Augestein
-
Posts
1,759 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Augestein
-
-
You know what's fun? Having someone like Effie become a Master of Arms. Armored Blow + Life or Death is super fun on player phase. You get +10 damage at no cost! I like doing weird things like that. But I do agree that Master of Arms with E rank just kinda sucks. Should have been D or C rank IMO. The issue is that people that are the best with the class are people that are either
1) Prepromotes like Xander
2) Cavaliers.
-
3 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:
...let me phrase the question this way...
Is it your position that you yourself without bias categorically frown upon male and female promiscuity, but that you still acknowledge the presence of a cultural double-standard?
Or are you categorically denying that there is any difference in the way society stigmatizes casual sex outside of marriage by men, and casual sex outside of marriage by women?Loaded questions.
1) I frown upon it yes. Whether it's presence has a cultural double standard is irrelevant. It still has a social stigma. Casual sex? Perhaps not. Where you're doing it in what people would dub as excessive yes? For instance, do you honestly think that a person that teaches abstinence only would only target the woman for having sex and not the man? No. They would be angry with both.
2) Still irrelevant. I have not said that people don't do it more against women than me. However, that in and of itself isn't enough clause to refer to me as sexist, nor is it even remotely close to sufficient to deny that this has been cast as an insult towards men as well.
1 minute ago, Tryhard said:I think you're going to have a hard time justifying that women don't get labelled negatively far more often for having casual sex than men - of which it can also be accepted as them having "uncontrollable urges" comparatively. Even women would likely call other women sluts before calling men that. This is something that is changing, but slowly.
I've heard the word slut or others used to describe promiscuous women many times. I don't think I've ever heard a term used to refer to a man negatively for sleeping around personally. Might just be my experience, but that's that.
I would agree with this. And it's changed enough in my area, men call men sluts all the damn time if they sleep around with no real standards.
The area I live it, "slut" has been hurled at both. While it's anecdotal for everyone, I think it's completely unfair to have personal experiences somehow dictate a universal statement. Especially when one is using it to refer to someone else as a label such as "sexist."
-
11 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:
The man-whore is culturally glamorized.
...James Bond is a man-whore.
...Captain Kirk is a man-whore.
...Tony Stark is a man-whore.
Man-whore shaming is not a thing in the same sense that slut shaming is a thing.
Look at your own words.
Notice how when you addressing me--a MALE--earlier. You didn't say "the stigma of having premarital sex is not a "you're a poor moral character." The stigma ends up being that you're a manwhore."
Looking for language to express to me your displeasure at the ideas I set forth--language that conveyed what you believed to be the appropriate stigma to be applied.
The first word that popped into your head was the feminine: "Slut."It didn't even occur to you to use the masculine "man-whore" as an alternative means of expressing your displeasure for my defense of promiscuity, until after we started conversing about this subject. To reiterate: despite the fact that you are talking to a man.
...that's how deeply ingrained the gender bias against free expressions of female sexuality is...
No. It really isn't. They are all people that sleep around too much. It just so happens that all of those characters have other things going for them.
Notice how you're putting words in my mouth to even try to have an argument? Yeah.
Because I didn't realize that I had to say "man slut" instead of just "slut" when "slut" includes both. This is the worst attempt at calling someone sexist that I've ever seen. There's a reason I didn't include any genders in that. Because it actually includes both. You're the only one that has been including sexes in this. Not me. This is a rather vapid argument. As you cannot say what I meant. You should have asked for a clarification.
That's how deeply ingrained it is for you. Not me. As I'm not the one that thinks that men are somehow exempt from this rule. Nor do I think that there somehow aren't people in society that think that it's a frowned upon act for both sexes.
I'm not even going to continue talking about this on here, because this has nothing to do with anything. If you want to keep talking, PM me. Otherwise it's over.
-
I should really get back to playing this again.
-
10 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:
...really???
"Slut" and "easy" are gender-neutral terms? That's your position, and you're sticking to it?
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/slut
DEFINITION: "A woman who has many casual sexual partners."
EXAMPLE SENTENCE:- ‘Girls still can be labeled sluts if they're sexually free, whereas boys aren't.’
"Manwhore" is one that definitely comes to mind. I didn't realize that I literally have to name all of them. REALLY. Also, yes:
Slut is generally a term for a woman or girl who is considered to have loose sexual morals or who is sexually promiscuous.[1][2] It is usually used as an insult, sexual slur or offensive term of disparagement (slut shaming).[2][3] It originally meant "a dirty, slovenly woman",[2] and is rarely used to refer to men, generally requiring clarification by use of the terms male slut or man whore.[4][5]
If anything, your complaint should be yourself since you apparently seem to believe that only women can be called sluts. Men definitely can nowadays. Some people use "male slut" or "manwhore," but quite a few people don't even bother by putting the "male" in front. It's sort of like how people say "male dominatrix" instead of just saying "dom" or "master" or any other word to mean the same thing.
-
20 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:
...a few things here that I have a problem with...
1) When you talk about the stigma of being "a slut/easy." That's a gender-loaded term and a one-sided stigma heaped almost exclusively as a form of scorn upon women who enjoy frequent casual sex. Whereas a similarly situated man will often be praised and admired as a "playboy," or a "stud."
Which is horrendously unfair, and an inequity that gets perpetuated by the practice of placing a stigma around sex itself.
2) You seem to be of the opinion that its inappropriate to make a judgment about enjoyment of casual sex speaking to "poor moral character," but appropriate to characterize people who make that choice as "sluts" or "easy." However, characterizing people who make that choice as "sluts" and "easy" is--unequivocally--a judgment as to their moral character. So it nulls your previous statement.
And so far as I can tell, the only thing you're doing by endorsing the idea that enacting that stigma becomes appropriate when a person who engages in premarital sex gains a reputation as "a slut" or a "easy" is endorsing the rather sexist notion that its especially shameful and degrading when women do it; they need to be labeled and stigmatized for their choices in ways that men do not.Again--horrendously unfair.
3) You throw around the term "easy" like you think its a legitimate descriptor of a woman who enjoys casual sex. And the connotations of that term are...troubling...
...that specifically is a term thrown about to negate the absence-or-presence of consent to a sexual encounter as determinative to whether or not the encounter can proceed. Men force themselves on women and then rationalize it as a legitimate encounter using that line of thinking: "She does this all the time! She loves it!"And the obvious moral imperative gets ignored: just because a woman enjoys having sex, doesn't mean she wants to have sex with you.
Casually throwing around the term "easy" perpetuates rape culture. If your opinion is that there is nothing wrong with advancing that stigma, that is where I draw the line and say: it is wrong and harmful to hold that opinion.
1) Uh... No. It really isn't. I don't know where people get this foolhardy notion from. You'll still be called the same thing. Ladies honestly don't respect guys for doing it either. So no. None of this makes any sense.
2) No. It doesn't at all. Like there's no logical transitivity there. And you're the one that's throwing sexism around. So no. Try again.
3) Uh no. It applies to both.
Try again. It's especially ridiculous because men can sleep with men, and they'd *still* get these labels. And the more I think about it, "rape culture" and "easy" as in short to be "easy to sleep with" is NOT rape culture. It specifically means that the person is easy to bed. That's it.
Like damn. I feel like I know more on this subject than some people based on their responses alone.
-
16 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:
You're dancing around the obvious downside to abstinence here: not having sex when you otherwise could be. (SPOILER ALERT: Its really good)
...the only way to 100% avoid salmonella is to not eat meat.
...the only way to 100% avoid sports-related injuries is to never play a sport.
...the only way to 100% avoid dying in a plane crash is to never fly.
...the only way to 100% avoid drowning is to never swim.
[Risk] is half of the cost-benefit analysis. The other half is [Life Enjoyment].
How risk-adverse you want to be and how much life enjoyment you're losing by abstaining from any given risk-generating activity is a matter of personal tolerance and preference.
Whatever your personal threshold: there comes a point-of-diminishing-returns where loss of life enjoyment from avoiding anything that could potentially pose risk is going to weigh heavier than the probable harms of the risk you expose yourself to.
The decision on sex can go either way.
Some will think: "The life enjoyment I would gain from casual sex is less than the risk I would be exposing myself to."
Some will think: "The loss of life enjoyment I would suffer from NOT having casual sex is greater than the risk I would be avoiding.
...neither is wrong...
__________________
What IS wrong--in my opinion--is denying people the ability to make a free and informed decision, by feeding them false or misleading information. By denying access to basic information on how to mitigate risk. And by stigmatizing the preference to unashamedly enjoy premarital sex as a hallmark of irresponsible life choices or poor moral character .
I'm really not dancing around the issue. SPOILER RETORT: I know.
All of these would be true.
And the cost risk benefit, is that you have to consider if the risk of having sex is worth the risk. In many cases, it's not worth it.
I quite literally said here:
2 hours ago, Augestein said:I don't actually consider it an alternative.
Because I most certainly don't, because apparently that wasn't clear. Which is exactly why I'm saying I never implied that only one should be taught.
I think you'd honestly have a lot to consider in a life if a lack of casual sex takes a toll on your life enjoyment. People are acting like telling someone "yeah, here's how you stay safe, but really, it's probably best to not do it with every other Tom, Dick, and Harry or Jill, Jane and Mary," is somehow saying "no sex ever. And if you do, you're going to hell." The stigma of having premarital sex is not a "you're a poor moral character." The stigma ends up being "they're a slut/easy." If the possibility of that happening doesn't bother you, then fine. Whatever, your choice. But don't go acting like people that DO have that opinion are somehow wrong for it. Social stigma isn't just religious.
-
2 minutes ago, Excellen Browning said:
Look buddy, the whole "just say no" abstinence angle is extremely unsuccessful. This was touched on earlier in this thread.
The simple reality is that people are going to be fuckin' no matter how hard you yell and preach about it being bad and immoral.
So given this fact you can either be a moron and try harder to stop the fuckin', or you can be productive and at least tell everyone how to avoid unwanted pregnancies and std's.
Look pal, what does that have to do with what I said.
And that has to do with what I said?
Which still doesn't address what the hell I just said.
-
1 minute ago, Tryhard said:
I don't think it ever claims to solve that - because nothing will.
It doesn't cause people to be less likely to have frivolous sex - but it has been shown to reduce teen pregnancy rates compared to abstinence-only education.
Sure. I think that both should be taught together honestly. Safe-sex practices with the mindset that only abstinence is a guarantee. It's probably the best balance to satisfy both parties IMO.
-
3 minutes ago, Excellen Browning said:
Or you can just put on the damn condom and keep your sex life mostly private, and not have to deal with the std's, pregnancies and the stigma.
Or hang out with people who are cool with you sleeping around if you have to get that out there, or it gets out there, and avoid the stigma.
I don't see how that really addresses anything that I said. STDs aren't an absolute guarantee to be blocked by using a condom. Even if you attempt to keep your sex life private, that's still something that can happen as a result. If people find out, that's not their problem: it's yours. And it's entirely avoidable.
2 minutes ago, Tryhard said:Sure. But most of the people I'm talking about are advocating for abstinence-only education because they view any education on safe sex to be unimportant - and as ideal as you would see avoiding sex in the first place, there is going to be a lot of people who do not do that.
Fair enough. It should still be taught, but I think one of the biggest things that need to be said is that some people seem to think that safe sex is some magical cure all to avoiding problems with frivolous sex.
-
On 3/12/2018 at 3:09 PM, Tryhard said:
Abstinence seems to be more of a moral teaching, yet it's somehow considered as an alternative to safe-sex education by the more religious types when it doesn't even tackle the problem or address the same thing.
If they wanted to reduce the number of teen pregnancies truly, they would be singing the praises of safe-sex education and free contraceptives.
I don't actually consider it an alternative. Nor do I believe that most people do, bu rather, it removes the 99.99% condom statistic. Teaching people how to have safe sex is important, but simply avoiding sex in the first place is without a doubt, the best way to avoid having a child. Because let's be honest, putting a condom on isn't exactly hard. And even when being taught about sex education, I thought the whole "how to put a condom on" part was absurd. It's akin teaching someone how to eat with their hands.
Well to be honest, it's just a terrible idea to go around having sex so much anyways. You have to assume your partner is honest with you, and being sexually active requires more frequent trips to the doctor to ensure you didn't catch anything from potentially lying partners. If you're too active, it can also add a social stigma too.
-
I'd rather there be too many period than none!
-
57 minutes ago, Ironthunder said:
Maybe there was supposed to be an alternate ending if Celica dies postgame where Alm marries Faye, but they realised that that'd be a bit too much of a stretch and/or that it was stupid. Also it'd probably be a major polarising point for the community, and the last thing devs want is for their communities to devolve into toxic cesspits because that tends to put people off their game due to the rep of the community.
May have been like Marcus where she can actually die in the final battle? That's my guess.
-
2 minutes ago, Slumber said:
I'm not seeing the correlation.
From "The only reason for females to use axes is if they can't use javelins" to "Echidna's the only person this applies to, and she's no worse than male counterparts in this regard", I'm not sure how the connection is "These units are punished for existing".
Don't use axes on these characters. It's why con and weapon weight are a thing. Could there be some beefier females more along the lines of Echidna, or a bit more balance to make the penalty less harsh to smaller con units? Sure. But I'm not connecting the dots you're putting down.
I do agree that unit weapon ranks should come into play more. I've argued since I started posting here that weapon proficiency mitigating speed penalties from weapon weight would be a nice way to handle this.
But again, the thing you're saying "punishes units for existing" is the entire reason con and weight exists.
"Literally the only female that can use axes is Echidna who has male con." So yeah, it's exactly the problem in a nutshell. Basically the only one that can use it is an exception rather than the norm.
And that's the issue. There's no strategy or thinking involved when "this person is so bad with this weapon that it'll never be used." It's why dark magic was generally considered trash. Too heavy, too inaccurate, and when it could be good, like Nosferatu, it weighs you down so much that it's generally not worth it. Weight and con is a bad system. Weapon weight in and of itself isn't terrible ie, Gaiden saying a steel lance weighs EVERYONE down the same amount. Because with con, it becomes a threshold thing. Low con units are stuck using inferior weapons to make up for their lack of con. It lowers their evade, it lowers their attacking potential, and rarely does it pose anything interesting. Fates/Gaiden had the idea of weapon penalties right. Con and weight did not. And heck, Strength = Con is a system that takes a dump on mages overall.
Yeah.
Because it is. Females that aren't mounted units have *zero* bonus for having low con. They can't pick people up. Sure, they can be picked up easier, but that doesn't excuse having -2 or 3+ con. Let's use an example. A GBA Pally versus a GBA hero. Pallies generally have better con than heroes. So naturally, the hero can't ever use a weapon better than the paladin. The hero's boon over a paladin is that it isn't weak to horseslaying weapons. That's hardly good balance. And females versus males are pretty much the same thing. Under no circumstance do you want a female unit in the GBA Fire Emblem under normal circumstances. Let's use an example: Heath and Florina. Heath has 9 Con. Not great, but not terrible. His aid is... 16. Let's use Florina, her Con is 4. Which is garbage. Her aid? 16. So even in practice, it's not that great. A Florina that uses a Javelin loses 7 AS. A Heath that uses a Javelin loses 2. Even with Florina's level lead, speed growth lead, and base speed lead, a level 16 Florina throws a Javelin with about the same level of competence as a a level 7 Heath. She's slightly faster, but in order to match the strength, she needs to be around 16. That's nuts. Even worse? That's normal mode Heath. Not hard mode where he has 13 strength and 9 speed. This isn't even a "male vs female" discussion, but why Con wasn't that great of a system.
-
22 hours ago, Slumber said:
Literally the only female in the GBA games who can do this is Echidna, who actually has the same con as one of her male counterparts.
Yep, and that's the issue with the weight system numbers in a nutshell. To be honest, it wouldn't have been so bad if they used some sort of weapon rank and skill requirements to determine if a person was also capable of suing them, or if a character could choose to wield them 2-handed versus one handed for less of a penalty to using the weapon, but in the end of the day, you just end up with a system that often times just punished certain units for existing.
-
It's pretty important to be honest, as it is by far the easiest way to not have a child too early or out of wedlock. Sex also saves a lot of grief for not getting nasty diseases and the like. I wish it was practiced a bit more.
-
Just default. The way we get teased with red head Severa too. Horrible that you can't get it. That said, there are other characters. Say'ri and Basillio. Technically they aren't Gen 1 but they ARE possible and not Spotpass stuff.
-
2 hours ago, Von Ithipathachai said:
I did ask this question with Axes in mind.
But I'll admit that YouSquiddinMe brings up a good point about making every Triangle weapon type weigh the same taking away some strategic depth of choosing what weapon you should attack with.
So what I would do is give the weapon types smaller weight differences. Maybe making Swords heavier or Axes lighter in the process.
It brings up less than you think. In the GBA Fire Emblem games, female and "use axe" was something you pretty much never did. Axes have such stupid amounts of weight that even when you can use them, you're pretty much only using the lightest of axes. The only reason for a female to use an axe really (in the con ones where strength doesn't equal con) is because she can't use javelins.
-
1 minute ago, CyberController said:
Dorcas can kill his own wife. Dude, what.
He was just caught up in the heat of the moment. He clearly just started throwing axes without a care in the world.
Another great one is that Garcia has a support with Dolza and they try to shoot arrows and suck. The problem? Garcia could possible have an S rank in bows at that point.
-
1 minute ago, AlphaZero said:
That is a huge if and is one of the biggest reasons of why Rudolf's plan could've failed. There are so many underlying facters that could have botched the plan. Alm could've easily died during this time of famine, roaming monsters, and war. Mycen's pretty old. What if he just up and died before Alm received all of his training? What if Alm died fighting for Zofia? I know some people think that Rudolf staged a suicide war solely for Alm, but half of Alm's adversaries don't care about this plan. Slayde almost killed him when he was like 10. Berkut could've killed him, Desaix could've killed him, Those witches and Cantors could've killed him. Thank god for that dumb Macguffin Celica gave him, otherwise Alm's entire army would be dead via Nuibaba's dumb Macguffin. The Draco zombies coulld've killed him. Swole shield!Merc could've killed him.
If this game's conflict was realistic, Alm would most certainly be dead right now. Alm is a literal green recruit turned leader to a languishing resistance, he should have no chance against a country that has spent the last few centuries militarizing for who knows what. But the writers made it so Alm beats everybody he fights, regardless of how unmatched he is because this story was made in the 90s when nobody gave a damn about videogame stories. Rudolf's plan also hinges upon Alm striking a bond with his Zofian counterpart, who also could've easily died in many scenarios. Hell, I haven't even talked about how immoral Rudolf's plan is, inciting a war that would kill thousands of people across both sides, break a sacred pact that, upon its destruction, would cause famine and revive monsters across the continent, and increase the activities of banditry across the continent.
Rudolf's plan is just as bad as Azura's both plans work out in the end despite their innate stupidity and impracticality. Rudolf has negative thiings to gain from being secretive, especially since he has an army of almost unwavering loyalty under him. You literally see him fighting Mila with an army behind him, Why couldn't he just do the same for Duma? If his most loyal generals are privy to his plan and are willing to die for it, then They most likely won't have a problem waging war on a cult of soulless blue people for the sake of their king. How is this plan anything but convoluted? This isn't some point A-to-point B plan, it literally takes 17 years of preparation affects the balance of an entire continent. But it's all good because it worked out in the end right? I think that there are a lot of positives in SoV, but let's not pretend that Rudolf's plan is some sort of masterpiece.
Sure. However, it's not convoluted. It's actually really simple. Don't let Alm die. Let him get some experience as a commander and and a warrior. Hide him from Duma, and have him fight when he's old enough. The biggest issue here is quite literally that Alm can die. It's not complicated, it's just not foolproof. The plan had already gone of the hinges when Celica had to be moved because of this. So at this point, you can basically say that this plan that was devised is a contingency plan. A bad one, but considering that the first one flopped, it's easy to see how it flew off rails.
What you've said are reason that the plan isn't a great one. It's not hard to follow though.
Rudolf's plan is much less bad than Azura's. For starters, Azura has no plan at the start of the game. And both of her plans require that she does exactly what the villain wants around 2/3 of the time. Conquest is especially bad because she takes Corrin to Valla and doesn't try to explain what exactly this is, and her plan is basically to pray that Corrin has enough influence to convince his/her siblings that Garon and evil, and that Garon doesn't just raze the entire castle, and thus the throne to the floor. The worst part is that she has the ability to be clear, by doing things like showing EVERYONE the crystal ball, but just doesn't. She gives it to Leo in Birthright, and shows it to Corrin in Conquest. That's why I'd say hers is the worst, because there's no reason that she doesn't have any of the Hoshidan siblings knowing this BEFORE the start of the game.
12 minutes ago, Rapier said:Not so much.
Crimea and Daein had opposite ideologies that put them as rivals. They skirmished for border control ocasionally, although they never developed into a full-blown war. There is still potential for a conflict between both nations and all it needs is a push in the right direction, which eventually happened due to Ashnard being singled as the heir to the throne after his siblings conveniently died by a Blood Pact. This isn't impossible to accomplish - all Sephiran needed was to back up the ideal warmonger for the throne, which is what he did.
The hawk and raven tribes constantly bicker among themselves, with Naesala wishing he'd get his hold on Tibarn's lands, not to mention he was indirectly serving under Begnion because of the Blood Pact (so he could be ordered to start a war, if Begnion wanted). Conflicts between the hawk and raven tribes were common, and it wouldn't be particularly hard to cause a war between them.
Gallia shows dissent toward the prejudice commited by Begnion and Daein against the laguz. They're pretty much skeptical and even hostile to other beorc countries that are not as friendly and inclusive as Crimea (so, pretty much all of them). The laguz are also genetically hotblooded and very easily prone to violence (which is mentioned in FE10, if not in FE9), so even if Caineghis tried to solve conflicts through diplomacy, a little provocation would be enough to bring them into war (which is basically what happened in Part 3 of Radiant Dawn). Again, not particularly hard.
The hardest to bring to a war would be Goldoa, actually.
-----------------
The most convoluted and stupid plan imo would be Azura trying to place Gooron on the throne. There were a billion simpler ways to reveal Gooron without all the sacrifices and bloodshed from Conquest, so their excuse doesn't fit.
Robin's plan to evade being possessed by Grima also fits. He/she also needed convenient future knowledge to predict what Validar's plan was so he/she could send Basilio to fake his death (which included fighting Valhart, a hard feat that could've brought his death just as easily) and take the real orb with him, replacing it on the Fire Emblem with a fake one.
As for the most complex one, I'd say Manfroy's is. He needed to manipulate plenty of people (both directly and indirectly), de-stabilize the entire continent to leave it easy for the Grannvale Empire to dominate later and find one person in millions (who was currently in hiding) to succeed with his plan. Had Deirdre or Alvis died of a cold, fever or whatever, his plans would never have come to fruition.
Requires
1) Ashnard doesn't destroy Crimea completely.
2) Somehow gets Gallia involved despite the fact that they apparently won't even though they are supposedly allies with Crimea, and had Elincia died, the plan to get them involved dies too.
3) Kilvas and Phoenicis don't get along too well, but they don't actually fight much either.
4) Daein has no reason to fight Begnion.
5) Goldoa WON'T fight.
If Manfroy's is complicated for "get proper bloodlines to mingle" is more complicated than the above, I don't know what to say.
Robin knowing future events isn't that bad. Lucina told him/her.
People are confusing "unlikely to succeed" with "convoluted."
-
2 hours ago, NekoKnight said:
There is no guarantee that either side winning the war would result in a long lasting unification of the continent. The winners might oppress the losers, or the winners might go home after collecting their compensation. The only reason the unification works (and even then it's a little shaky to accept that two countries of contrasting values can suddenly become one without a lot of adaption) because Alm is the hero of Zofia and the royal heir of Rigel. Rudolf would have to be a powerful fortune teller to have predicted that those exact circumstances that allowed Alm to become that person would happen.
There are a number of ways that he could have made the plan simpler. For starters, he could have talked to Alm and Celica about who they are and what needs to happen. I don't see a war where anything could happen would be a sounder plan to ensuring long term peace.
Everything going exactly as planned despite the plethora of ways it could fail doesn't make it a smart one. Azura's plan is a good one by that standard. Everything worked out.
The only way that Rudolf's plan can actually fail is if Alm dies really. Considering that's the only real plan to defeat Duma, it isn't convoluted. Because there aren't multiple people that can just pick up the Falchion and use it. The war that happens is already fueled by people anyways. Using it to ensure that Alm develops the skills and is hidden away from the Duma assassins until he's old enough to defend himself is actually smart. As they needed a hero as soon as Alm was old enough to fight. Any sooner and he could be killed. 000
In the case of Azura's plan, they *don't* work out well because they result in:
1) 2 Siblings dying when you choose any route that isn't Revelations
2) They don't actually defeat Anankos
3) No one else is aware of Anankos so they can't actually do much about him.
4) All of her plans that aren't Rev result in the other side being more or less dismantled which helps Anankos' plan.
5) It's needlessly secretive when there's no advantage to being secretive. Especially when she can drag people to Valla like she does in Rev.
-
23 hours ago, RJWalker said:
People don't seem to get that if Rudolf's plan fails, then he's the sort of person to just go "Well, I guess we deserve to die by rampaging mad dragon."
Rudolf's plan is fuckin great. It's a last ditch attempt to save Valentia.
This. It's a weird plan, but it's not convoluted in the least. The plan literally hinges on "don't die Alm." That's hardly convoluted. He planted the seeds to have Alm grow up as a farm hand, and Mycen to ensure that Alm had the skills to be above and beyond a standard person. That's not convoluted at all. It worked exactly as he planed.
Azura's aren't really convoluted in my eyes, just really stupid and/or naive. To the point that I'd say her character is horrible IMO. But...
Sephiran gets the cake, because he goes way out of his way to ensure that his plan is needlessly more difficult than it has any right to be. Raising people to be counterproductive to his own plans because....?
-
55 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:
The entire continent is at war condition is fulfilled if Begnion decides that Begnion alone follows the Word of the Goddess, every other nation is run by filthy heretics, and heretics must be purged with sword and fire.
Sephiran raised Sanaki from the time she was a baby--it would have been the simplest thing to indoctrinate her from infancy into the idea of a glorious great crusade; Begnion spreading the light of true faith to all the heathen nations of the world.
With such an empress on the throne + Sephiran running the Senate, he could have just started the continent-spanning war directly instead of trying to game Daein and Crimea and the Laguz Kings.
...instead he raised Sanaki to be the exact opposite of what he needed her to be, to bring about his war by the swiftest and surest means...
And in the end he seemed...proud that she turned out the way she did??? Kind and just and full of hope for the world he was trying to destroy; like he wouldn't have wanted her to turn out any other way?
He was a conflicted character. One of the reasons why he was such a great villain, and probably the reason why his scheme was so convoluted. He wasn't mentally or morally prepared to commit to it in the most direct and brutal way he could have committed to it.
This. And this is pretty much why I say his plan wins as the dumbest way to go about accomplishing that.
-
4 minutes ago, NinjaMonkey said:
How? It's clear that Begnion has no love for the Laguz, so I'd think that a war between the two that engulfs the entirety of Tellius would be almost inevitable.
Because this requires the entire continent needing to be in on the war. If such is a case, then he *doesn't* need to do anything. There is no plan. It's convoluted to go through all of what he did to achieve that result if it's almost inevitable.
General US Politics
in Serious Discussion
Posted
Which is insane. People have already offed themselves in the area because they believe lies like this. It's fine time we stopped this madness.