Cold ones vampire legends

So where do I start? I went to my mates house the other week just to hang out and see her. Some context she’s a young single mom who lives with her mom and she has aniexty due to something happening to her while going home one night. But I’ve known her since late high school. So I for a while I wanted to buy her some gifts which to me working minimum wage were quite pricey and I just wanted to spoil her because of the accident while going home and I knew her aniexty was bad anything that topped it off and as a young single mother with a 1 year old you don’t get too much time to yourself so I wanted to buy her some pampering things.
Anyway the situation happened the next day, I was chilling in her bed but when I went to find her and I asked her mom where was she her mom gave me a cold answer and I could tell something was off, I messaged her on Snapchat asking where did she go? She comes into her room where I’m laying and says “why have you been putting the baby stuff into your bag?” To which I replied I haven’t, she went on to say she wouldn’t understand why I would want to steal off a baby, something of her moms has gone missing and it’s my fault, she said she checked my bag and my pockets to which they found nothing. I was so shocked by this, she went through my stuff without my permission and then they both still accused me of something I didn’t do? And they had no proof, for the baby thing being in my bag the only reason I could think of is it must’ve fell into it. My bag is a tote bag quite a large one, so no zipper and when you put heavy items in it it kinda sinks the bag, but we got to a point of the day when the baby was asleep and I was helping clean up she through some baby toys at me to have a look at because she liked them but one must’ve fallen into my bag. I even asked her why would you think I would steal of you? To which she again didn’t reply, to any of my questions she either laughed at me or ignored.
I’m sorry that her mom lost something priceless to them but honestly why would I want to steal off of them when I pay for meals when me and her go out, i spent a pretty penny on gifts for her to pamper herself with, why would I do that? Anyway I leave their house I left it as it was as to me it was clear they had made up their mind and nothing I was saying went through their heads.
They rang my work telling them about this incident to which my job didn’t care because it was my personal life and they sided with me. I’m a gift giving person that’s my love language and I have adhd so I can’t understand body language or sarcasm so to me I thought they were joking until someone from my work messaged me about it. I blocked her on everything but I want answers but I know I’ll never get them and I’m starting to not care by telling myself they clearly had horrible intent in what they were doing. They threatened the police but what can you say to them? You never saw me put anything into my bag, or my hoodie that I wasn’t wearing due to the weather. And I wasn’t hiding my bag or keeping it hidden from her when she touched my bag multiple times.

Mutually broke up 6 months ago, 4 months of NC.
It was an intense relationship and immediately post-BU I was the one initiating contact for that final “closure” talk. After that they told me they wanted to keep in touch, but went hot/cold since. I couldn’t bear it so initiated no contact and it’s been that way since.
A lot of things were said in the heat of the moment post-BU. There were intense ups and downs and NCs really helped clear my mind and see straight. It’s been a while now and part of me feels this urge to reach out hoping theyve reflected a bit too. I don’t have any expectations of getting back together it’d just be nice to have a mature conversation now that some times passed.
But I’m scared it won’t be received well, or even have the effect of undoing any healing. Each time I’ve opened our chat my unanswered texts put me off and anything would be ignored.
So I’m not sure. Is 4 months enough or should I wait it out?

Hello, cant remember the name of the game thats on pc online (cartonish,2d, old one).
Game in the train (or a bus,idk). you need to click on random objects (to find where to click at) to get more free space in the train because at the very beginning its very full and at the end you end up alone. There you see everything as a third character and you are inside of that train (or bus). I only remember a vampire who flew in the bus as a bat,when you click on him he appears to be a vampire and a nun starts to sing. you need to make them out of the train/bus.
You just need to do clicks on other objects to create various situations so others would be forced to get out.
Any ideas?

I’m sorry this is going to be long but buckle up. For a bit of background. I (17F) am part of a group of 4 + 1 girl that hurt me deeply in the past so I do not consider her as my friend. They are my only friends at school but last year some problems began to rise. The thing said girl did to hurt me was try to instigate fights between me and my friends and try to convince me that they hate me. My friends took my side in the fight and yet they stayed friends with her because she guilt tripped them. I believed that would be the end of it.
This year one of my friends that I’ll just name as K began speaking up about an issue she had with her mother for a very long time now and she began visiting my best friend who I’ll call T almost every day. Both of them have stricter parents than I do so that basically meant that for example if K went to meet up with T one day and slept at her house, the next day nobody could visit T. This also worked about the same with K’s parents. This put a strain on my relationship with both of them since it meant I couldn’t meet up with them ever and the few times that I have been able to meet up with them T basically told me: "You can come over if you have to".
My relationship with my last friend has been strained for a while now. I’ll call her Y. In middle school we used to be close and I was there for her and she was there for me. That isn’t the case now. Y is cold towards me and avoids me most of the time. Over the span of a few weeks the only words spoken between her and I were me asking her to please stop munching during a test we had because it wasn’t helping me focus (I have ADHD and Dyslexia). Which even then, she didn’t do.
I feel like I’ve reached my breaking point. I try so hard to hug them, comfort them, be there for them whenever they have to vent. I even organized some things for their birthdays (which I would have done regardless if they celebrated with friends or not) and yet on my birthday I didn’t get anything close to what I tried to give to them. I feel unappreciated but there’s this nagging feeling that I’m in the wrong. That I’m judging them for things they can’t control.
This brings me all to the actual breaking point. I’m Jewish and I live in a Jewish country (you can guess where, I just don’t want to state it for personal reasons). During the year we have many holidays. Recently, we had three specific ones that I hold close and dear to me.

1. Holocaust day (My great grandmother was Polish and we did lose family members in the Holocaust)
2. Memorial Day for the soldiers who fought in wars (specifically the fallen)
3. Independence day

Specifically the first two. On those days I get really depressed and I try to be with my family who have lost people they care about, especially on Memorial day. Two days ago, my friend T wrote in our group chat (this was right after Memorial Day ended and Independence Day started), asking why we didn’t call or text her to ask if she’s alright. I told her that I’m sorry but I’m with my family right now and that I’ve BEEN with my family this entire day as soon as I got home from school. My dad took me to place flowers on graves of soldiers because their families are often no longer there and sometimes they have nobody to place flowers to remember them. T got upset that we didn’t ask her if she’s okay because she also mourns on this day. I didn’t want to say anything in the group but I was very obviously upset and my family who I was with (because it had switched to Independence Day and usually we celebrate by eating BBQ) noticed and I explained that if there’s one day that I expected my friends to not be selfish on, it was those three days. And yet, they still were.
I’ve given up so many things for them and I’ve tried so hard to be the best friend that I could be. And yet, I never received that in return. All I got was to be the therapist and at that moment I finally broke down. I cried to my parents. My dad was busy and the guests had left by then already so he didn’t really stay to hear me out (even though he would. He’s a great dad) but my mom hugged me and said that it’s okay and that I have a right to be upset after everything.
I’ve just had enough. Enough of the drama, enough of the lies, enough with feeling like I don’t belong, enough with feeling like I always try to do everything for them and yet I get nothing. I’ve reached a point where I just can’t handle it. Especially because my friends have been so cold with me recently for seemingly no reason. I don’t know what I should do. Am I the asshole?

Duvets that bunch up inside the cover have been the bane of my existence. I've spent altogether too much money on duvets only to be left unable to sleep as the entire thing attempts to squeeze into a line along one side or into one of the bottom corners away from me. It's rage-inducing to try to deal with this in the middle of a cold night.
Then... one day several years ago I stumbled across a duvet that didn't bunch up in the cover... it was always even, it was glorious. I held on to it far longer than I should have because I coudln't face the pain of another bunched up duvet, but I finally had to retire it.
Looking around online, the non-bunching-up factor doesn't seem to be something that duvet manufacturers seem to care about mentioning, but it's become one of the most important selling points for me, so I turn to you, duvet users of newzealand ... recommend me a good quality duvet that won't bunch up in the cover.

Hi, I'm indie publishing my novel later this year and want to get the blurb ship-shape. It's gone through multiple revisions already and I've become blind to it with my endless tweaking, so all advice and suggestions are really welcome!!
The Old Gods are the Worst.
In the city, industrial magic is booming, and Kailas Darkchar's ability to dispel magic has become more of a curse than a blessing. The only person to see any value in her talent is an old Mayqsa priest who offers a bag of gold in return for one simple task. All Kailas must do is venture deep into the heart of the desolate Ithos Darg forest - blighted by the Black Bane - and bring out the mortal remains of his god.
When Kailas refuses, the priest's entreaties turn to threats and she has to flee for her life. But nowhere is safe. A golden-eyed stranger finds her and delivers a chilling warning. The Mayqsa are inflamed by their holy mission to raise their god and will stop at nothing to have her. Kailas must do their bidding before the next blood moon, or their religion is cursed to dust.
The stranger vows to keep her safe, but something about him doesn't ring true. He appears to be following his own agenda, one with roots reaching back thousands of years.
As old legends come to life, Kailas must unravel the stranger’s true purpose while evading the Mayqsa. Without knowing who to trust, she must face an immortal enemy, counter the old gods, and push her ability beyond its limits.
For, if the Mayqsa succeed, the world will burn.

So there have been few posts asking why do people stay with abusers and it got me thinking why I stay with mine. I'm 25 so old enough to get a job and move out, but yet here I am still with my abusive mom and sibling. I realized I don't have enough motivation to actually set goals and see them through long enough to actually get a job and see myself through on my plans. On a rational level I know I would be better off if I move out and I want independence and my own space so much, but on emotional level I'm just stuck. I apply for a job one day and then crash the next, or I get rejected and then my week flews by not doing much, etc. I did work part time during college, but it was always less pressure bc it was part time and I always felt like I could quit and get another similar job. But now it just feels like the stakes are higher and I go into freeze mode, especially when considering moving once and for all and going into rent.
I feel like it's mainly due to being subtly abused, such as being put down, criticized, gaslighted, etc. and told I don't know how to do basic things such as chores without my mom ever giving me the chance to actually do it and learn by myself. But interestingly enough, I was always able to function well under pressure, such as timelines in schools or at deadlines at jobs. From the outside I seem very capable and have good feedback from people, but from the inside, my own head and my family, I'm always told I'm not good enough and can't do shit so I feel like I don't even try or give up too soon because I don't trust myself enough to actually believe something will change. And when I'm faced with huge decision, such as moving away and going into rent world, I just freeze due to fear and overhwelm. Hell, sometimes even small decisions cause me to freeze and avoid.
One thing that I've noticed since I've started my trauma work and as I was examining my family is that my uncle (mom's younger brother) is basically same. He graduated college but never had a job and stayed with my grandma all of his life until she died. As a kid, he was always the joke of the family and I never understood why he simply didn't get a job and move out, but know I'm scared I might end up the same way. Especially since I was always the faulty kid, constantly criticized, attacked and blamed for everything and still am while older sister was the favourite until she moved out and then younger sister became the favourite. I feel like my mom replicated the dynamics she saw as a kid and I know my grandma was pretty cold and distant as a person so I wouldn't be shocked she was toxic as hell (I never really knew her well).
Anyways, I'm wondering if there are any advice from people who were in similar situations. Like I want to move out so badly and move on with my life bc I'm getting tired of sitting around the house and feeling like I'm wasting my life being stuck on my trauma, but at the same time it's hard to get started and actually stay consistent.

Yes, OKX savings are generally considered safe due to a variety of factors. Firstly, OKX is one of the largest and most reputable cryptocurrency exchanges globally, with a track record of security and reliability. The platform employs robust security measures, including encryption protocols, two-factor authentication, and cold storage for the majority of user funds, which significantly reduces the risk of hacking or unauthorized access.
Moreover, OKX adheres to strict regulatory compliance standards in various jurisdictions where it operates, providing users with an added layer of protection. The exchange also undergoes regular security audits and assessments by third-party firms to ensure the integrity of its systems and processes.
Additionally, OKX has implemented a user protection fund, which serves as a safety net in the unlikely event of a security breach or loss of funds. This fund is designed to compensate users for any losses incurred due to factors beyond their control, further enhancing the overall safety of savings held on the platform.
It's important to note that while OKX savings are considered relatively safe, investing in any financial instrument, including cryptocurrencies, carries inherent risks. Users should conduct their own research, exercise caution, and only invest funds they can afford to lose.
J0IN THE BEST CRYPT0 EXCHANGE

So there have been few posts asking why do people stay with abusers and it got me thinking why I stay with mine. I'm 25 so old enough to get a job and move out, but yet here I am still with my abusive mom and sibling. I realized I don't have enough motivation to actually set goals and see them through long enough to actually get a job and see myself through on my plans. On a rational level I know I would be better off if I move out and I want independence and my own space so much, but on emotional level I'm just stuck. I apply for a job one day and then crash the next, or I get rejected and then my week flews by not doing much, etc. I did work part time during college, but it was always less pressure bc it was part time and I always felt like I could quit and get another similar job. But now it just feels like the stakes are higher and I go into freeze mode, especially when considering moving once and for all and going into rent.
I feel like it's mainly due to being subtly abused, such as being put down, criticized, gaslighted, etc. and told I don't know how to do basic things such as chores without my mom ever giving me the chance to actually do it and learn by myself. But interestingly enough, I was always able to function well under pressure, such as timelines in schools or at deadlines at jobs. From the outside I seem very capable and have good feedback from people, but from the inside, my own head and my family, I'm always told I'm not good enough and can't do shit so I feel like I don't even try or give up too soon because I don't trust myself enough to actually believe something will change. And when I'm faced with huge decision, such as moving away and going into rent world, I just freeze due to fear and overhwelm. Hell, sometimes even small decisions cause me to freeze and avoid.
One thing that I've noticed since I've started my trauma work and as I was examining my family is that my uncle (mom's younger brother) is basically same. He graduated college but never had a job and stayed with my grandma all of his life until she died. As a kid, he was always the joke of the family and I never understood why he simply didn't get a job and move out, but know I'm scared I might end up the same way. Especially since I was always the faulty kid, constantly criticized, attacked and blamed for everything and still am while older sister was the favourite until she moved out and then younger sister became the favourite. I feel like my mom replicated the dynamics she saw as a kid and I know my grandma was pretty cold and distant as a person so I wouldn't be shocked she was toxic as hell (I never really knew her well).
Anyways, I'm wondering if there are any advice from people who were in similar situations. Like I want to move out so badly and move on with my life bc I'm getting tired of sitting around the house and feeling like I'm wasting my life being stuck on my trauma, but at the same time it's hard to get started and actually stay consistent.

So there have been few posts asking why do people stay with abusers and it got me thinking why I stay with mine. I'm 25 so old enough to get a job and move out, but yet here I am still with my abusive mom and sibling. I realized I don't have enough motivation to actually set goals and see them through long enough to actually get a job and see myself through on my plans. On a rational level I know I would be better off if I move out and I want independence and my own space so much, but on emotional level I'm just stuck. I apply for a job one day and then crash the next, or I get rejected and then my week flews by not doing much, etc. I did work part time during college, but it was always less pressure bc it was part time and I always felt like I could quit and get another similar job. But now it just feels like the stakes are higher and I go into freeze mode, especially when considering moving once and for all and going into rent.
I feel like it's mainly due to being subtly abused, such as being put down, criticized, gaslighted, etc. and told I don't know how to do basic things such as chores without my mom ever giving me the chance to actually do it and learn by myself. But interestingly enough, I was always able to function well under pressure, such as timelines in schools or at deadlines at jobs. From the outside I seem very capable and have good feedback from people, but from the inside, my own head and my family, I'm always told I'm not good enough and can't do shit so I feel like I don't even try or give up too soon because I don't trust myself enough to actually believe something will change. And when I'm faced with huge decision, such as moving away and going into rent world, I just freeze due to fear and overhwelm. Hell, sometimes even small decisions cause me to freeze and avoid.
One thing that I've noticed since I've started my trauma work and as I was examining my family is that my uncle (mom's younger brother) is basically same. He graduated college but never had a job and stayed with my grandma all of his life until she died. As a kid, he was always the joke of the family and I never understood why he simply didn't get a job and move out, but know I'm scared I might end up the same way. Especially since I was always the faulty kid, constantly criticized, attacked and blamed for everything and still am while older sister was the favourite until she moved out and then younger sister became the favourite. I feel like my mom replicated the dynamics she saw as a kid and I know my grandma was pretty cold and distant as a person so I wouldn't be shocked she was toxic as hell (I never really knew her well).
Anyways, I'm wondering if there are any advice from people who were in similar situations. Like I want to move out so badly and move on with my life bc I'm getting tired of sitting around the house and feeling like I'm wasting my life being stuck on my trauma, but at the same time it's hard to get started and actually stay consistent.

So there have been few posts asking why do people stay with abusers and it got me thinking why I stay with mine. I'm 25 so old enough to get a job and move out, but yet here I am still with my abusive mom and sibling. I realized I don't have enough motivation to actually set goals and see them through long enough to actually get a job and see myself through on my plans. On a rational level I know I would be better off if I move out and I want independence and my own space so much, but on emotional level I'm just stuck. I apply for a job one day and then crash the next, or I get rejected and then my week flews by not doing much, etc. I did work part time during college, but it was always less pressure bc it was part time and I always felt like I could quit and get another similar job. But now it just feels like the stakes are higher and I go into freeze mode, especially when considering moving once and for all and going into rent.
I feel like it's mainly due to being subtly abused, such as being put down, criticized, gaslighted, etc. and told I don't know how to do basic things such as chores without my mom ever giving me the chance to actually do it and learn by myself. But interestingly enough, I was always able to function well under pressure, such as timelines in schools or at deadlines at jobs. From the outside I seem very capable and have good feedback from people, but from the inside, my own head and my family, I'm always told I'm not good enough and can't do shit so I feel like I don't even try or give up too soon because I don't trust myself enough to actually believe something will change. And when I'm faced with huge decision, such as moving away and going into rent world, I just freeze due to fear and overhwelm. Hell, sometimes even small decisions cause me to freeze and avoid.
One thing that I've noticed since I've started my trauma work and as I was examining my family is that my uncle (mom's younger brother) is basically same. He graduated college but never had a job and stayed with my grandma all of his life until she died. As a kid, he was always the joke of the family and I never understood why he simply didn't get a job and move out, but know I'm scared I might end up the same way. Especially since I was always the faulty kid, constantly criticized, attacked and blamed for everything and still am while older sister was the favourite until she moved out and then younger sister became the favourite. I feel like my mom replicated the dynamics she saw as a kid and I know my grandma was pretty cold and distant as a person so I wouldn't be shocked she was toxic as hell (I never really knew her well).
Anyways, I'm wondering if there are any advice from people who were in similar situations. Like I want to move out so badly and move on with my life bc I'm getting tired of sitting around the house and feeling like I'm wasting my life being stuck on my trauma, but at the same time it's hard to get started and actually stay consistent.

Can’t see a way out of this.
Hey, first time posting on Reddit, I’m just lost and I really can’t see a way out for myself. I’m F24, I’d say I’ve had alot of misfortune in my life but I don’t like complaining too much because I know someone else has it worse somewhere.
Grew up in a toxic household, only child, mentally abusive parents. A father who is extremely cold hearted and doesn’t believe in mental health, and my mother who is extremely unstable herself, have meltdowns infront of me and would constantly criticise and focus on my looks which in turn made me extremely self conscious my whole life. They would give me physical things but emotionally wise I was alone for most of my life with little to no support system. My aunt was evil to me as a kid and I think I endured abuse because she’d purposefully isolate me from my cousins and make me feel like I wasn’t accepted.
The only person I had who gave me love was my grandma. She meant the world to me. She was my angel , but she died from cancer when I was 18 which was extremely traumatic as I saw her deteriorate infront of my eyes and was there when she was dying. It haunts me forever. I’ve never gotten over it and it’s left a massive hole in me that I’ve been trying to fill. She was the only person who was really truly in my corner. She was my soul mate.
Growing up I was always bullied, seem to be the black sheep that never fit in anywhere. High school was terrible for me. I was a complete loner and no one wanted to be my friend because I was so shy. I’d sit alone by myself and always wonder what’s wrong with me.
My only comfort at that time was my LDR from 15-21 with someone who lived in another country , we met online through gaming as this was my only way to make friends. I guess it was my escape. That relationship lasted 5 years but because I didn’t see him often I felt more and more alone.
After I went through a dark period of looking for validation from men online, as I created social media and started to put myself out there. I think the attention fed my insecurity about myself growing up as I had low self esteem and never saw myself as pretty but this attention ruined me in the end because it was mostly sexual and made me feel used. I gained popularity but it was the wrong kind. I was sending naked pictures to fill a void because these compliments made me feel worthy for once. It was a horrible dark time. I created a bad reputation for myself at one point because of it. Attracted some bad people , had someone planning to gang rape me but fortunately found out before it took place. That’s caused me to have paranoia.
Since I’ve lost a lot of people. They come and they go. I can’t seem to keep relationships. I think I look to dating as an escape or maybe I’ll find someone who will love me and fix me. I have no friends, I had a best friend who treated me like shit for years but I’d accept it so I wouldn’t be alone. We had a group of her and 2 other girls and they’d bully me as a joke and tell me ‘you’re pretty so it’s ok if we bully you’. Now I’m older I’m more aware so we’ve all drifted apart and they’ve slowly pushed me out the group. I have no one now.
I had one good relationship that I recently lost and it’s destroyed every part of me. I ruined it. I couldn’t seem to give him the same dedication he gave me and felt unsure about him and our future thus pushing him away with my actions. Now I’m thinking I was being avoidant because of all my trauma. I did some pretty shitty things to betray his trust and now he will never speak to me again and has me blocked on everything. He was the only man so far in my life who genuinely loved me for me , no matter how messy I looked or imperfect I am and I destroyed the relationship beyond repair. I self sabotaged and now I’m completely alone again. The guilt is eating me alive everyday and all I want is to talk to him and apologise but he won’t speak to me.
I have terrible social anxiety, ocd , depression and bpd. I find it hard to make friends. I work from home so I’m not in environments where I can meet new people, I have to wfm because I have an auto immune issue where I get tired easily. So I’m just in this constant cycle of being alone.
I only have my dog left which is what’s keeping me alive but I’m extremely suicidal. If anyone can offer any advice or if you’ve been in a similar situation please offer me some advice because I genuinely don’t know what to do. I think about ending my life often but I’m too scared to do it so I’m living in this hell Thanks for listening

The tensions with Opposing Empire have gone beyond mere mutual enmity. This is a conflict of economies, ideologies, and clandestine efforts, fought across our empires in the hearts and minds of our citizens. With some carelessness, or perhaps deliberate actions, it could quickly become a full-fledged military conflict.
^{(Note: this is a sneak peak into a larger Diplomacy DLC concept I am designing. Also disclaimer: I am not a game designer, I intentionally did not provide numbers, just ideas! Feel free to suggest or criticize.})
When two empires are Rivals a while, both sides will have the option to escalate the Rivalry into a Cold War, which costs Influence. If either side does this, a Situation that is shared and progressed by both sides is created. This situation is intended to provide more RP and mechanical freedom for empires to either diplomatically mend relations, prepare a leadup to war, or perhaps make gains without resorting to warfare.
Cold Wars, like many situations currently in the game, operate on a line between two endpoints, representing the tensions between the two empires: Reconciliation (-100) to War (100).
By default, the Situation will start at 0 and remain stagnant in the middle. Both sides will have access to four Approaches which have different bonuses and effects on the Situation:

• Seek De-Escalation: costs Unity to upkeep. Increases Opinion of the opposing empire, and progresses the Situation towards Reconciliation. (Our simmering conflict with Opposing Empire must be reconsidered. We will extend diplomatic tendrils in hopes of reducing tensions and reconciling our two empires.)
• Maintain Status Quo: costs no upkeep, has no effect. (The current friction with Opposing Empire works to our advantage. We will focus on our own affairs.)
• Clandestine Effort: costs low Energy Creds to upkeep. Moderately decreases the cost of running Spy Operations in the target empire and slightly increases their effectiveness. Slowly progresses the Situation towards War. (We have no desire for a large scale armed conflict with Opposing Empire at this time- instead, we will use... other methods to improve our position.)
• Prepare for Hostilities: costs more Energy Creds to upkeep. Increases Military Ship and Defense Platform build speed, and more quickly progresses the Situation towards War. (We have had enough of the thinly veiled hostilities with Opposing Empire. War is inevitable- and we will lay the groundwork for victory!)

Progress: there are also other factors which will influence the progress of this situation:

• Either side being Militarist or Xenophobe will add base progress towards War, increased if Fanatic.
• Insults will bump the scale towards War.
• Military buildup/border friction, as well as the currently existing Conduct Fleet Exercises event, will move the scale towards War.
• The opinion of either side decreasing further (ex. Harm Relations) will move the scale towards War- this also means a 3rd party could use Spy operations, like the existing Diplomatic Incident or Smear Campaign, to push the outbreak of hostilities!
• New Cassus Belli gained by either side against the other will push the scale towards War- for example, taking a Civic that grants CB, or becoming a Hegemon. So will Declaring War on a Vassal or Ally (provided this doesn't immediately pull the empire in).
• HOWEVER:
• Either side being Pacifist or Xenophile will add base progress towards Reconciliation, increased if Fanatic.
• Cassus Belli becoming invalid will push the scale towards Reconciliation- for example, Impose Ideology becomes invalid if the target adopts matching Ethics.
• Improving Relations by any means will move the scale towards Reconciliation. Eventually, Embassies and other Diplomatic actions can end the Cold War.
• De-Escalation can be traded under Actions- normally, Rival AI empires will never be willing to trade, but an exception can be made here, to for example allow one side to Trade systems, resources, etc as concessions in exchange for X progress towards De-Escalation. The AI may offer such deals if Inferior or Pathetic, and may request concessions to reduce tensions if Superior or Overwhelming.

Events: as with most Situations, the Cold War could feature various events for RP and mechanical purposes. Here are some examples I thought up:

• Fraternization with the Enemy (either empire is some degree of Spiritualist, Xenophile or Pacifist): Despite the tensions with Opposing Empire, news reports and viral videos have recently been circulating of groups of both Our Species and Their Species activists united in song and demonstration on multiple planets. Apparently, these individuals seek an end to the hostility between our empires.
  • [Support these noble and righteous souls.] - bumps the scale towards Reconciliation. Gain temporary Ethics attraction for the corresponding Ethic.
  • [Ignore these misguided fools.] - situation does not change. Gain temporary Happiness debuff for pops of the the responsible Ethic.
  • (Militarist, Xenophobe, or Authoritarian) - [Arrest as many of the wicked traitors as we can identify!] - costs Influence, bumps the scale towards War. Gain temporary Ethics attraction for the Ethic you used to take this choice.
• Arms Race Breakthrough (is currently using the Prepare for Hostilities approach, increased chance if Materialist or Technocracy): Amidst the large-scale preparations for possible conflict with Opposing Empire, a small team of scientists has independently developed a new military technology and presented it to our government for use.
  • [Excellent.] - bumps the scale towards War, and gain a low-mid tier military tech that was not yet researched. If no valid options, gain some Engineering research instead.
• Pro-War Rally (has any Xenophobe or Militarist leader): Recently, in front of massive crowds on Planet Name, Leader Name delivered a rousing speech extolling the glorious virtues of Our Empire and denouncing the horrific threat presented by Opposing Empire. It would seem many have been swept up in this pro-war fervor and are demanding action from our government. However, foreign emissaries and more moderate elements have cautioned against supporting such explosive, radical rhetoric.
  • [We stand with Leader Name! To war!] - bumps the scale towards War, changes our approach to Prepare for Hostilities if it isn't already, and gain Unity and temporary Ethics Attraction to Leader Name's Ethics. BUT reduces the Opinion of Opposing Empire and any empires Cordial or friendlier to them.
  • [Heads must be kept cool, and Leader Name must be reprimanded.] - costs Influence, but the situation does not change.

And now, for the conclusions of the situation:
Reconciliation Finisher (or if empires somehow become overlord/vassal or allies via external circumstances)
Both Empires get the Event: De-Escalation Successful
In a significant diplomatic achievement, the heated tensions with Opposing Empire have been comprehensively defused! Perhaps this will pave the way for friendlier relations and better days ahead.
If the Situation reaches Reconciliation, the Cold War and Rivalry will immediately be ended, with all their bonuses and effects. Both empires will gain a moderate lump sum of Influence and Unity, as well as a small burst of increased Opinion for each other.

• [That was a close one.] - default option, overwritten by others if applicable
• (Pacifist or Xenophile) [A glorious day!] - the rewards are increased
• (Militarist or Xenophobe) [Disappointing.] - the rewards are decreased

War Finisher (or if empires are pulled in by other factors)
Both Empires get the Event: Cold War Turns Hot
The heated tensions with Opposing Empire have ignited! Negotiations have broken down, and fierce border skirmishes have erupted. The truth is now undeniable: we are at war.
If the Situation reaches War, the Cold War and Rivalry will transform into an actual, normal war. Both empires will gain a small lump sum of Influence and Unity and will have a window to pick from their available Cassus Belli and call in allies before the battle begins.

• [To battle stations!] - default option, overwritten by others if applicable
• (Pacifist or Xenophile) [Well, we tried...] - the rewards are decreased
• (Militarist or Xenophobe) [Long have we waited for this moment!] - the rewards are increased

And that's all I've got for you all today. Thanks for reading and please send any suggestions or feedback! Here's a bonus: a new achievement based on the irl Soviet Colonel who may have saved the world
Legacy of S'tann Pet'rovv: De-Escalate a Cold War after tensions had at one point reached 95 or higher.

Before I get things started, I’d like to say that I(22M) am from a rather conservative country, I am a virgin, and this is my first relationship.
It’s been around 6 months since I started dating my 22F girlfriend, we have a 1000km distance, but we’re both students and are not financially independent yet. I just needed some advice as I just feel like this keeps going around my head and I’d like to articulate it better for myself while receiving advice from the more experienced people on this subreddit.
To start things off, This isn’t my girlfriend’s first relationship and she’s been in relationships for a while now, she started dating somewhat young (for my country at least, or maybe I have been too closed off to realize) and she said she’s had sex from a year or two and has had a few ex-boyfriends she’s mentioned to me before whom she slept with and she’s also had a few friends with benefits (I found out about this later)..
I knew she wasn’t a virgin before we started dating and It does not matter to me if she wasn’t a virgin, because she’s dating me and choosing me and I do have some self-confidence and am a bit secure with who I am to let it bother me much.
I love her a lot and would love if this relationship lasted a long time and even hope to marry her and build a home with her someday.
Around 2 months back, she told me that she did not want to sleep with me till we got married and when I first heard this, I was quite taken aback, especially since I didn’t think she cared much about that due to her history and I don’t care much about it either (I’ve had my share of mental issues and felt that it wouldn’t be right to date anyone with those level of issues, so decided to not date anyone till I met her..).
This turned into a somewhat large argument and we were supposed to have a few days free and were planning on talking and video calling for those days, but we ended up arguing a bit, I was just feeling very mentally messed up and trying to process everything and I did get a bit cold and kind of withdrew into myself.
When I asked her for the reason, she said she didn’t know and then later said that she wanted a serious relationship with me and “I’m not like her playboy ex-boyfriends”and that she “doesn’t want to introduce me as a person she slept with to her parents” and wants to “respect them by not sleeping with me” while these ideas aren’t too uncommon amongst the younger generation of my country, I didn’t think she would have such thoughts because then why do it with a few others and then not with me? (I don’t think I am entitled to sleep with her, nor do I feel it’s my right or anything like that, I wouldn’t want her to do anything with me if she doesn’t wish to, I wouldn’t be able to live with myself if I knew I forced someone into having sex with me when they don’t want to.)
When we went further into this discussion, she asked me if sex was something so important to me and if I just wanted her for her body and not for who she is and that kind of things, which made little sense to me, as why would I be in a LDR if I just wanted sex?
Anyways, after a while, she kept apologizing and was like if you want to we can do it. (and that wasn’t the conclusion I wanted, I just wanted her to tell me some real reason why she doesn’t want to do anything with me, I forgot to mention, but she called our relationship an online one and that hurt me quite a bit (she later said that she didn’t mean it that way and meant it as a LDR).
After a day or two, I kind of decided to just not think about it, because she just kept apologizing and I felt like I was hurting her by continuing the topic.
A few weeks after she talks about the house of some guy she was “more than friends with” I didn’t know about this before and thought she only had sex in relationships (again, my country is quite conservative and maybe I am too closed off** to have had considered this before) and that kind of got to me, because whenever she said anything about people wanting her only for her body and that kind of stuff, I kind of felt like she was coerced into sleeping with her ex-boyfriends (I understand that I might have tried to rationalize what was going on and made up stories), and imo a friends with benefits is where you just have sex and it’s quite consensual, to say the least.
Now, a week back, I just wanted to bring this topic up again and I kind of messed up with the timing as we both were quite tired and I hadn’t slept properly in a while.. at the same time, I was feeling a bit guilty because I did fantasize about sleeping with her when we met even though I agreed to her boundary.
She told me she was confused and why I still thought about this topic and stuff like that and she asked me if I “didn’t like anything else about her apart from her body” and “what would I do if she had any physical deformities and she couldn’t have sex with me”( she said this when we first spoke on this too), she then said that she isn’t a touch person like I am and me thinking about such things out of the blue is quite strange to her.
All this has kind of led me to feel like I am ugly (which I don’t feel anymore, apart from the occasional intrusive thought) and whether she doesn’t want to sleep with me because she thinks I’m not the right person for her or maybe she thinks I am not good enough and so on...
She later said that she doesn’t want to have sex because she hates her body and how she looks and that she is carrying trauma from her past relationships because her ex-boyfriends slept with her and left her, I obviously understand this.. till a few days later she again said that we wouldn’t have sex till marriage. So I don’t know what’s really going on in her mind. Is she uncomfortable with me?
I understand that this might be a “Me” problem or something I am doing wrong or just overthinking and over analysing things and ending up with a wrong conclusion. I’m just confused I guess.
TLDR: My long-distance girlfriend doesn’t want to have sex with me even though she has had sex before (She later (after a month, when asked) said it is because she hates her body*). I felt hurt by this and it makes me feel very unwanted. I love her and I want to be with her, but I keep thinking about this and it’s making me lose my self-esteem and confidence as I feel like I am not good enough.
*I felt not including this in the TLDR would make it seem as though I am only telling my side of the story
**by closed off I mean I’m quite introverted and just stay home a lot and my parents are somewhat strict too (her parents are much stricter btw)..
I don’t know what I should do, I love her and I understand where she’s coming from, but this is kind of eating at me, whenever I feel low or am having a slightly bad mental health day my feelings of being not good enough or not the right person or that I am not wanted keeps creeping back up and starts shaving away at my self-esteem and the more I think about it the worse I feel.
Should I just stop thinking about this and pretend everything is okay with me? Am I not understanding enough? Do you think I can do something better? Should I talk about this topic again? (my girlfriend has exams for a few weeks now, so I would most likely hold off the topic until then, at the same time I might go to see her in June and I don’t know how that would work if we have such a conversation before this.)

Hi! I am a 23 year old girl, my boyfriend whom I live with has the same age and he has autoinmune hepatitis.
He is very stubborn and did not take his pills for about a month because he said he was already fine but I insisted and he kept taking them about two weeks ago, this is when the pain started. I am really confused because we were also sick last week but I felt just fine just some cold symptoms, but he started having unbearable joint pain.
Now I am even more sick this week and my body aches a lot but still no where near what he feels, here in my country we are in a cold season and wonder if we gout double cold because I was already feeling fine, if it’s the same one or if I need to take him to a rheumatologist we have an appointment tomorrow with an ortopedist because there is no hepatologists available at the moment we have to keep calling. He will be having bloodwork done next week but still, I am very worries because Im not sure if this is a very bad flu or if he will have the same as his mom that is autoinmune arthritis.
He started having these symptoms last week so not sure what could it be, because I was fine that time. I started feeling really sick again yesterday but the cold never really went away ever since last week. SO CONFUSED. Help.
Can a cold really last two weeks for symptoms to flare up a week later, even if you were beginning to feel fine?
Could it last longer for people with autoinmune diseases?

There were 108 "Esper Raffine" decks:

1 Aclazotz, Deepest Betrayal (online)
3 Caves of Koilos (online)
3 Concealed Courtyard (online)
3 Cut Down (online)
4 Darkslick Shores (online)
4 Deep-Cavern Bat (online)
2 Dennick, Pious Apprentice (online)
2 Deserted Beach (online)
1 Eiganjo, Seat of the Empire (online)
3 Faerie Mastermind (online)
4 Go for the Throat (online)
1 Island (online)
3 No More Lies (online)
1 Otawara, Soaring City (online)
1 Plains (online)
1 Raffine's Tower (online)
4 Raffine, Scheming Seer (online)
4 Restless Anchorage (online)
2 Shattered Sanctum (online)
1 Takenuma, Abandoned Mire (online)
2 The Wandering Emperor (online)
1 Tishana's Tidebinder (online)
2 Underground River (online)
3 Virtue of Loyalty (online)
4 Wedding Announcement (online)

There were 87 "Temur Control" decks:

4 Aftermath Analyst (online)
4 Brokers Hideout (online)
4 Cabaretti Courtyard (online)
1 Echoing Deeps (online)
3 Fires of Victory (online)
6 Forest (online)
4 Ill-Timed Explosion (online)
6 Island (online)
4 Maestros Theater (online)
4 Memory Deluge (online)
4 Mountain (online)
4 Nissa, Resurgent Animist (online)
1 Riveteers Overlook (online)
1 Shigeki, Jukai Visionary (online)
3 Spelunking (online)
4 Virtue of Strength (online)
3 Worldsoul's Rage (online)

There were 82 "Uw Control" decks:

2 Adarkar Wastes (online)
4 Deduce (online)
1 Depopulate (online)
4 Deserted Beach (online)
1 Eiganjo, Seat of the Empire (online)
1 Farewell (online)
4 Field of Ruin (online)
1 Get Lost (online)
4 Island (online)
1 Jace, the Perfected Mind (online)
3 March of Otherworldly Light (online)
4 Memory Deluge (online)
1 Mirrex (online)
4 No More Lies (online)
1 Otawara, Soaring City (online)
4 Plains (online)
4 Restless Anchorage (online)
2 Seachrome Coast (online)
3 Sunfall (online)
1 Sunken Citadel (online)
2 Temporary Lockdown (online)
4 The Wandering Emperor (online)
4 Three Steps Ahead (online)

There were 81 "Boros Convoke" decks:

4 Battlefield Forge (online)
4 Case of the Gateway Express (online)
3 Cavern of Souls (online)
2 Eiganjo, Seat of the Empire (online)
4 Gleeful Demolition (online)
4 Imodane's Recruiter (online)
4 Inspiring Vantage (online)
4 Knight-Errant of Eos (online)
2 Mirrex (online)
3 Mountain (online)
4 Novice Inspector (online)
1 Nurturing Pixie (online)
3 Plains (online)
4 Resolute Reinforcements (online)
2 Sanguine Evangelist (online)
2 Sokenzan, Crucible of Defiance (online)
4 Voldaren Epicure (online)
4 Warden of the Inner Sky (online)
2 Warleader's Call (online)

There were 51 "4/5c Control" decks:

4 Archangel of Wrath (online)
3 Atraxa, Grand Unifier (online)
1 Boseiju, Who Endures (online)
4 Cavern of Souls (online)
2 Depopulate (online)
3 Forest (online)
4 Herd Migration (online)
1 Imodane's Recruiter (online)
1 Island (online)
4 Jetmir's Garden (online)
4 Leyline Binding (online)
1 Long Goodbye (online)
1 Mountain (online)
3 Plains (online)
1 Raffine's Tower (online)
4 Spara's Headquarters (online)
2 Spelunking (online)
4 Sunfall (online)
1 Swamp (online)
4 Topiary Stomper (online)
4 Up the Beanstalk (online)
4 Ziatora's Proving Ground (online)

There were 48 "4c Legends" decks:

1 Aclazotz, Deepest Betrayal (online)
1 Blackcleave Cliffs (online)
1 Blooming Marsh (online)
3 Boseiju, Who Endures (online)
2 Cavern of Souls (online)
2 Cut Down (online)
2 Darkslick Shores (online)
1 Deathcap Glade (online)
2 Ertai Resurrected (online)
3 Go for the Throat (online)
3 Honest Rutstein (online)
4 Inti, Seneschal of the Sun (online)
4 Otawara, Soaring City (online)
4 Plaza of Heroes (online)
4 Relic of Legends (online)
4 Rona, Herald of Invasion (online)
4 Slogurk, the Overslime (online)
1 Swamp (online)
4 Takenuma, Abandoned Mire (online)
1 Tinybones, the Pickpocket (online)
2 Titania, Voice of Gaea (online)
1 Vial Smasher, Gleeful Grenadier (online)
2 Xander's Lounge (online)
4 Ziatora's Proving Ground (online)

Introduction

In this post, we'll be discussing something called "Virtue Ethics." This is a normative theory of ethics that's most associated with Aristotle, though has in recent times experienced a resurgence of sorts from modern philosophers, some of whom have tweaked and modified it, and in doing so have created different branches on this tree of moral theory. We will be comparing these different flavors of Virtue Ethics to that of the New Testament's, pointing out where they're similar, as well as highlighting where the NT differs (and is actually superior) from the heathens' views.
I want to preface all this with a verse and a warning:

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."-Colossians 2:8

The entire Bible, over and over again, warns against syncretism. It's a running theme throughout to condemn the practice, with this verse being one of the more explicit ones to do so.
Mapping the ideas of Pagans (and especially Greek philosophers) onto the Scriptures has always resulted in people severely misinterpreting the Bible, as looking at the Word of God through a Hellenistic lens is and always has been extremely innapropiate to the author's original intent.
Whenever Greek philosophy or ideas are referenced, they're always portrayed in a bad light or otherwise used to make a point. Examples of the latter could be found in the apostle Paul's writings, as he was a fully educated Roman citizen of his day, and so he made use of known Hellenestic philosophy and literature (that he would have been familiar with) by redefining their terms and ideas in a way that would be consistent with the theology of his own religion. The apostle Peter did the same within his own epistles whenever he mentioned "Tartarus," the abyss/prison for certain disobedient angels that rebelled against God, despite the fact that the word has its roots in Greek mythology and not Hebrew religion (though, the belief that there were a group of spiritual beings that rebelled against the highest authority in the heavens was one technically shared between the two ancient cultures; even if the parties involved were vastly different, as well as the contexts of the rebellion itself).
The affect Hellenstic philosophy has had on the way people think (even subconsciously) can still be felt to this day, and can be seen in the confusion modern "Christianity" has brought on through its adoption of Gnostic teachings such as Dualism or the inherently fatalistic views that many unknowingly hold due to the error of Classical Theism.
While yes, I will be commending the heathen (unbeliever) whenever they are right with their ideas as pertaining to this subject, I will also show where they are wrong.
Let's begin.

"What Is Virtue Ethics?"

First, we need to define some terms and point out the differences between this view and others within the larger debate of normative ethics.
There are three major approaches in normative ethics, those being: Consequentalism, Deontology, and Virtue Ethics. The following are definitions of the terms:
Consequentialism – a class of normative, teleological ethical theories that holds that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for judgement about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct.
Deontology – theories where an action is considered morally good because of some characteristic of the action itself, not because the product of the action is good. Deontological ethics holds that at least some acts are morally obligatory regardless of their consequences for human welfare.
Virtue Ethics – theories that emphasize the role of character and virtue in moral philosophy rather than either doing one’s duty or acting in order to bring about good consequences. The virtue ethicist would argue that actions themselves, while important, aren't as important as the character behind them. To the virtue ethicist, consequences are also important, but they would say that good consequences ultimately flow from a virtuous character who has made virtuous decisions. Theories of virtue ethics do not aim primarily to identify universal principles that can be applied in any moral situation, instead teaching that the best decisions can vary based on context, and that there are only some actions that would be universally evil, only because those actions could never flow from a virtuous character in the first place (e.g., rape).
Aristotle's idea of ethics is in an important respect different from most people's, especially today. Heirs as we are to Kant’s idea of duty – there is a right thing that one ought to do, as rational beings who respect other persons – and to Mill’s idea of utility – the right thing to do is that which produces the greatest good for the greatest number – most of us see ethics as concerned with actions. "The function of ethics is to help me see what I ought to do in a given situation," the modern says. Aristotle’s approach was different. His ethic is not so much concerned about helping us to see what we ought to do, as about what sort of person we ought to be.
Aristotle was concerned with character, and with the things that go to make up good and bad character; virtues and vices. His sort of ethic does not look at our action to see if it fulfils our duty, or produces a certain outcome, such as the greatest good of the greatest number, and therefore merits approval. Instead, it looks at us; at the character behind the actions, to see whether we merit approval.
Comparing Virtue Ethics with philosophies such as Deontology and Consequentialism, we are able to divide ethical theories into two kinds; act-centered theories and agent-centered theories. Kant’s (Deontological) and Mill’s (Utilitarian) approaches are act-centered, because they concern themselves with our actions, whilst Aristotle’s is agent-centered because it concerns itself with the character of a person, which in his view was ourselves and our own dispositions that prompt our actions.
Both approaches have ardent present-day advocates, and so both are alive and well. Virtue Ethicists are dissatisfied with the answers ‘modern’ act-centered philosophy offers, and look for a more flexible, person-centered approach that takes more account of the subtle varieties of human motivation. Those in this camp see ethics as being about people – moral agents – rather than merely about actions. Of course, your actions matter. But, for Aristotle and his present day advocates alike, they matter as expressions of the kind of person you are. They indicate such qualities as kindness, fairness, compassion, and so on, and it is these qualities and their corresponding vices that it is the business of ethics to approve or disapprove.
All this seems simple and uncontroversial; there are two ways of looking at an action to evaluate it morally. You can take the action in isolation and judge it, or take the agent and judge him or her.
Virtue ethicists argue that act-centered ethics are narrow and bloodless. What is needed is a richer moral vocabulary than just ‘right and wrong’. There are subtle but important differences between actions that are good because they are kind and those that are good because they are generous, and those that are good because they are just. Likewise, there are subtle but important differences between actions that are bad because they are selfish and those that are bad because they are cruel and those that are bad because they are unfair. These, and many other, distinctions are lost when we talk simply about doing one’s duty, or promoting utility. Questions of motive and of character are lost, in these asceptic terms. Modern moral philosophy won’t do: it is cold, technical and insensitive to the many kinds and degrees of value expressed in human actions. Ethics is more than just thought experiments and hypotheticals about what would be the right course of action to take in any given situation we might conjure up from the comfort of our armchair. Ethics is about doing, and about context and character.

The Different Kinds of "Virtue Ethics"

Virtue Ethics has has been developed in two main directions: Eudaimonism, and agent-based theories.
Eudaimonism (Aristotle's view) bases virtues in human flourishing, where flourishing is equated with performing one’s distinctive function well. In the case of humans, Aristotle argued that our distinctive function is reasoning, and so the life “worth living” is one which we reason well. He also believed that only free men in the upper classes of society (i.e., the aristocrats) could excel in virtue and eschew vice, being that such men had greater access to the means in accomplishing this task as they had the wealth and resources to better perform their distinctive function of 'reasoning,' and thus "live well." For the Eudaimonian, inner dispositions are what one ought to focus on in order to cultivate virtuous traits, and thus a virtuous character.
In contrast, an agent-based theory emphasizes that virtues are determined by common-sense intuitions that we as observers judge to be admirable traits in other people. There are a variety of human traits that we find admirable, such as benevolence, kindness, compassion, etc., and we can identify these by looking at the people we admire, our moral exemplars. Agent-based theories also state that the motivations and intentions behind an action are ultimately what determine whether or not said action is actually virtuous. Whereas Eudaimonism understands the moral life in terms of inner dispositions or proclivities to act in certain ways (whether righteous or wicked, just or unjust, kind or cruel, etc.), agent-based theories are more radical in that their evaluation of actions is dependent on ethical judgments about the inner life of the agents who perform those actions, that is, what the motivations and intents are of a person.
[Note: While both Eudaimonism and agent-based theories are both agent-centered, Eudaimonism is not to be confused with an agent-based theory. Both branches concern themselves more with agents rather than acts themselves, but Eudamonism focuses on the self to improve whereas the agent-based theory focuses on others to improve.]

Common Critcisims Toward Secular Forms of Virtue Ethics

Firstly, Eudaimonism provides a self-centered conception of ethics because "human flourishing" (here defined as simply fulfilling our base function as humans, which is "reason" according to this view) is seen as an end in itself and does not sufficiently consider the extent to which our actions affect other people. Morality requires us to consider others for their own sake and not because they may benefit us. There seems to be something wrong with aiming to behave compassionately, kindly, and honestly merely because this will make oneself happier or "reason well."
Secondly, both Eudaimonism and agent-based theories also don't provide guidance on how we should act, as there are no clear principles for guiding action other than “act as a virtuous person would act given the situation.” Who is a virtuous person? Who is the first or universal exemplar?
Lastly, the ability to cultivate the right virtues will be affected by a number of different factors beyond a person’s control due to education, society, friends and family. If moral character is so reliant on luck, what role does this leave for appropriate praise and blame of the person? For the Eudaimonian, one ought to be born into a status of privilege if they wish to excel in being virtuous. For the proponent of an agent-based theory, one ought to be born into a society or family with good role models and preferably be raised by such, else they have no moral exemplars to emulate.

The New Testament's Virtue Ethic

The New Testament authors didn’t sit down and do a self-consciously philosophical exercise, for this was not what they were concerned with. They were concerned with giving practical instruction to disciples of the faith, and merely trying to express the ethical implications of their spiritual experience. That being said, we know the apostle Paul was familiar with the writings of Aristotle. We can actually identify places where Paul displays knowledge of Aristotle and incorporates some of the philosopher's ideas into his own epistles. Before we do this, however, it's important we refute common misnomers about what the Bible teaches concerning ethics in general.
You probably have heard many attack the ethics of the New Testament as being primitive and simplistic. "God dictates universal commands to follow: 'do not lie,' do 'not divorce,' 'do not insult.' And the only motivating factor is escaping hellfire and obtaining the reward of eternal pleasure." But in reality, this is a gross misrepresentation of the ethics laid out in the NT. I will argue the NT advocates for a form of virtue ethics, instead of claiming the NT contains a form of deontic ethics, as it is so often assumed.
Elizabeth Anscombe was one of the most influential virtue ethicists of the 20th century. Her work helped to revive virtue ethics in the modern era, however she also criticized the ethics of the Bible for promoting a form of ethics different than what Aristotle promoted:
"...between aristotle and us came Christianity, with its law conception of ethics. For Christianity derived its ethical notions from the Torah. (One might be inclined to think that a law conception of ethics could arise only among people who accepted an allegedly divine positive law..." (Modern Moral Philosophy, vol. 33, no. 124, 1-19)
We've already dealt with the issue of the Torah in another post. The Torah is not laying down moral laws, but describing justice in the form of ancient Near Eastern wisdom literature. But does the New Testament teach a deontic form of ethics? Anscombe might appear justified in her claim, as some "Christian" theologians have explicitly taught the ethics of the NT is deontic.
However, other theologians have argued the ethics of the NT is best characterized as a form of virtue ethics. In a study of the NT, we'll support this notion. As noted earlier, one of the central features of this approach to ethics is that the aim of ethics should be on living a virtuous life. Other forms of ethics focus on directing actions when confronted with a moral dilemma, but for virtue ethics every action is a moral or immoral action because all of our actions contribute or do not contribute to living a virtuous life. In other words, for a virtue ethicist, everything we do will contribute to living a fulfilled life. Now, the NT promotes a similar idea with a slight modification. The NT changes the distinctictive function and purpose for man in Eudaimonism from "reasoning" to loving God and others instead, and thus "living well" is changed from self-centered 'flourshing' (as defined by Aristotle) to glorifying God instead. The apostles taught everything we do contributes to living a life that glorifies God:

"Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."-1 Corinthians 10:31
"And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him."-Colossians 3:17

So we see the same idea in Paul, that everything we do can be seen as a moral or immoral action. Everything we do should be seen as contributing to living a life that glorifies god or not. As a believer, the aim is not just doing good actions to avoid punishments, but to see everything we do as glorifying God. On secular virtue ethics, all our actions are either advancing a good life or not: nourishing your body contributes to living a good life. In a Biblical context: taking the time to properly dress contributes to living a good life, and not giving into the sin of sloth. So all our actions can be moral actions in this context, and so likewise for Paul and Jesus, all we do can contribute to living a life that glorifies God.
Since God made our bodies to thrive and enjoy life, we should nourish our bodies so we can thrive as God intended for our bodies to do, thus ultimately glorifying Him. Since we were created to experience and feel enjoyment, laughing and enjoying things throughout life glorifies God as well since we're experiencing emotions that God created to be experienced. Everything we do should be to glorify God, and often all that is is living our lives in the way that they were intended to be lived. Biblical ethics is very much more than merely performing right actions, but living a virtuous life that brings glory to God.
As Jesus said:

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind."-Matthew 22:37b

It is also important to focus on what it means to love, which is an important aspect of what it means to be a believer. Paul makes the radical claim that to love is the entirety of the law of God:

"For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."-Galatians 5:14

Jesus also taught that to love God and love others were the two greatest commandments (Mark 12:28-31, Matt. 22:34-40). He also extends the commandment to love beyond one's brethren, and to love our enemies (Matt. 5:44). Loving those around us is central to what it means to be a believer (John 13:34; 15:12-17, Rom. 12:10; 13:8, 1 Cor. 13:1-8; 16:14, 2 Cor. 8:8, Eph. 4:2; 5:2, Phili. 1:9, Heb. 10:24, Jam. 2:8, 1 Pet. 1:22, 1 John 2:10; 3:23).
One might suggest this is no different than the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do to you," or a Kantian rule: "I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law." In other words, "to live well is to perform good deeds or actions and nothing more." But an important point about loving someone is it cannot be done through actions alone. For example, one could buy a gift for their spouse to cheer them up. However, one could perform this action merely because they value performing right actions without any love for the person. One could donate to charity because it is the right thing to do, and not because she cares for the people who would benefit. In such scenarios, they can be seen as idolizing moral laws, not necessarily caring about helping others.
But to love someone requires more than merely performing right actions. You cannot love someone and not care about who they are as a person and where they are heading in life. To love is to will the good of the other. Jesus chastised the Pharisees of his day for only performing right actions, but not loving their brethren in their hearts. His criticism follows Matthew chapter 22, where Jesus says the greatest commandments are to love. The implication is the Pharisees perform proper actions, but have the wrong motivations for doing so. James Keenan puts it like this:
"Essential to understanding this command is that we love our neighbors not as objects of our devotion, but rather as subjects; that is, as persons. Thus, we cannot love others only because God wants us to do so, since then we would love them as means or as objects and not as persons. We can only love one another as subjects, just as God loves us." (Jesus and Virtue Ethics: Building Bridges Between New Testament Studies and Moral Theology, pg. 86)
A critic may bring up that verses of the NT are still phrased as commands, and therefore the structure implies duties were the central aspect of Christian ethics. But the importance of duties is not foreign to Virtue Ethics. Instead of being central to the ethical framework, duties flow from a virtuous character. Virtues are active and have certain demands for which a person must fulfill in their active behavior.
According to Aristotle, knowledge of the virtues gives us practical wisdom in how to properly act. Duties flow from the understanding of the demands of virtues. To put it another way, for virtues to manifest in persons, they have certain demands that must be fulfilled. For the believer, the command of love flows from being virtuous and aligning oneself with the character of God. Commitment to the character of Christ, who perfectly carried out the will of the Father, allows us to perform right and proper actions.
The NT also contains lists of virtues the believer ought to emulate, the most famous of these is in Galatians chapter 5:
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." (vss. 22-23)
Now, the connection with Aristotle cannot be more pronounced. The Greek phrase "against such there is no law" is almost identical to what we find in Aristotle's politics (3.13.1284a). It seems clear Paul is teaching a similar ethical framework to what Aristotle advocated for. Paul is teaching that the believing community ought to be persons who display key virtues, and that their conduct would not need to be regulated by a law. Instead, their character should be the standard others can measure themselves by. Romans chapter 2 is also a place we see references to Aristotle, where Paul notes that when Gentiles do what the law requires, they are "a law unto themselves" (vss. 14-15). In other words, they do not need to be told to act a certain way. They have the proper virtuous character that directs their actions, to do the good the law requires. Paul is advocating in Galatians that believers should think in a similar way.
So in Galatians 5, we have affinity with the teachings of Aristotle, and in other lists of virtues throughout the NT we see a similar idea, which is that Christians were meant to display virtues primarily (Rom. 5:3-5, 1 Cor. 13:1-8, Col. 3:12-17, 1 Tim. 3:2-3; 4:7-8, Jam. 3:17-18, 2 Pet. 1:5-8). From that, good deeds will properly manifest in our actions.
Anscombe made a great point on what the focus of ethics should be:
"It would be a great improvement if, instead of 'morally wrong', one always named a genus such as 'untruthful', 'unchaste', 'unjust'. We should no longer ask whether doing something was 'wrong', passing directly from some description of an action to this notion; we should ask whether, e.g., it was unjust; and the answer would sometimes be clear at once." (Modern Moral Philosophy, vol. 33, no. 124, 1-19)
Interestingly enough, Paul lays out a similar idea in explaining Christian ethics:

"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you."-Philippians 4:8-9

In other words, the central aspect on living a Christian life was on what is virtuous, not on what is lawfully right or wrong. Right actions flow from whatever is honorable, true, and pure. Correlating with this is how Paul responds to the Corinthians who claimed that "all was lawful." Paul reminded them the emphasis is not on what is lawful, but on what is good for building a virtuous character:

"All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not."-1 Corinthians 10:23

One's main focus ought to be on what is good, not on laws that dictate behavior.
One of the key aspects of Virtue Ethics is the idea we ought to learn from virtuous teachers and imitate them. A virtuous character is obtained by imitating what a virtuous person does. This parallels a key aspect of Christian ethics. Imitating Christ was (and still is) crucial to living a virtuous life:

"For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:"-1 Peter 2:21

Paul says in Romans 8:29 that Christians were predestined "to be conformed to the image of his Son." Jesus often taught his followers to do as he does (Matt. 16:24, Mark 8:34, Luke 6:40; 9:23, John 13:15, 34). Paul says in 1st Corinthians 11: Be ye followers [i.e., imitators] of me, even as I also am of Christ" (vs. 1). Hebrews 13:7 says to imitate the faith of the patriarchs. 1st Thessalonians 2:14 says to imitate each other. And jesus taught to imitate the good Samaritan from his parable (Luke 10:37). Imitating virtuous teachers was key for Christian ethics.
Aristotle tended to compare acquiring virtues with that of learning a practical skill, like playing an instrument or learning how to become a builder. Such practical skills are best picked up when trained by a master of that particular skill, because a teacher can always provide more insight through lessons they learn from experience. For example, an expert salesman can provide examples from his experience of what works with specific customers that a sales textbook could never provide. Many professions today require on-the-job training or experience before even hiring an applicant. The reason is: experience is key to learning a profession. Merely acquiring knowledge from a textbook or an instruction manual is often insufficient to master a skill, so why would mastering the skill of virtue be any different?
In the NT, a believer is to see the world through the eyes of Christ and to love as he loved. One cannot learn how to be a virtuous person without knowing what that life would look like. A key component of Christian theology is that the Messiah perfectly represented the Father and His will on earth, to show us how to properly live as God intended for man. This central tenet of the NT aligns well with agent-based theories of Virtue Ethics, and modifies it so that the person of Jesus Christ is the universal exemplar that one is meant to emulate. We are called to imitate him through our actions, thoughts, and desires, and to conform ourselves to the way he lived. As Paul said:

"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."-Galatians 2:20

If learning from Christ is key, we should briefly take a look at the Sermon on the Mount, which is said to be one of Jesus' most important series of teachings. Daniel Harrington notes:
"The sermon begins with nine 'beatitudes' (see 5:3–12) in which Jesus declares as 'happy' or 'blessed' those who practice certain virtues, and promises them an eternal reward and the fullness of God's kingdom." (Jesus and Virtue Ethics: Building Bridges Between New Testament Studies and Moral Theology, pg. 62)
Jesus laid out what a life for those that follow him look like in detail. One ought to be merciful, pure in heart, a peacemaker, thirst for righteousness, etcetera (Matt. 5:2-10). The Sermon does not merely include what right actions are, but includes sections on proper desires. Not only is it wrong to murder, but it is wrong to desire to murder or wish ill on someone (Matt. 5:22). Avoiding adultery is good, but one also should not covet after another man's woman in their heart (Matt. 5:28). In other words, merely avoiding immoral actions is not enough. One must also not desire vices. A believer is called to desire what is good.
The Sermon is not necessarily laying down universal moral commands. For example, Matthew 5:9 says, "Blessed are the peacemakers," but this doesn't imply absolute Pacifism, as it would contradict passages in the Old Testament where it explicitly says there is a time for war (Ecc. 3:8). The point of the Sermon is to teach what a virtuous life ought to look like. A follower of Christ ought to use reason to know what is proper to do in various circumstances. For example, in Matthew chapter 6, Jesus offers guidance on how one ought to pray by presenting the Lord's prayer (vss. 9-15). This is a model of how to pray. It's not a command for followers to always pray in this exact way.
In reality, the Sermon on the Mount mixes in exhortations, parables, hyperbole, declarations, commands, etc. It is best understood as displaying what a virtuous life ought to look like. It's not a law code. Building on this, it's important to understand a proper action is context sensitive. Under Virtue Ethics, one should not necessarily apply a universal maxim to every situation. Sometimes the proper action will depend on what is at stake, who is involved, what is the background, etc. Aristotle advocated against the idea there were fixed universal laws that dictate actions, and instead he argued the right action would depend on the circumstances one finds themselves in. Although the ethics of the NT may be a bit more strict, it still places an emphasis on being sensitive to the context of situations.
In 1st Corinthians chapter 8, Paul lays out instructions on how to deal with meat that has been sacrificed to Pagan idols. Instead of stating an absolute prohibition against meat sacrificed to idols, Paul instructed Christians to use reason to come to the proper ethical decision based on context. In other words, the right action is not determined only by a law. Instead, the Christian had to make the proper decision based on the context: if eating caused another to stumble, then you ought to abstain; if not, then there's no harm done. The value of the action depends on the context.
A Deontologist might reply that there's still a universal law given here: that one should always abstain if it's going to cause another to stumble. This objection can be addressed by asking: how are we to know if eating the meat will cause another believer to stumble? To answer such a question, one must be sensitive to the context, which in this case would be knowledge of the fellow believer and your relation to him. It is the context that determines the right action, not a universal law. Moreover, Paul states that the primary goal for the believer should be to love (1 Cor. 13). The first consideration is once again not the rightness of action, but having love for one another. From this, knowledge of the proper action will follow.
Paul often explains that living a proper life as a believer will take work and practice. He reminded Timothy to attend readings, practice what these things mean, and keep a close watch on himself (1 Tim. 4:13-14). Elsewhere, he directs that all believers must work on their faith (Phili. 2:12). Beyond this, he also noted that not all Christians would have the same gifts, and to accept that this was normal (1 Cor. 12). For some, certain things may be a hindrance, whereas for others it is acceptable (Rom. 14:2-4). What matters is that we love and build one another up (1 Thess. 5:11). Right actions flow from love and knowledge of virtue. Rules are not the primary motives that dictate our actions; rules are secondary in this regard.
An interesting case can be studied with regards to divorce in the Gospels. Jesus preaches against divorce (Mark 10:7-9) and it is often interpreted to mean "divorce is always wrong, regardless of circumstances." However, it should be noted the prohibition on divorce is not a universal law. The context can affect whether or not a divorce is permissible. Jesus says that one can divorce over sexual immorality. Paul also has a situation where divorce is permissible, namely if one spouse is an unbeliever and wishes to leave (1 Cor. 7:15). The implication one can derive is divorce is not ideal, but there are circumstances where it may be the proper action to take. Given the other features of Christian Virtue Ethics we already covered, the proper action to take will depend on the circumstances and what the virtuous agent thinks is the most loving thing to do. A universal prohibition on divorce is not a Christian ethic. Instead, one ought to discern the proper action from circumstances. However, it's clear in most cases divorce would not be the virtuous thing to do.
Building on this, it's important to note that within NT ethics, certain acts are always wrong. For example, idolatry and sexual immorality are always wrong (1 Cor. 10:14, Col. 3:15, 1 Pet. 4:13). There are no possible scenarios where it would be okay to rape, because such an act would never flow from a virtuous character. But this concept is not foreign to theories of Virtue Ethics. Aristotle noted that for some actions, no qualifications could make them virtuous. Actions such as rape or murder are always wrong, because they would never flow from a virtuous character. So it's not as if a Virtue Ethicist cannot claim that some actions are always wrong. They simply are qualified as being unable to flow from virtue, whereas actions like lying or waging war could be considered virtuous for the right reason.
Now, despite Christian Virtue Ethics having many similarities with Eudaimonism (Aristotelian ethics), there are also numerous differences beyond what we've already noted. One of the deficiencies of how Aristotle lays out his ethical theory is that it is essentially an all-boys club. Aristotle writes mainly to aristocratic men, excluding women and slaves. In his view, women were inferior to men and slaves lacked the necessary rational faculty. But the Christians rejected this mentality, as the teachings of Christ and the apostles were available to all (Matt. 28:19). Paul said, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28). Peter wrote that all Christians were part of the priesthood of Christ (1 Pet. 2:5). Jesus had women followers (Luke 8:2-3), and they were entrusted with delivering revelation (Mark 15:40–16:8). What we find throughout the NT is a radical change to how women were viewed in the ancient world. Paul is also likely building on Aristotle's household structure and refining it. David deSilva says the household codes of the NT are "...following the pairs laid out as early as Aristotle to such a degree as to suggest that these were standard topics in ethical instruction" (Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity, pg. 231). But Paul adds an important preface: submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ (Eph. 5:20-21). DeSilva says:
"...husbands, we cannot then ignore the distinctively Christian addition they bring to this arrangement; husbands are to be subject to their wives as well." (Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity, pg. 233)
Thus Paul doesn't break down the traditional perspective on the structure of the family, but he does add the idea that we all must submit to each other in reverence, love, unity, and cooperation because all are equal before God. There is no explicit mention in the NT calling for the abolishment of slavery, but it should be noted that Paul taught that slaves should be seen as equals. In the letter to Philemon, Paul is clear that his slave is no longer "as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved" (vs. 16). Thus, within Christian ethics class distinctions were supposed to evaporate. All were brothers and sisters of one family.
An important aspect of Christian ethics is that it wasn't a standalone ethical theory. It's embedded in the larger Christian worldview. The ethical framework is dependent on Christian doctrines. For Aristotle, his ethical theory is for men who were raised well. This is why these specific men desire to be virtuous and perform right actions. As for why the believer does good and desires to be virtuous, it's not because one was raised well, but because they have been activated by the power of God's Spirit (John 3:6, 1 Cor. 12:13). For believers, the reason as to why we desire to be good and virtuous is because the Spirit of God has regenerated us. He loves us so we can love others (1 John 4:19). One is meant to look to the life of Christ and what he has done by dying on the cross, to know that we are loved and forgiven. This in turn is meant to activate a good life, having seen what we have gained and been forgiven of. He calls and activates us to do similar to those around us. This is a more open system for people of all groups and classes. One only has to call upon the name of the Lord to be included. It does not require a specific gender or to be raised a certain way.
The goal of Aristotelian ethics is to achieve 'eudaimonia.' However, within the Bible the goal is as the Westminster Shorter Catechism puts it: "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and enjoy Him forever." Since the central aspect of Biblical Eschatology is that humans will continue on forever in resurrected bodies, the aim of ethics is more than living a good life presently. Living a good life now is important, but it was only one aspect in the Christian worldview. Humans are meant to live beyond this life, so the aim is also about building virtuous souls that will continue on. The importance of this is more crucial than it may seem at first. Paul said that we must all appear before judgment, so that "every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad" (2 Cor. 15:10).
Being a virtuous person requires integrity, because one will still have to answer to God after death. If one can commit an evil act and no one finds out, then from the outside perspective he or she may still appear virtuous. Culturally speaking, the ancient world was very different from our own. All wrongdoings centered around public honor and shame. One did good to receive public honor, and one did not do what was bad to receive public shame. Right and wrong were connected to one's public honor and shame in the ancient Greco-Roman world. Thus good and evil were public ideas, not personal ideas. Ethical demands were grounded in the community in one's public appearance
The Biblical idea of an omniscient God who cared about our ethical status laid a foundation for integrity and personal guilt to emerge. Now one ought to do good because he is beholden to God, not just the community. Believers are to remain focused on God's approval and on the actions that lead them, regardless of the world's response. This lays down fertile ground for integrity to emerge. So the Biblical worldview has another important element built in that encourages ethical behavior, regardless of the honor it brings. One ought to do good because of a commitment to God not, because it might bring honor to one's name publicly.

Implications for Preterists

Paul believed that the Second Coming would happen in his generation, and prescribed certain things in the NT on the basis of that belief. An example of an exhortation that would no longer apppy to us today would be 1st Corinthians 7:24-29, where Paul argues that the times him and his fellow Christians were in called for celibacy, being that the Lord was fast approaching. It wasn't a sin if you did get married, of course; it was just harder to serve the Lord in this context if you had a family to worry about. Thus, Paul encouraged being single.
So, we need to be careful when reading the NT and determining what prohibitions or exhortations are still applicable to us today. Context is key.

Barbarian: Path Of The Molten Peaks
You’re a literal hot-head, with seething intent, and a blood that boils, you tap into a rage that's primal, even primordial. Even still flame can be tempered by the breeze, but not the molten earth. Some ancient chasm that lies dormant until it’s bubbling can no longer be still, only time can cool the likes of the volcanic ocean.
Volcanic Fissure
Beginning at 3rd level, whenever you enter your rage with a bonus action you may cause the ground beneath you to swell and burst with red hot magma. A 10 foot radius centered on yourself becomes difficult terrain, which moves with you but doesn’t impede your movement. All creatures (not including you) caught within the 10 foot radius must make a Dexterity saving throw which equals (8 + your proficiency bonus + Constitution). On a failed save they take 1d4 + rage bonus fire damage. Additionally any creature (not including you) who ends their turn within the 10 foot radius takes 1d4 + rage bonus fire damage.

• The damage die increases at higher levels, 1d6 at 6th level, 1d8 at 10th, and finally 1d10 at 14th level.

The Molten Pinnacle
At 6th level, you’ve reached heights greater than any volcanic mountain, adapting to severe temperatures no mere mortal could, you feel something ancient in power within, waiting to burst through. You gain resistance to fire damage.
Once per turn while you are raging and hit a target creature with a weapon melee attack, the target takes an extra 1d6 fire damage.

• The damage die increases at higher levels, 1d8 at 10th level, and finally 1d10 at 14th level.
• Once per turn, any attack rolled against a creature you've dealt fire damage to this way crits on a roll of a 19 or 20.

Raging Magma
Starting at 10th level, magma seeps from your pores as your sweat takes on a red hot orange hue. You learn to charge forward as if you were lava yourself, climbing and sweeping over all in your path. Immediately after using your “Instinctive Pounce” feature, any hostile creature that you passed that was at least within 10 feet of you must make a dexterity saving throw which equals (8 + your proficiency bonus + Constitution). On a failed save they take 2d8 + rage bonus fire damage, on a successful save half as much.

• The damage die increases at 14th level to 2d10.

Titanic Catastrophe
Finally at 14th level, your rage bellows a thousand screams of hatred as your skin starts to melt as it turns into lava, revealing a more primordial form underneath. Your bones slowly and painfully are being replaced with obsidian rock. Once between rests, you can expend two uses of Rage at the same time to take the form of a Lava Titan. This forms features are as follows:

• In this form you are still considered “Raging” and may benefit from the effects of “Volcanic Fissure”.
• Your size is considered one larger. You take up four squares.
• You gain a climbing speed equal to your walking speed and are not affected by difficult terrain.
• Any creature who fails the “Volcanic Fissure” saving throw is knocked prone. On a successful save they take half as much damage.
• Any creature who fails the “Raging Magma” saving throw is pulled 10 feet towards you.
• When making a “Reckless Attack” add your rage bonus to the attack roll.
• You cannot be Grappled, Paralyzed, or Stunned.
• You gain resistance to all damage except cold, psychic, radiant, necrotic, or lighting.
• You are vulnerable to cold damage and lighting.

When your rage ends, you suffer 2 points of exhaustion.

Barbarian: Path Of The Molten Peaks
You’re a literal hot-head, with seething intent, and a blood that boils, you tap into a rage that's primal, even primordial. Even still flame can be tempered by the breeze, but not the molten earth. Some ancient chasm that lies dormant until it’s bubbling can no longer be still, only time can cool the likes of the volcanic ocean.
Volcanic Fissure
Beginning at 3rd level, whenever you enter your rage with a bonus action you may cause the ground beneath you to swell and burst with red hot magma. A 10 foot radius centered on yourself becomes difficult terrain, which moves with you but doesn’t impede your movement. All creatures (not including you) caught within the 10 foot radius must make a Dexterity saving throw which equals (8 + your proficiency bonus + Constitution). On a failed save they take 1d4 + rage bonus fire damage. Additionally any creature (not including you) who ends their turn within the 10 foot radius takes 1d4 + rage bonus fire damage.

• The damage die increases at higher levels, 1d6 at 6th level, 1d8 at 10th, and finally 1d10 at 14th level.

The Molten Pinnacle
At 6th level, you’ve reached heights greater than any volcanic mountain, adapting to severe temperatures no mere mortal could, you feel something ancient in power within, waiting to burst through. You gain resistance to fire damage.
Once per turn while you are raging and hit a target creature with a weapon melee attack, the target takes an extra 1d6 fire damage.

• The damage die increases at higher levels, 1d8 at 10th level, and finally 1d10 at 14th level.
• Once per turn, any attack rolled against a creature you've dealt fire damage to this way crits on a roll of a 19 or 20.

Raging Magma
Starting at 10th level, magma seeps from your pores as your sweat takes on a red hot orange hue. You learn to charge forward as if you were lava yourself, climbing and sweeping over all in your path. Immediately after using your “Instinctive Pounce” feature, any hostile creature that you passed that was at least within 10 feet of you must make a dexterity saving throw which equals (8 + your proficiency bonus + Constitution). On a failed save they take 2d8 + rage bonus fire damage, on a successful save half as much.

• The damage die increases at 14th level to 2d10.

Titanic Catastrophe
Finally at 14th level, your rage bellows a thousand screams of hatred as your skin starts to melt as it turns into lava, revealing a more primordial form underneath. Your bones slowly and painfully are being replaced with obsidian rock. Once between rests, you can expend two uses of Rage at the same time to take the form of a Lava Titan. This forms features are as follows:

• In this form you are still considered “Raging” and may benefit from the effects of “Volcanic Fissure”.
• Your size is considered one larger. You take up four squares.
• You gain a climbing speed equal to your walking speed and are not affected by difficult terrain.
• Any creature who fails the “Volcanic Fissure” saving throw is knocked prone. On a successful save they take half as much damage.
• Any creature who fails the “Raging Magma” saving throw is pulled 10 feet towards you.
• When making a “Reckless Attack” add your rage bonus to the attack roll.
• You cannot be Grappled, Paralyzed, or Stunned.
• You gain resistance to all damage except cold, psychic, radiant, necrotic, or lighting.
• You are vulnerable to cold damage and lighting.

When your rage ends, you suffer 2 points of exhaustion.

Hey, first time posting on Reddit, I’m just lost and I really can’t see a way out for myself. I’m F24, I’d say I’ve had alot of misfortune in my life but I don’t like complaining too much because I know someone else has it worse somewhere.
Grew up in a toxic household, only child, mentally abusive parents. A father who is extremely cold hearted and doesn’t believe in mental health, and my mother who is extremely unstable herself, have meltdowns infront of me and would constantly criticise and focus on my looks which in turn made me extremely self conscious my whole life. They would give me physical things but emotionally wise I was alone for most of my life with little to no support system. My aunt was evil to me as a kid and I think I endured abuse because she’d purposefully isolate me from my cousins and make me feel like I wasn’t accepted.
The only person I had who gave me love was my grandma. She meant the world to me. She was my angel , but she died from cancer when I was 18 which was extremely traumatic as I saw her deteriorate infront of my eyes and was there when she was dying. It haunts me forever. I’ve never gotten over it and it’s left a massive hole in me that I’ve been trying to fill. She was the only person who was really truly in my corner. She was my soul mate.
Growing up I was always bullied, seem to be the black sheep that never fit in anywhere. High school was terrible for me. I was a complete loner and no one wanted to be my friend because I was so shy. I’d sit alone by myself and always wonder what’s wrong with me.
My only comfort at that time was my LDR from 15-21 with someone who lived in another country , we met online through gaming as this was my only way to make friends. I guess it was my escape. That relationship lasted 5 years but because I didn’t see him often I felt more and more alone.
After I went through a dark period of looking for validation from men online, as I created social media and started to put myself out there. I think the attention fed my insecurity about myself growing up as I had low self esteem and never saw myself as pretty but this attention ruined me in the end because it was mostly sexual and made me feel used. I gained popularity but it was the wrong kind. I was sending naked pictures to fill a void because these compliments made me feel worthy for once. It was a horrible dark time. I created a bad reputation for myself at one point because of it. Attracted some bad people , had someone planning to gang rape me but fortunately found out before it took place. That’s caused me to have paranoia.
Since I’ve lost a lot of people. They come and they go. I can’t seem to keep relationships. I think I look to dating as an escape or maybe I’ll find someone who will love me and fix me. I have no friends, I had a best friend who treated me like shit for years but I’d accept it so I wouldn’t be alone. We had a group of her and 2 other girls and they’d bully me as a joke and tell me ‘you’re pretty so it’s ok if we bully you’. Now I’m older I’m more aware so we’ve all drifted apart and they’ve slowly pushed me out the group. I have no one now.
I had one good relationship that I recently lost and it’s destroyed every part of me. I ruined it. I couldn’t seem to give him the same dedication he gave me and felt unsure about him and our future thus pushing him away with my actions. Now I’m thinking I was being avoidant because of all my trauma. I did some pretty shitty things to betray his trust and now he will never speak to me again and has me blocked on everything. He was the only man so far in my life who genuinely loved me for me , no matter how messy I looked or imperfect I am and I destroyed the relationship beyond repair. I self sabotaged and now I’m completely alone again. The guilt is eating me alive everyday and all I want is to talk to him and apologise but he won’t speak to me.
I have terrible social anxiety, ocd , depression and bpd. I find it hard to make friends. I work from home so I’m not in environments where I can meet new people, I have to wfm because I have an auto immune issue where I get tired easily. So I’m just in this constant cycle of being alone.
I only have my dog left which is what’s keeping me alive but I’m extremely suicidal. If anyone can offer any advice or if you’ve been in a similar situation please offer me some advice because I genuinely don’t know what to do. I think about ending my life often but I’m too scared to do it so I’m living in this hell Thanks for listening

So I started working at this Japanese restaurant around 3 months ago. There's one guy who's with me at that time. Let's call him James. James is a 43 years old dude. James and I have been a good friend since then because we have common interests. Then suddenly one day, like 1 week ago, he became cold to me. He didn't talk to me at all. The only time he would do it when there's something involving work. He talk cherfully with everyone just like ususal, only I was excluded. He treated me like a total stranger. I also notice that the vibe in the workplace was changed. James also ordered me around to do things that I already know how to do it. Still it really annoys me that he didn't tell me anything and started treated me like that. I don't wanna play some kinda of mind game.
So I want to know that this is some kind of bully in a workplace? Also I don't care what he does, but it still budge me.