Othin

The rest of the quote does not sound like things I recall Ike discussing. Furthermore, you seem to have conveniently ignored Banzai's example. If your goal is to prove that the characters are so easily interchangeable, then it is your burden to address every example given before proceeding.

My own example proves you right by going against Ike's thoroughly-established views of nobility? What the hell would you consider wrong? Banzai's response, perhaps? I see you've conveniently ignored that one.

Ike: I will not let their hopes and dreams be shattered again. I will be king. Like my father before me, I will dedicate myself to their happiness. Perhaps you'd best give your own examples.

Banzai has provided plenty of evidence that they do, at least some of them. Do you have evidence to the contrary? I'm just curious where Reese falls on that scale.

So where's the problem?

If Hitler had won, it would be just like every other time someone violating human rights had come into power. Some people would be okay with his policies, and others would realize, this is not just, this violates peoples' rights. They would stand up against it, and being right, people would agree with them, and overthrow the Nazis. This is how injustices inevitably end. And it is indeed an injustice. You have proposed, with no justification, denying mentally disabled people their rights as human beings nor for denying their family the right to have them as family (and for the mother to be essentially raped in the forced removal of what she wishes to become her child), nor a clear definition for how someone would be identified as so mentally disabled as to justify the denial of their humanity in the first place, especially before birth. These measures you propose are horrors that have no place in any civilized society.

I would think a care for family would trump that. Does it suck that he'll have to take care of his sister when he doesn't want to? Sure. It also sucks for his sister that she'll have to be cared for by someone who hates her so much. And while it's fine for him to dislike all this, suggesting that his sister and countless other people should be deprived of their rights for his sake is indeed selfish, although it appears he is leaving this perspective to some extent.

Advocating eugenics and redefining humanity are more things Hitler did as part of removing people he didn't like. As I said earlier, if you can't realize the direct evils of this, then think about the precedent it would set and realize that it would have just as much potential for anyone else deemed undesirable to be "removed", and realize that this is just as insane as that. I don't like using Hitler accusations and slippery slope arguments where they don't belong, but when this discussion has been built on what is essentially core Nazi policy from the start, it's warranted. Some people choose to have abortions when their child will be disabled in some form or another, and that is their right. Some people choose not to, even knowing the costs. In those cases, on what basis can you demand to have the contents of their wombs forcibly inspected and tampered with?

Boo fucking hoo. Lots of people have problems far worse than those. Are your tiny inconveniences worth ruining peoples' lives over and denying them their rights as humans? I think not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghetto If you're going to keep advocating what is basically Nazism, I think it's quite reasonable to say that you're being a dick and/or don't quite realize what you're saying (read: are ignorant).

Before we go any further, I think we need to know exactly what this "removal" you're proposing would entail in the first place (if you've even thought ahead to such an important step) and how the people would be judged as "mentally unable" to benefit society (based on their spelling?).

So you are proposing a situation in which the government can force people out of society on the basis of them being causing minor problems while committing no crimes. I think you need to think a bit more clearly about what that would mean. Perhaps in thinking about the kind of precedent that would set you can realize how this proposal of yours is just as insane as, say, Nazism.

To add to what Banzai was saying, there's a particularly concrete point of evidence to establish FE7 as a first foray into new story territory. In FE1-6, how often do we see a scene taking place outside of the current battlefield? The only time that comes to mind for me is in Ch8 of FE6, when Roy has left the Castle Ostia and returned to Ch7's map. Meanwhile, FE7 and the later games branch out more in terms of their story, showing more scenes outside of the battlefield and with villains and other characters. Now, I think we all know how I feel about the result of that first attempt, but it was a step in the right direction.

And at those times, you can buy enough to last much of the rest of the game, even if it's just a special case. Excellent thought; Killer weapons go to show what I was saying even better than Silver ones. Buyable Killers are available from Ch13 in FE6 and Ch20 and Ch26 in FE7. As for FE12, that doesn't change the fact that they obsolete other weapon types, and it's not much of an excuse; ORKOing enemies early in the game has never been a requirement on any difficulty mode. With that in mind, I'd hardly call FE12's system a solution; it just replaced the issues with Killers with an even bigger issue with Silvers.

I was speaking specifically in comparison to FE2 and FE4, the only other FE games to not offer a wide variety of weapons to purchase in unlimited quantities. I explained this clearly in my earlier post that I was quoting.

Bronze Swords have 6 Mt, 5 Prec (50% Hit), and D Dur (20 uses). Good luck with that. Hand Spears and Wood Axes came out a bit better and work as usable basic weapons, but that's the point. Rather than being completely obsoleted, they remain useful at times, while better weapons (and good luck getting through Berwick Saga without those weapons) add additional concerns.

That would be getting rid of useful distinctions for absolutely no reason. The thing to get rid of is unlimited shops. In FE2, you couldn't buy items at all. In FE4, you could buy things, but only in limited quantities; there are only single-digit numbers of any given Steel, Silver, or other useful weapon type. In Berwick Saga, you could buy unlimited numbers of ineffective basic weapons such as Bronze Swords, but anything else was limited. This meant that you could only have as many of a given weapon type as are available; if you're using three sword users and you only have two Silver Swords, you can only give two of them Silver Swords and you'll have to find something else for the third, rather than simply being able to buy another Silver Sword. This was particularly notable in Berwick Saga because items actually break permanently in that game (barring use of limited Repair Stones). So when you can buy a Mithril Spear to let a spear user hit harder, you can't use it all the time, because it'll be a while before you can buy another one and there are only four in the game. FE10's Bargain shop and FE11/12's Secret Shops extended this feature to a few things, but you could still buy excessive numbers of unnecessarily powerful weapons, such as how in FE10, every physical character could be armed with Steel/Great-class weapons once they become available in the shops and erasing the need for anything else.

There is merit in rare 1-3 range tomes (as seen in TRS and in 1-2 range spells in Berwick Saga), but thrown spears and axes capable of going that far would just be ridiculous. It could be explained by some sort of magic effect on them, but that just seems unnecessary; better to keep that range away from melee weapons under all conditions. I'm more inclined to agree with your first point. Anytime a player wants to boss abuse in an FE game or otherwise cheaply kill a boss, they'll find a way. Remember the guy who broke all his enemies' weapons?

*cough* Doesn't have any Dancers, either. In combination with integrated turns and skills like Pulverize, either one would likely be game-breaking.

I agree with most of the other things you said, but this stuck out at me. What's wrong with that?

The poll was of people protesting. So I don't think so.

According to Serenes, the limit is 12 in the normal game. I don't know anything about the hack, but I wouldn't assume that it's the same.

That sounds like an interesting system. It's clearly designed for a different stat scale than FE, but I don't think it would be any trouble to adjust it. Good idea about the option, as well. This is one of those situations where a choice is appropriate.

The one thing that bugs me about OWS is something I read about a poll done there: a significant percentage of people (over 30%, I think) want it to have the same effect on the Democrat party as the Tea Party has had on the Republican party. That's just adding more fuel to the fire and won't accomplish anything.