Serenes Forest's Teehee Thread

[Venger_06]

On 1/3/2023 at 1:17 PM, Saint Rubenio said:

And you don't even know the other thing I did that I know would upset you!

Tell me

2 hours ago, Shrimpy -Limited Edition- said:

https://gamebanana.com/mods/420332

Awakening finally playable?

>finally playable

>makes the game easier

Not for you, at least

[Codename Shrimp]

Rip Tanaka. Your sacrifice was not in vain

9 minutes ago, Green06 said:

Not for you, at least

True

But i would take anything over awakening's Dual system.

Edited January 5, 2023 by Shrimpy -Limited Edition-

[Acacia Sgt]

22 minutes ago, Edelguardiansing said:

You sort of did with this line

Which implies that you don't think things were that bad when they definitely were.

Not at all. Because a painting could be 75.3% green and I'd still disagree with someone saying "it's 75.4% green". Is it pedantic? Oh, for sure. But it still bothers me when someone is trying to misdirect. Because, and please correct me if I'm wrong, you're basically making a blanket statement there.

Quote

Point being that just as a "nice" slave owner is still a slave owner, a "nice" lord, is still a wealthy individual who profits from the labor of others and not themselves. They're the better ones for sure but we shouldn't settle for nice lords when it's equity and equality that we're after.

Sure, a "nice" one would remain so, but an actual nice one would stop being one due to the very nature of being nice would mean they'd set them free. But then... what. The workforce is still needed. So if the slaves become simply regular workers, then... the system hasn't really changed at all. You still someone at the top, and the ones at the bottom. It's still better, for sure, even if still not perfect.

Well, maybe not so much equality. Being equal doesn't always means being fair. Equity for sure, even if that inherently means there will be some imbalance.

Also, sorry, but I find it amusing you say that yet you support Edelgard. She's a big "put the nice ones in charge" proponent after all. It's just that nice includes "competent/best at the job, ensuring efficiency and progress". Which goes back to:

Quote

Ah yes, the classic "Can't we all just get along?" approach.

This. If the people actually do their job as they're meant and do not demean others for not being in the same position in society, then yes, it'd work as we'd reach equity. In this case, the idea of the hierarchy system is that every level has its job and must work together in harmony for a functioning society. But precisely of this below:

Quote

Listen I agree with you, if we as humans could better regulate our self-preservation and give more empathy than we wouldn't need system reforms because this idea creates a hypothetical were everyone is nice to each other and everyone is happy. I've made no secret of wishing that human tribalism wasn't a thing.

But unfortunately we are still animals with faulty brains that in the right circumstance will go for selfish desires over selfless. and in this system of explicit power being granted over other people, you can't ever rely on people just being nice, because for every nice lord there are 50 more who are assholes, and that's not because they're just naturally bad people who do bad things, it's because the system they live under encourages that harsh treatment for maximum gain, it's efficient to be cruel and cold.

We let our animalistic natures take over the rest in ensuring it becomes a inter-societal fight that results in a faulty system.

Quote

The problem isn't people, it's systems.

Uh, you just contradicted yourself there. You spoke precisely why it's the people that is the problem. At least, the bigger problem of the two.

Edited January 5, 2023 by Acacia Sgt

[Codename Shrimp]

Rhea did nothing wrong.

Edelgard did everything wrong

/3H end, Engage hype train now

[Lightcosmo]

Just now, Shrimpy -Limited Edition- said:

Edelgard did everything wrong

Agreed!

[Eltosian Kadath]

11 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Not at all. Because a painting could be 75.3% green and I'd still disagree with someone saying "it's 75.4% green". Is it pedantic? Oh, for sure. But it still bothers me when someone is trying to misdirect. Because, and please correct me if I'm wrong, you're basically making a blanket statement there.

...But Quetzel didn't make a mathematical statement like that. The better comparison would be him saying its green, and you complaining that it isn't 75.4% green, it's 75.3% Green, which isn't directly relate to whether or not it is Green.

 

17 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

 

Also, sorry, but I find it amusing you say that yet you support Edelgard. She's a big "put the nice ones in charge" proponent after all. It's just that nice includes "competent/best at the job, ensuring efficiency and progress". Which goes back to:

...Do you know that this is Quetzel's first run of Crimson Flower, and is mostly playing blind?

You are coming at this from the position of someone that has analyzed the ending, and seem to assume Quetzel has as well.

 

19 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Uh, you just contradicted yourself there. You spoke precisely why it's the people that is the problem. At least, the bigger problem of the two.

Its obviously both, but you were very explicit about it being only a people problem before, and Quetzel obliged your false dichotomy. Just as you softened your position here, I am willing to bet Quetzel will soften their position to its both, but the bigger problem is systems, just like you did.

 

 

[Interdimensional Observer]

5 hours ago, Armagon said:

If anything, it's a pretty common fact that peasant life was just kinda shitty while also being it is what it is. 

Before I resume Rune Factory 5 again today. Why not reference That One Book I Kept From College and dump some agriculture factoids here!🤓

-Mind, this applies only to Europe. in the 1600-1700s, a good two-three centuries minimum after the Medieval period. -Though Early Modern agriculture probably wasn't that different from Medieval. And I wouldn't think that China or India or any other part of the world could have pulled that far ahead in agricultural output and peasant conditions, if at all. -And these statements all come from well one book, other scholars may differ on some of the numbers.

• Population %
  • England (a fairly prosperous country ofc at this time) in 1700- 80% lived in the countryside. 2/3rds directly farmed the land, most of the remainder indirectly receiving their income from agriculture.
    • Even "urban" professions depended the countryside- you can't have leather and wool clothing without cow and sheep herders.
    • While a few metropolises existed in Europe, most "towns" in Early Modern Europe, as in the Middle Ages, weren't "cities" as we would think of them, huge and divorced from agriculture. Rather, most towns were small and provided some basic goods and services for the surrounding farming communities.
  • For the crazy rural extreme of gigantic Russia, only 3% of the population lived in towns, over 90% were peasants. Most of the population (outside of St. Petersburg and Moscow) in towns being peasants and their landlords growing food. B/c the Russian countryside could produce -in a good year- a food surplus only enough for self-subsistence, not enough to sustain a large (by premodern standards) urban population.
• Crop Yield:
  • For Europe's mainstay crop- wheat...🥖
    • (Rice, maize, potatoes, even things like barley and wheat, will vary on what's a good/bad yield, in addition to differing caloric content.)
    • Even in a good year, a wheat farmer might have a yield as low as 4 or 5 grains per grain they choose to retain. 10:1 could be considered a good yield.
      • "Retain", because you need to save some of the harvest to plant next year. Farmers weren't buying all their new seed in the general store like in RF.
      • By contrast, a modern plot of good English farmland using all the breakthrough the present day has experienced can provide yields of 80:1.
      • The seeds used were whatever was available, no using varietals specially-bred to be best suited for the local conditions. Peasants had no clue (And who did in this era?), couldn't afford it even if they did.
  • Western Europe's growing season was 8-9 months. In the bad case of Russia, St. Petersburg, the climate limited the growing season to 4 months from Mid-May to Mid-September, around Moscow 5 1/2 months could be managed, 6 on the steppes was Russia's best. Crop yields were 3/4:1 in the 1800s, same as in the 1400s, damnably low.
  • Most peasants couldn't grow enough for the ideal of self-sufficiency. Performing labor services or premodern "manufacturing" like weaving was necessary to earn the money needed to buy additional food. A famine meant more toil was necessary b/c increased grain prices.
    • Laboring away from the fields, be it for money or feudal labor taxes, means that farmer isn't working their fields. Might also lower their personal agricultural output. 
  • Harvesting is more complicated than merely pulling the food out of the ground, and peasants didn't have modern machinery to help with this. Grain left on the stalk for too long might eventually rot. If you're not reaping fast enough, you lose yield.
  • Food storage was neither airtight nor watertight. Rot might set in over the months, you might have less than it initially seems.
  • You couldn't farm all the land at once. Its nutrients would run out if you did.
    • The ideal was a three-field system where you worked two of the field sections with different crops. One high food-yield high nutrient-depletion crop, the second crop being slightly beneficial to the soil or at least not as harsh. The third field was left fallow and unworked.
    • More often, a two-field system had be implemented. Half the soil cultivated, half left entirely fallow.
    • Thus, 33-50% of all "farmland" was left uncultivated every single year.
  • Fertilizer- humans could only make so much "nightsoil". Dumping nitrogen-loaded artificial fertilizer on everything as in the modern day wasn't an option.
    • Raising livestock in general and thus getting more fertilizer from more of them, was also limited by the two/three-field system. You didn't have much room to raise and graze your flock on your own land, your neighbor will complain if your goats eat their crops, and the commons land of the village was limited.
• Famine:
  • Famine was an inevitability, the question was when, not if.
  • The most dangerous time of year for food supplies was late spring, early summer.
    • Why, when the crops are newly planted? -Because, you can't eat seedlings!
    • Late spring and early summer were when last year's harvest was starting to run low, and the current year's was not matured yet. It was very possible your yearly surplus would just last until the next harvest.
  • The most dangerous famines then, were consecutive famines. One bad harvest might kill a few people, but you are definitely not going to have enough to eat to last until next late summer/fall if you've two failed harvest in a row. 
  • A few famines:
    • France 1692-4, 2.8 million people, ~15% of France's population, died.
    • Finland 1696-7, 1/4~1/3 of the population dies.
    • Scotland- poor harvest in 1695, severe failure in 1696, modest improvement in 1697, another general harvest failure year in 1698. The most heavily-affected areas lost 20% of their population.
    • 1693-4, 1675-9, 1693, 1708-9. Bad years for European harvests in general, with no shortage of local crises in-between.
  • The Netherlands and England managed to survive this period without real famine. Possibly due to more balanced agricultural systems. Maybe because they had good maritime trade and were small countries with plenty of good rivers, and could thus import grain readily and send it where it was needed.
    • After 1709, France made enough agricultural improvements to stop having famines, though food shortages that weren't as severe and deadly remained. Including on the eve of the French Revolution.
• Importing Food
  • Import food as a solution to famine? -A bunch of problems with that.
    • Good paved roads were expensive. Few places in Europe had the resources to build and maintain them. -Also true in the Middle Ages.
      • Dirt roads are much worse on wheeled wagons, which limited how much they could carry, and raised the price on what was carried.
        • Thus, only small-volume high-price goods were particularly profitable and feasible. Grain is a low-value high-bulk product, the antithesis.
    • One example from 1600-1700s, Spain- in the Almeria, the price of wheat as twice that of Guadix, 50 miles/80 kilometers away. Almeria being coastal, it imported food from France, Italy, even Northern Africa, rather than get it from elsewhere in Spain overland.
      • The result of this is that "national economies" didn't necessarily exist in all of Europe. You could have regions and localities rather prosperous/with a food surplus existing right next to places of poverty/amid a localized famine.
    • Water trade routes were more reliable -provided the winds were blowing the right way and neither was it stormy. Those conditions would delay things.
      • You needed to be near a coast with good natural harbors to import food this way. -Not helpful if you live too far inland.
      • Or, you needed to be on a river that was friendly to shipping barges, not of them were. Germany/The Holy Roman Empire had lots of good navigable rivers, and France almost none.
    • Taxes! Selling stuff abroad will mean export/import taxes. Even within a country you could have internal trade tolls. France's infamous salt-tax had six wildly different rates, depending on which region you were in. Your French compatriot living the town over could be paying a lot more/less for salt than you. Stopping to pay taxes to at border stations also delayed the shipment of goods.
      • And these are only import taxes. Peasants did owe their monarch and local aristocrat/landlord an annual share of their crop. There were yet more special kinds of aristocratic taxation.

...I don't think I can get to the conditions of peasants outside of their food woes and norms right now. I already wrote enough as is.😅 But RF5 put me in the mood to do this, so I don't quite mind.

 

8 hours ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Got my popcorn again for today's House session... aaaaand that's fourth round of no Speaker.

You know, I do have a big bag of dark-chocolate Himalayan salt popcorn that I bought like early-mid last month. Maybe this is when I tap into it.

5 hours ago, Punished Dayni said:

Then I remember the state of things in NI and see at least Congress won't get paid while this mess goes on.

Sorry! When Rome sneezed, the surrounding world noticed. When Pictland sneezed, did anyone outside of the Isles of Britain and Ireland and Others notice?

Sure I could probably be tragically-amused by another country's dysfunction, I did like witnessing Brexit from afar when it caught everyone's attention, but I don't usually know where that dysfunction is or how to follow it.

 

4 hours ago, Saint Rubenio said:

We had everything, proceeded to fuck up spectacularly and now we're a completely irrelevant chunk of land at the ass of Europe. Impressive.

Well it's supposedly because of their marriage to the daughter of Ferdinand & Isabella that the Habsburgs became infamously inbred. Spain is where the -terrible for those afflicted by it- incest began.

The sinking of the Spanish Empire, from what I've read, seems to be a combination of:

• Weak monarchs after Phillip II. Rotten overpowered nobles too.
• Spain's various regions more or less had their own separate governments the king had to negotiate with. Castile was the only region he could thoroughly exploit, and that went into population decline as time progressed, partly because of overtaxing.
• The later British Empire was famed for having colonies and being the industrial "Workshop of the World" at home that cranked out manufactured goods everyone wanted.- And which the colonies were forced to need and import only from Britain. Spain's domestic economy produced nothing of serious value that could be sold in its colonies. Spain's domestic economy, like its governing bodies, weren't even united, it was a bunch of separate regional economies.
• The non-European colonies were vast, yet economically underdeveloped.
• The European possession of Spain outside of Spain itself were actually pretty nice- but Spain spent decades losing the Netherlands among fighting other wars. And paying for war required lots of money. 
• Silver imports (gold/silver standard backing all currency back then, remember) couldn't cover the ever-growing national debt. Eventually even paying off the annual interest wasn't guaranteed.
• Some might also blame religious intolerance, not forcing the Jews and Muslims to: convert, die, or leave, might've provided some valuable economic actors. 

Edited January 5, 2023 by Interdimensional Observer

[Acacia Sgt]

1 hour ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

...But Quetzel didn't make a mathematical statement like that. The better comparison would be him saying its green, and you complaining that it isn't 75.4% green, it's 75.3% Green, which isn't directly relate to whether or not it is Green.

Yes. Anytime it's brought up, it's always about "nobles are dicks". And the the fact nice nobles was "nice" nobles, because it was referring to nobles, not the system in that statement. So as in, saying it's 100% green and refuse to entertain the idea it could not be 100%, if I can continue my painting allegory. Which is even more wrong than saying it's 75.4%.

Hence me saying to correct me if it's not actually a blanket statement.

Quote

...Do you know that this is Quetzel's first run of Crimson Flower, and is mostly playing blind?

You are coming at this from the position of someone that has analyzed the ending, and seem to assume Quetzel has as well.

Sorry, I keep forgetting just how much (or rather how little) of Edelgard's ideology is spoken to in routes outside CF. Or went with the fact Edelgard already spoke about wanting a meritocracy.

Quote

Its obviously both, but you were very explicit about it being only a people problem before, and Quetzel obliged your false dichotomy. Just as you softened your position here, I am willing to bet Quetzel will soften their position to its both, but the bigger problem is systems, just like you did.

I wasn't intending it to come off that way, so I apologize if it did. Hence why I spoke things like "change/fix first, then replace", when it comes to the systems. Still, aren't the systems made by the people to begin with? So it is indeed people first, system second if we have to put a priority list over problems to solve. Since the system can be fixable if people change the way they make use of it, but in the end we must upgrade to a better systems... which once again comes down to how people design it, then make use of it.

As it is, I believe that by ensuring people can be better means we can fix the faulty system before designing a better system to replace it with. Would it better to just aim for the better system right off the bat? Perhaps. Though I also think we must salvage first before discarding. Specially since it can serve as the base for the upgrade.

Edited January 5, 2023 by Acacia Sgt

[Armagon]

5 hours ago, Saint Rubenio said:

Hey, could be worse. Spain spent almost a year without a president.

Mariano Rajoy was the acting president for 316 days between 2015 and 2016, as every candidate failed to obtain the necessary majority, even with pacts between parties. Then he finally managed to become proper president again, and a couple years later he was given a vote of no confidence and replaced by Pedro Sanchez, who proceeded to spend 254 days as acting president himself.

Hilarious.

Still not as funny as the UK Prime Minsters doing the resignation speedrun any %.

5 hours ago, Saint Rubenio said:

But we really gotta look at it from the lords' perspective, sometimes it was stressful to rule or something. Let's be fair here.

Statistically, some probably were. I doubt all ruling lords got a God complex over it, assuming they even wanted to rule at all in the first place.

But like i said, back then it was "it is what it is" like 99% of the time.

5 hours ago, Edelguardiansing said:

Fire Emblem's lens on the subject pretty much boils down to "Commoners think nobles are snobs" and "Nobles think commoners are improper" with the proposed solution being "They should just be nicer to each other" and that deserves critique.

In an ideal world, that would be the solution tbh.

2 hours ago, Punished Dayni said:

How're the others then?

The main girls are basically the same, Riki has a Stand unironically.

Idk about the rest, we only had three people when we played so we couldn't figure out how the other non-existent boyfriend plays and we finished our session when we unlocked Marian.

1 hour ago, Edelguardiansing said:

Which implies that you don't think things were that bad when they definitely were.

Honestly it's hard to know for sure because all we got are written records and we're going off of today's standards+the fact that humanity is extremely hard carried by modern knowledge and tech anyways. 50% of the source of shitty life back then was because humans are F-tier in everything that isn't intelligence. Even if you were a noble, if you got cut during your sword training, 50/50 chance it infects and you die within the week.

Tl;dr life was shit but arguably moreso because of our own biology than the systems in place tbh.

1 hour ago, Green06 said:

 

Ah, the fellow Bocchi enjoyer.

30 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

...I don't think I can get to the conditions of peasants outside of their food woes and norms right now. I already wrote enough as is.😅

Haha it's alright. I appreciate the history lesson.

31 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

he Netherlands and England managed to survive this period without real famine. Possibly due to more balanced agricultural systems. Maybe because they had good maritime trade and were small countries with plenty of good rivers, and could thus import grain readily and send it where it was needed.

I'd imagine those living on the coasts could also just fish for food.....though preservation would be an issue and in the winter, going out to see would be very dangerous.

[Armagon]

Bro did Ocarina of Time always reset you to your house in Kokiri Forest every time you booted up the game? Cause this shit's kinda annoying.

[Acacia Sgt]

1 minute ago, Armagon said:

Bro did Ocarina of Time always reset you to your house in Kokiri Forest every time you booted up the game? Cause this shit's kinda annoying.

I'm pretty sure it does not. At what point of the game are you? And where are you quitting the game from. And where did you last saved too I guess.

[Armagon]

2 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

I'm pretty sure it does not. At what point of the game are you? And where are you quitting the game from. And where did you last saved too I guess.

Last i saved was in Zora's Domain, on my way to Jabu Jabu.

I'm playing 3DS fyi.

Edited January 5, 2023 by Armagon

[Acacia Sgt]

13 minutes ago, Armagon said:

Last i saved was in Zora's Domain, on my way to Jabu Jabu.

I'm playing 3DS fyi.

Curious, had never heard of that happening before.

[Lightcosmo]

Why are we having FE wars about equality? We are SUPPOSED to be having Trails CS wars! And Xeno postings! And cute witches! Xd

[Dayni]

Memory, all alone in the moon light

3 minutes ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

Classic, although I slightly prefer the Secret Palpatine version due to the option Darth Jar-Jar rules.

The link.

2 minutes ago, Shrimpy -Limited Edition- said:

Rhea did nothing wrong.

Edelgard did everything wrong

In engaging in the discourse we are bringing it back.

2 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Sorry! When Rome sneezed, the surrounding world noticed. When Pictland sneezed, did anyone outside of the Isles of Britain and Ireland and Others notice?

Sure I could probably be tragically-amused by another country's dysfunction, I did like witnessing Brexit from afar when it caught everyone's attention, but I don't usually know where that dysfunction is or how to follow it.

I'd say some remarks have been coming from DC, even if they're not the priority internally the US does have some image interest in NI due to being part of the public push towards the GFA and peace brokered 25 years ago.

And then I wrote a fair bit here, on a topic I could have done a better brushing up on. Sorry!

Spoiler

This has been going on for nearly a year (since the dissolution of the previous assembly in early 2022). And as to Brexit, that's part of the (public) reason for it!

What's going on in NI is that after the last election the largest of the Unionist parties (DUP) outright said they wouldn't partake in forming a government so long as the NI Protocol (which was made as a fallback of a fallback from the Brexit negotiations and resulted in a trade barrier emerging for goods going between GB and NI) wasn't wound down. Considering that ministers from that party were willing to unilaterally and illegally act to impede the functioning of checks in NI, they've stuck by that since. There's a fair amount of hot air on this but it was written in the way it was to preserve the GFA and related documents while also keeping Brexit as close to it's present form. So there's been a lot of arguing about all this, but the contradiction Brexit raised means one of the following had to be changed: a harddline Brexit, the NI-GB customs or the border between NI and RoI.

So when the assembly election came and went the DUP found themselves in a position where they could have put themselves in positions of power and maybe influenced matters, but they insisted that so long as the protocol stood at all they wouldn't be a part of it. Because they have as many seats as they do and because of rules for the forming of the government this left the NI assembly unformable when they decided against electing a speaker to the assembly (which would be the precursor to the Assembly as a whole appointing an executive). There's a bit I put in brackets on the Assembly and recent history, just putting it in spoilers now because it's a paragraph long.

Spoiler

(There's a mandate on the largest party of nationalist and unionist communities to form said government. It is an uncomfortable situation but one what has been able to work somewhat. Though some would be quick to remind me of how things went in 2017, where SF held up the Assembly for three years over a combination of the leader of the DUP being brought up for a scheme she'd set up as a minister that ended up giving people money for heating to the point accusations of fraud came up and several policies being pushed back against by the DUP, though that election was pushed after the then leader of the party's poor health deteriorated, though he did resign after the scandal emerged).

There's also another point to come back to. Remember when I said the DUP was the largest Unionist party? Well, up until last year's election they were the largest party. That matters as that meant the party could take the First Minister position. The DUP have held onto it since they first got it in the 2000s, but more significantly in the last election they lost the largest party moniker to SF. The symbolic image of a nationalist sitting in that seat rankles for leadership in the party, no matter the fact the deputy First Minister position is supposed to functionally be the same in terms of powers. And while it could be argued Unionism has more seats as a whole, it's all tight margins and the DUP getting more seats would require them to get other Unionists to side with them. And the fact none of this has happened or even been suggested was happening in secret in the last year tells me there's no interest in doing so.

Admittedly, I'm not an impartial view on this. It seems to me Brexiteers as a whole were barely interested in NI on a good day, while some political unionists were all too willing to go for Brexit in the hopes of potentially forcing a hard border between RoI and NI, with a fair bit of posing about with paramilitaries or adjacent groups. Much of the posturing from both isn't done in good faith. And I am putting things somewhat basically here (Fallback of a fallback anyone?).

I guess my point is I found it less funny to laugh about across the Atlantic on thinking about matters close by and how at least they're not walking away with money in pocket while acting out (from their day job at least, I doubt any of them are destitute at the moment).

I have also not mentioned to now how the UK government set a deadline for formation that was expired, but they technically left themselves an extension on the date that pushed it back and so far we haven't heard a date be made, but it should be coming in the next few months. Should being the operative word.

13 minutes ago, Armagon said:

The main girls are basically the same, Riki has a Stand unironically.

Idk about the rest, we only had three people when we played so we couldn't figure out how the other non-existent boyfriend plays and we finished our session when we unlocked Marian.

  Well, with three of you playing can you rotate to the other three?

I'm assuming not if you've been spending on improving your three already.

1 minute ago, Armagon said:

Last i saved was in Zora's Domain, on my way to Jabu Jabu.

I'm playing 3DS fyi.

OoT does have specific places it leaves you when you save and quit (Adult Link is the Temple of Time, Link's house as a kid and the dungeon if you're in one) and I think that's true of the remake too.

1 minute ago, lightcosmo said:

We are SUPPOSED to be having Trails CS wars! And Xeno postings! And cute witches! Xd

That is a 0% of my posting 😛

[Lightcosmo]

Just now, Punished Dayni said:

That is a 0% of my posting

...foiled already...

Ah well, i'll just pretend I never said that while not editing the post so its clear I said it along with your quote quoting me! Xd

[Armagon]

2 minutes ago, Punished Dayni said:

I'm assuming not if you've been spending on improving your three already.

I live the farthest from my friends and three of our schedules just happened to align yesterday.

I know there's online but only one of us has the game at the moment.

[Acacia Sgt]

7 minutes ago, lightcosmo said:

Why are we having FE wars about equality? We are SUPPOSED to be having Trails CS wars! And Xeno postings! And cute witches! Xd

Because the dead horse is never beaten enough.

[Benice]

7 hours ago, Armagon said:

Nah cause Xenoblade 2 similarly got hit with constraints but all the countries in the game are represented and explored upon.

Well, in terms of "not ready to release but releasing anyways", there's a pretty broad spectrum. You could be full-on Cyberpunk 2077, or you can still put together a game that is balanced, performs well, and has lots of content. Three Houses, to me, is way closer to Cyberpunk in that regard.

Again, I think very little of TH's narrative, but I really do think that given their (admittedly feeble) attempt to do a good job with Almyra and explore conflicts between heritage and allegiance, I'm quite confident they'd have liked to have properly explored the other countries at least a little more than they did, even if that mostly meant giving them one or two visually distinct maps.

...Okay, there's really a lot I'm sure the Three Houses devs would have liked to include. But the overall point remains the same in terms of "Three Houses not polished game".

7 hours ago, Armagon said:

It also just..... completely depends on the tone of the story too. Most Atelier characters would be classified as peasants but do we really need to see them suffer through daily life?

Pretty much, yeah. You can tell any number of vastly different stories all in one setting.

6 hours ago, Edelguardiansing said:

You have a point but personally I believe that when a story offers a lens of any kind to a certain issue it opens itself to criticism on that lens. Lord of The Rings is a perfect example of what you're talking about, it's a fantasy story with a romanticized ideal of lords and peasants but still manages to tell a gripping and complicated story without it bringing up the implications of the class distinctions.

Yes, and this is because The Lord of the Rings is good.

6 hours ago, Edelguardiansing said:

Fire Emblem on the other hand wants to have it both ways, they want to have that romanticism of lords and surfs fighting together as if the class segregation never existed in the first place while also acknowledging that there is class segregation every once in a while, presumably to show off how "realistic" and "gritty" Fire Emblem is even though the story makes little time to actually explore that dynamic.

Yes, and this is because Three Houses is bad.

To not be facetious for a moment, if you look at the stories of Fire Emblem... They're pretty much never about the common people. They're about kingdoms, empires, armies and wars. Taking Sacred Stones, for example: It has several characters who are anti-nobility or who have been hurt by the upper class in a personal way, yet what the core story is about is acceptance, friendship and the toll a desire for power takes on those we hold dear. As part of the greater subject of War, its effect on the general population is touched on and is used as part of the game's anti-war message. Does Sacred Stones do much with the peasant/noble class divide? Not really, but it uses it well enough to serve its themes and bring in a moment to think about that, even if it's not the point of the entire narrative.

Also, I hate to be that guy and I know I'm a terrible person, but they're serfs, not surfs. Unless they're a peasant version of the Beach Boys.

6 hours ago, Edelguardiansing said:

Fire Emblem's lens on the subject pretty much boils down to "Commoners think nobles are snobs" and "Nobles think commoners are improper" with the proposed solution being "They should just be nicer to each other" and that deserves critique.

I don't disagree about your whole point, but for the most part, Commoner/Noble is a very minor part of the series. Furthermore, you might often find that when you boil anything down enough, it loses its shimmer and becomes a pile of slop sitting alone on the plate, when in context, it is far more beautiful than its boiled counterpart. Sometimes things are boiled so much that they don't even fully represent what was originally there. FE typically doesn't do much to dress up that part of its metaphorical meal, and you're probably right that the potatoes of class divide are, in fact, undercooked, but the small role they play still contributes to the overall dish's composition and flavour.

(I also haven't played every route of TH so maybe it actually does a good job in some of the routes.)

I must say, though, matey, if you get the opportunity to take a Literature course, I'd suggest that to you because you might really enjoy it. I never thought I'd become one of those "but themes" snobs, but hey, here I am! I've actually quite enjoyed learning about proper literary analysis, even if I still suck at it.

27 minutes ago, lightcosmo said:

Why are we having FE wars about equality? We are SUPPOSED to be having Trails CS wars!

Oops

Uh, short hair Josette good.

Edited January 5, 2023 by Benice

[Acacia Sgt]

2 minutes ago, Benice said:

Uh, short hair Josette good.

 

[Benice]

Yay, Canada made it to the Gold medal game at the IIHF! Hope the Czechs don't knock us off twice in a row, though...

7 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

 

No, Acacia, not you too!

[Acacia Sgt]

Just now, Benice said:

No, Acacia, not you too!

Sorry, but when both designs exist, I tend to prefer long-haired.

I even try to go as far without a haircut as I can myself.

[GuardianSing]

1 hour ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Yes. Anytime it's brought up, it's always about "nobles are dicks". And the the fact nice nobles was "nice" nobles, because it was referring to nobles, not the system in that statement. So as in, saying it's 100% green and refuse to entertain the idea it could not be 100%, if I can continue my painting allegory. Which is even more wrong than saying it's 75.4%.

Think about it this way, if a person was being racist they probably could be propped up on a scale of how racist they were, but regardless of where they fit on a scale you'd still tell them to stop being racist! You're either a racist or you're not a racist, it doesn't matter how "nice" one might be

2 hours ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Sure, a "nice" one would remain so, but an actual nice one would stop being one due to the very nature of being nice would mean they'd set them free.

So you're telling me...that to be a nice noble...you have to...not be a noble?

2 hours ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Uh, you just contradicted yourself there. You spoke precisely why it's the people that is the problem. At least, the bigger problem of the two.

No I explicitly stated that it's systems that create terrible people, not the other way around. I critique those of high power because even though they are products of that same system, they have the power to break out of it, a power that us down here don't have much of, and yet they choose not to.

I will concede though that I was wrong and Kadeth is right, it really is a mix of both.

1 hour ago, Acacia Sgt said:

I wasn't intending it to come off that way, so I apologize if it did. Hence why I spoke things like "change/fix first, then replace", when it comes to the systems. Still, aren't the systems made by the people to begin with? So it is indeed people first, system second if we have to put a priority list over problems to solve. Since the system can be fixable if people change the way they make use of it, but in the end we must upgrade to a better systems... which once again comes down to how people design it, then make use of it.

That's not entirely how it works, a man didn't wake up one morning in Uruk and think "Alright time to create an awful class segregated society" like all societies, they grow gradually overtime and when there are faults in the system they never have such a clear and cut solution.

2 hours ago, Acacia Sgt said:

As it is, I believe that by ensuring people can be better means we can fix the faulty system before designing a better system to replace it with. Would it better to just aim for the better system right off the bat? Perhaps. Though I also think we must salvage first before discarding. Specially since it can serve as the base for the upgrade.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them"

1 hour ago, Armagon said:

In an ideal world, that would be the solution tbh.

I know, but it is unfortunately not an ideal world but we're hoping to make one by having discussions like this.

2 hours ago, Armagon said:

Honestly it's hard to know for sure because all we got are written records and we're going off of today's standards+the fact that humanity is extremely hard carried by modern knowledge and tech anyways. 50% of the source of shitty life back then was because humans are F-tier in everything that isn't intelligence. Even if you were a noble, if you got cut during your sword training, 50/50 chance it infects and you die within the week.

Tl;dr life was shit but arguably moreso because of our own biology than the systems in place tbh.

Tell that to the several million peasants who died building the Great Wall while the Emperor watched and directed.

Or better yet, tell that to the several billion lower class people who die everyday because they can't afford better standards of living.

49 minutes ago, Benice said:

To not be facetious for a moment, if you look at the stories of Fire Emblem... They're pretty much never about the common people. They're about kingdoms, empires, armies and wars. Taking Sacred Stones, for example: It has several characters who are anti-nobility or who have been hurt by the upper class in a personal way, yet what the core story is about is acceptance, friendship and the toll a desire for power takes on those we hold dear. As part of the greater subject of War, its effect on the general population is touched on and is used as part of the game's anti-war message. Does Sacred Stones do much with the peasant/noble class divide? Not really, but it uses it well enough to serve its themes and bring in a moment to think about that, even if it's not the point of the entire narrative.

I was gonna bring Sacred Stones up actually. I feel like that story does a good job of not over-glorifying the royals which is why it doesn't feel so weird when certain class issues are brought up, and overall it's not a very complicated narrative so the simplistic nature of it doesn't feel off.

Three houses on the other hand feels like it pretends that it's lens is super complex and complicated when it really isn't.

53 minutes ago, Benice said:

Also, I hate to be that guy and I know I'm a terrible person, but they're serfs, not surfs. Unless they're a peasant version of the Beach Boys.

Yeaaah, that's just my dyslexia talking.

Or I guess, seeing.

54 minutes ago, Benice said:

I must say, though, matey, if you get the opportunity to take a Literature course, I'd suggest that to you because you might really enjoy it. I never thought I'd become one of those "but themes" snobs, but hey, here I am! I've actually quite enjoyed learning about proper literary analysis, even if I still suck at it.

Welcome to the club! I've always wanted to take a literature course but I could never afford something like that so I'm mostly self-taught albeit having lots of advice from my older brother who's cut much from the same cloth.

And don't worry about being a literary snob or whatever. Personally I think "The curtains are just blue" and "Let people enjoy things" mentalities are one of the worst things to happen on the internet just because of how often they are used to dismiss any kind of literary analysis.

 

[Benice]

10 minutes ago, Edelguardiansing said:

Yeaaah, that's just my dyslexia talking.

Or I guess, seeing.

tbh I think it's just me being a prick.

10 minutes ago, Edelguardiansing said:

Three houses on the other hand feels like it pretends that it's lens is super complex and complicated when it really isn't.

Hard for me to say since I only played one route, I admit. It could be the game's speed that brings out narrative weaknesses at some parts; after all, you can't really tell what the point of something is if you only play the first bit, but with how long Three Houses takes... Golly is it hard not to.

12 minutes ago, Edelguardiansing said:

I've always wanted to take a literature course but I could never afford something like that

Oof... I wish I could, like, transport you to here so you could be in my AP English class, I'm certain you'd bring an indelible sparkle to the class.

Regardless, I hope the opportunity comes up for you someday in the near future.

16 minutes ago, Edelguardiansing said:

Personally I think "The curtains are just blue" and "Let people enjoy things" mentalities are one of the worst things to happen on the internet just because of how often they are used to dismiss any kind of literary analysis.

Yeah, you're right, those kinds of people are the wor-

On 5/25/2020 at 9:05 PM, Benice said:

I think people read too much into fitting with the theme of the plot

I am a moron.

Teehee.

1 hour ago, Acacia Sgt said:

I even try to go as far without a haircut as I can myself.

Based, tbh.

[Acacia Sgt]

1 hour ago, Edelguardiansing said:

Think about it this way, if a person was being racist they probably could be propped up on a scale of how racist they were, but regardless of where they fit on a scale you'd still tell them to stop being racist! You're either a racist or you're not a racist, it doesn't matter how "nice" one might be

Except in this case you're saying absolute everyone is racist, if we stick to the allegory. Since you can't even seem to word the concept that a noble can be a nice individual. So then you don't believe a president can be nice? Governors, CEO's, People in any position of authority? Because it's not something that is unique to Nobles. Rather, to any equivalent counterpart since, again, our systems haven't really changed. We just mostly changed the labels.

Quote

So you're telling me...that to be a nice noble...you have to...not be a noble?

No. Since Slaver =/= Noble. Nobles can be Slavers if the society allows for Slavery, but they aren't inherently one.

Quote

No I explicitly stated that it's systems that create terrible people, not the other way around. I critique those of high power because even though they are products of that same system, they have the power to break out of it, a power that us down here don't have much of, and yet they choose not to.

I will concede though that I was wrong and Kadeth is right, it really is a mix of both.

And how do you think those systems come to be, if not by the people? Terrible people create a terrible system, or corrupt a system enough to become terrible, and that can produce more terrible people in a vicious cycle. The corrupted systems don't sprout from the ether. And absolutely, they become complicit when they can fix it, but then don't do it.

So yes, it involves both, but it's not a Chicken or Egg situation. One did come first.

Quote

That's not entirely how it works, a man didn't wake up one morning in Uruk and think "Alright time to create an awful class segregated society" like all societies, they grow gradually overtime and when there are faults in the system they never have such a clear and cut solution.

Perhaps not, but the thought was probably more in the likes, "how can I change society to place myself at the top and/or get more benefits out of it, even if it becomes awful to everyone else?" Exactly. The system becomes so because of the person, it doesn't corrupt itself or comes inherently corrupted. Since even if it was corrupted at the beginning, it's usually because someone created it that way.

If a person starts having thoughts of corrupting a system, would you blame the system for "provoking" them?

Quote

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them"

Exactly, you get it! If a problem arises, it's a sign something went wrong. Ideally, we should then seek the way to fix it and ensure it doesn't happen again. If it means changing a paradigm, so be it. Unfortunately, people can also decide to 'exploit the bug', as it were.

Edited January 5, 2023 by Acacia Sgt