Bay 12 Games Forum

I'unno, Warsong's(/Langrisser's) stuff is pretty different from what I've seen of vids (haven't bought it, yet, but soon), and from what I've seen of stats and whatnot SoW is way more Fire Emblem than Warsong... basically all the design I've seen so far that's not Ogre Battle leans Fire Emblem instead of Langrisser, really (which is arguably disappointing, 'cause I actually enjoyed playing the Langrisser stuff I've played more than the FE, heh). Map aesthetics and design, character interactions, just... all of it has struck me very much as later age (GBA and beyond, basically) FE more than anything Langrisser.

Only thing I've sorta' seen from SoW that points Langrisser way is maybe the kinda' thirsty character sprites, if you squint at it a bit. Not sure if SoW is quite the literally-hired-a-porn-artist tier that Langrisser was, though, ha.

I'd totes be down for someone to run with more Langrisser design for another Ogre Battle homage, though. I'm... not quite sure how it'd work -- Langrisser's combat was pretty unique in some ways both then and now, and the rest of the design was decently distinct from FE -- but you wouldn't see me saying someone shouldn't give it a try. _{i mean, you wouldn't see me saying to stop doing anything that looked like ogre battle, so, y'know :V}

Would say, this thread needs 2016 relitigation right now like it needs a hole in the head.

... which is probably a poor choice of phrase considering the suicide uptick we're going to see shortly/are already seeing, but, y'know. Fucking tired of a lot of things right now, especially how fucking stuck I am on a lot of fronts to do anything about anything.

I'm sorry no. Rare are the temperaments that wouldn't go down the drain in absolute freedom and abundance.

There's not been a single solitary moment in anyone's life for the entire history of mankind where anyone has actually had absolute freedom and abundance, though, much less on a wide scale.

Meanwhile the vast majority of that drain (plus a great deal of other misery) is rooted in behavior ingrained or exaggerated due to scarcity conditions of one sort or another.

This is borderline on the type of discussion which indicate we don't even have a common agreement on what the word "support" means.  This isn't "support", this is use of a terrible thing in one very particular circumstance.

I think this is a particularly common logical error in modern (e.g., post-internet) discourse: over-generalization.  People will take one instance of something and assume that it therefore is making a universal statement, which is often not the case.

I mean if you go that route, you might as well say that the Bible supports biosphere destruction because God flooded the earth (maybe that's why some people don't care about climate change? I wish that was sarcastic...).

I've seen the flood brought up in conversations about why god doesn't care if we destroy the environment, yes, though there's other arguments on that front that come up much more often. All the divinely mandated murder and destruction and rape and whatnot have pretty regularly come up as arguments for why that kind of horseshit is okay when the right people do it, too, and as far as I'm aware it's shit that predates modern discourse by centuries, so trying to blame it on something recent is just... not accurate. It's an old sickness, not a new one.

But yes, when you use some terrible thing in a specific circumstance (note though that your "specific circumstance" here is "adultery", which stateside currently has the rates at about 1 in 5 for men and around 1 in 7 for women, which is to say it's extremely not specific and would entail very widespread usage), you are, in fact, supporting its use. Limited support is still support.

Pointedly, it would put scriptural support for abortion at a significantly higher rate than we're seeing from people claiming to be christian and in a circumstance they're not even remotely thinking about or trying to legislate on. Or in other words, the shit we're seeing from american religious extremists (you can note that down as anyone happy the activist judges on the SCOTUS just pissed all over every disagreeing religion in the country) have very, very little to do with what religion they're claiming.

What the Bible supports or does not support shouldn't be influencing policy of a supposedly "secular" nation.

I mean, it shouldn't, but this entire pile of horseshit is substantively (though not nearly entirely, it being more the manufactured excuse than the actual reason) due to american church propaganda trying (and in this case, succeeding to some degree) to dictate secular policy.

Like. Prescribing abortion as a punishment is still explicitly prescribing abortion, and even meting out a specific circumstance when it should be attempted, and not only should be attempted but should be attempted with the full power and authority of literally God behind it.

That is 110% (the extra 10% is the explicit and literal divine mandate, here) support for abortion -- that it's support for it as an act of cruelty doesn't change that it is, in fact, support.

if you had two of them could you have one using the other as equipment, though

alternatively could you daisy-chain one wearing a different color until you have all of them stacked up on some other critter

Already mentioned dragonshard, didn't seem to be it, unless they missed the namedrop, too, heh.