outcome for any actions his characters take.

Bowing to the whims of a moderator is spooks.

His forehead stat is minmaxed to hell and back.

Actually, no.

He would play a GMless system like Fiasco and rely on the power of others to prevent himself from overriding their desires.

If anyone didn't speak up and keep him from doing something he'd call them a faggot.

It would be a union of egoist players expressing their desires as much as possible with no ruler over head.

-20 spook

Chops: 20
Forehead 18
Dress: 10

Kook and Nearsighted flaws.

Stats are spooks

...

>he doesn't know what spooks are
most opinions are spooks though

that's ancient greek scepticism
stirner is more like
>putting anything above your own desires

Healers are spooks.

>pic related
That is fucking evil.

its not that bad, serve em with a shot of whiskey and you have a damn good time

>evil
And that is a spook

anons not completely wrong though,posting stirner spook posting is essentially the western equivalent of a smug anime girl post, the main difference is how and why.

In fact you are wrong.

He would play whatever he found most enjoyable, which would involve both his own preferences as well as "whatever other people want to play". Stirner would certainly be one to recognise that rules can enhance the game.
This is the same as that "lol [insult] doesn't mean anything" thing: it's said only by those who have been rightly attacked with it, and who just simply can't see why they could ever be less than perfect. Thus, the term is obviously meaningless (how else could it apply to them?).
No, he's more like
>putting anything above yourself

Someone explained to me that spooks are anything that doesn't affect you directly or isn't real but it affects your actions, like not getting inside a house because it's haunted and therefore spooked

Size/Type: Large Magical Beast
Hit Dice: 5d10+25 (52 hp)
Initiative: +1
Speed: 30 ft. (6 squares)
Armor Class: 15 (-1 size, +1 Dex, +5 natural), touch 10, flat-footed 14
Base Attack/Grapple: +5/+14
Attack: Claw +9 melee (1d6+5)
Full Attack: 2 claws +9 melee (1d6+5) and bite +4 melee (1d8+2)
Space/Reach: 10 ft./5 ft.
Special Attacks: Improved grab
Special Qualities: Scent
Saves: Fort +9, Ref +5, Will +2
Abilities: Str 21, Dex 12, Con 21, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 10
Skills: Listen +8, Spot +8
Feats: Alertness, Track
Environment: Temperate forests
Organization: Solitary, pair, or pack (3-8)
Challenge Rating: 4
Treasure: None
Alignment: Always neutral
Advancement: 6-8 HD (Large); 9-15 HD (Huge)

That's a terribad explanation. Spooks are *ideas* which you constrict yourself with. You can think of them as commandments.

It's similar to the argument with atheism: "why don't you just go around killing and stealing if you don't believe in God and His commandments?". Atheists respond "why do you need those commandments to not kill, to not steal?". And then they invent their own commandments, because they are spooked.

For example: killing. The spooked individual does not kill other people because he believes it is morally wrong. The egoist does not kill other people because he is not a psychopath, and it would make him feel bad.

Another example: cheating on your spouse. The Christian does not cheat because the Bible warns against adultery. The atheist does not cheat because he believes cheating is Wrong. The egoist does not cheat because without his beloved spouse, what would be the point?

i.e. not getting inside the haunted house is not a spooked thing to do. It's dangerous, after all. In fact, going in out of some sense of honour would be spooked.

The only fault lies with thinking ghosts exist, which is ironically nothing to do with spooks.

>Schmidtposting

t. johann

Who is this.

A 19th century german philosopher.

The indivisible ego, property.

"If everything is nothing more than a spook, then why does it matter that it's a spook at all? If there's no true goodness in the universe, then I will strive to create it myself."
t. Kierkegaard

>then why does it matter that it's a spook at all?
It doesn't.

t. Johann

>Kierkegaard
[Smirks Jewishly]

...

There is not dirtiness in this world, only men and women getting messy at his own risk.

Clean your char sheet Stirner, and leave your momma's basement!

Actually the atheist reply would be "because I don't want to steal or kill people". The initial question has presumption that not believing in a god makes person inherently immoral, which is incorrect.

depends on the atheist, most people believe that stealing and killing is inherently wrong, even if they don't believe in God

>"why don't you just go around killing and stealing if you don't believe in God and His commandments?"

BECAUSE THE LAW OF RECIPROCATION IS THE FOUNDATION OF ALL SOCIETY YOU DUMB FUCKS PACK CO-OPERATION IS LITERALLY BUILT INTO OUR FUCKING DNA WE WERE MADE TO GET ALONG WITH OUR IMMEDIATE PEERS AND NOT MURDER THEM I'M TRIGGERED REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>reciprocation
>implying it doesn't go even further with genetic altruism

>genetic altruism

>BECAUSE THE LAW OF RECIPROCATION IS THE FOUNDATION OF ALL SOCIETY
That's not a justification, user. That's just an analysis of "all society".
>PACK CO-OPERATION IS LITERALLY BUILT INTO OUR FUCKING DNA
True, yet people still steal and murder. Once again you're analysing DNA, not explaining why you don't steal or murder.

I'm not sure I buy into genetic altruism since selfishness is also an instinctive trait and they're basically counters to each other

but I believe it logically follows the selfish man comes to inherently realize it is to his security and benefit that everyone else not be out to get him. And in order for everyone to not be out to get him, everyone must agree to co-operate. And for everyone to co-operate, the immediate desire/selfish needs must be throttled for the needs of the many. You can be as much of a prick as you want so long as it doesn't violate this homeostasis. Otherwise, society breaks down, and your competition spikes drastically.

As Pack animals I can understand a bit of 'familial' altruism going on though, where you behave altruistically towards your relatives or herd members because saving them in effect, accomplishes your goal - the continuation of your genetic data. You yourself may not pass it along, but your family will, and being family (or what you perceive as family) they share your genetics (or don't because your herd/pack/family/whatever is a social construct but the instinct doesn't know the difference)

but fundamentally, i'm a deist, and I still believe altruism is just logical and rational behavior enacted by anything of sound mind.

>people still steal and murder

Because their instinctive selfishness has over-ridden their instinctive altruism, whether due to illness, emotional and physical distress (such as poverty and desperation), or a psychological or physiological defect. A healthy, well fed, emotionally satisfied person does not murder.

You're still misunderstanding the question, and so the point.

>This is the same as that "lol [insult] doesn't mean anything" thing: it's said only by those who have been rightly attacked with it, and who just simply can't see why they could ever be less than perfect
Actually, it generally refers to insults which are genuinely meaningless and worthless, which are commonly used by people who think that their hate is inherently righteous and should be synonymous with "criticism" even when it obviously isn't.

While many of these insults are said to have an abundance of meaning, this is virtually always a strictly imaginary presumption by people looking for self-justification, while the insult itself functions solely as an expression of hostility with no meaning other than that.

The whole mentality is much like the one behind "if you object to my asshole behavior you prove my insults right" and similar bits of nonsense.

No, in fact, you are wrong.

There is not a single one which does not have a specific meaning.

Nigger I just ANSWERED the question. I don't kill or steal because it doesn't benefit me.

If you expand the definition of "meaning" such that it can't possibly not be there, then yes, even insults which mean nothing more than "I'm offended by you" despite pretense to the contrary would qualify as "having meaning". However, that doesn't mean they have any value in a critical sense, or indicate actual character flaws on the part of the target. It also doesn't mean that they fit the highly specific fantasy scenario of "the only reason people are unimpressed by hate is because they think they're perfect and can't take any criticism at all".

>I don't kill or steal because it doesn't benefit me.
That's not what you said, motherfucker.

In any case, why would you bother answering like that? We're talking about egoism, there's no need to proudly say you are one.
Sure, except they have meaning even if you don't warp the meaning of meaning.