David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Wed Mar 20 2019 12:33pm
by legalize freedom
For background, see the David's Classes thread.
https://forums.shiningforcecentral.com/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=44307

It has really come down to what his starting class will be.
Now it's time to decide!

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Sun Mar 24 2019 6:32pm
by Maeths
I would say Ranger is an appropriate starting class... unless you want to allude even more to the bible and make it something like "underdog". :P

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Mon Mar 25 2019 12:28am
by Hattari
Fighter would be so misleading as a class. Imagine someone playing this for the first time and seeing that - they might reasonably think "oh, cool, I'm gonna buy him an axe or something" - only to realize he can't equip any close range melee weapons. Could be confusing; I know I'd be disappointed.

In comparison... with Ranger, someone can logically put two-and-two together to figure out his options. That's what a friend of mine and I did.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Mon Mar 25 2019 5:34pm
by Kalkano
Hattari wrote:Fighter would be so misleading as a class. Imagine someone playing this for the first time and seeing that - they might reasonably think "oh, cool, I'm gonna buy him an axe or something" - only to realize he can't equip any close range melee weapons. Could be confusing; I know I'd be disappointed.

In comparison... with Ranger, someone can logically put two-and-two together to figure out his options. That's what a friend of mine and I did.


Actually, I'd imagine a "Fighter" would fight with his bare fists, even though Fire Emblem Fighters are as you described.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Mon Mar 25 2019 6:34pm
by legalize freedom
Hattari wrote:Fighter would be so misleading as a class. Imagine someone playing this for the first time and seeing that - they might reasonably think "oh, cool, I'm gonna buy him an axe or something" - only to realize he can't equip any close range melee weapons. Could be confusing; I know I'd be disappointed.

In comparison... with Ranger, someone can logically put two-and-two together to figure out his options. That's what a friend of mine and I did.


I might argue anyone playing for the first time will be buying everyone wrong weapons until they learn.

I think the difference is the perception of Fighter is more established in common knowledge and from many sources which makes it a more difficult class to establish differently from those perceptions. That should certainly be considered when voting.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Tue Mar 26 2019 10:36pm
by Hattari
Kalkano wrote:Actually, I'd imagine a "Fighter" would fight with his bare fists, even though Fire Emblem Fighters are as you described.

That's fair. The only reason I wouldn't make that connection in this case is due to the monk class being the typical hand-to-hand type in Shining Force, but it's not a huge stretch to assume some would. Especially considering everyone isn't as entrenched in this series as the folks here.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Fri Mar 29 2019 6:27pm
by legalize freedom
Well, that was unintended. I wanted to add Hunter to the poll, but it wiped the votes.

Sorry about that! :(

It looks like everyone will need to vote again.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Tue Apr 02 2019 6:58pm
by Tor_Heyerdal
The way I see it, the English releases of Shining Force titles are a series of convention. "Ranger" was established in Shining convention as being a class that belongs strictly to centaur archers. As such, I find it wholly inappropriate that David--a non-centaur and non-archer--should be given this class. I've always found it inappropriate and have long since assumed that if Scenario 2 were ever localized into English, they would have changed that for the English release to stay in line with the conventions established by the previous English releases.

"Ranger" does make sense from a strictly semantic perspective, but from the perspective of established convention within this series, it does not fit at all. It would be no different then giving the class of "Warrior" or "Archer" to a centaur. Ya just don't do that in SF. Even if the centaur in question is, in fact, a warrior or an archer from a semantic perspective.

I agree with the protestations regarding "fighter", but I think "hunter" would make a great fit. We were discussing this just last night in the Shining Fanwork Discord group, and one person suggested "Woodsman", which I think could also work quite nicely.

I really hope that you'll adhere to the established SF English convention and change David's class, moving "Ranger" to Justin (EDIT: Seeing as Justin starts out promoted to begin with, maybe not Justin, but it could certainly be applied to Waltz). But regardless of what you end up doing, I will absolutely be making this change in my 16-bit remake, and I'm tremendously grateful for the suggestion of "Hunter", as I think that that works so well, and I've been looking for an alternative for quite some time.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Tue Apr 02 2019 11:32pm
by Hattari
I'm cool with either Ranger or Hunter.

Tor_Heyerdal wrote:The way I see it, the English releases of Shining Force titles are a series of convention. "Ranger" was established in Shining convention as being a class that belongs strictly to centaur archers. As such, I find it wholly inappropriate that David--a non-centaur and non-archer--should be given this class. I've always found it inappropriate and have long since assumed that if Scenario 2 were ever localized into English, they would have changed that for the English release to stay in line with the conventions established by the previous English releases.


I'm not sure how "conventional" you consider this series to be, but you seem a little close-minded on the subject. Consider: the localization of SF3 - if we're holding the English releases as the standard - changed many names that had been used previously, from Egress(Return) and the Robin Arrow(Fairie Bow) to the Turbo Pepper (Nimble Onion) and Bolt (Spark). Even the Hero class was dropped.

On the subject of centaurs: Lyle from SF1 wasn't a Ranger. Even if he was, I don't see the logic in prohibiting anyone who isn't a centaur from holding a certain class, provided they can meet the essential prerequisites of that class. For example, if a non-centaur proved capable of wielding a lance effectively, they would be worthy of the knight class. The thing is, only centaurs and pegasi use lances in every SF, without exception.

While it's true David doesn't use arrows, he can attack from a range with all his available weapons. He's the first and only character of his kind in a SF, so I think it's a bit reasonable to treat him as an exception of sorts.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Wed Apr 03 2019 12:54am
by Tor_Heyerdal
I'm not sure how "conventional" you consider this series to be, but you seem a little close-minded on the subject.

I consider this series to be extremely conventional. And you're damn right I'm closed-minded on the subject. I'm not at all open to breaking convention in a conventional series which I hold closer to myself than any other series. It would be like making Spiderman yellow. You just don't do it... even if it would actually look pretty cool.

Consider: the localization of SF3 - if we're holding the English releases as the standard - changed many names that had been used previously, from Egress(Return) and the Robin Arrow(Fairie Bow) to the Turbo Pepper (Nimble Onion) and Bolt (Spark). Even the Hero class was dropped.

All of which I take umbrage with. They really dropped the ball with SF3's localization. And all of these things are being fixed (because yes, they are broken) in my remake.

On the subject of centaurs: Lyle from SF1 wasn't a Ranger.

SF1 was still figuring itself out and didn't set that particular convention. Had they maintained Lyle's class titles for SF2, SFG, and SFCD, then I would maintain that they ought to remain through SF3. But SF2, SFG, and SFCD clearly defined a convention. It's one thing for something that was never established as convention to be changed. But when something is established as convention, you don't mess with it.

Even if he was, I don't see the logic in prohibiting anyone who isn't a centaur from holding a certain class, provided they can meet the essential prerequisites of that class. For example, if a non-centaur proved capable of wielding a lance effectively, they would be worthy of the knight class. The thing is, only centaurs and pegasi use lances in every SF, without exception.

Well, I sure do. Equippable weapons are not the only piece of data that goes into the application of a class label in Shining Force, and they never have been. Equippable weapons are considered for the application of a class label, but for many classes, so is race. This is very firmly established in the SF series, and to deny that is... well... to be in denial. Warriors are only ever dwarves. Knights and Rangers are only ever centaurs. If some non-centaur character is able to use lances, I would not consider that enough to validate the application of the "Knight" label to that character. He would need some new class label. Using a lance is not the only "essential prerequisite" of a Knight. Being a centaur is absolutely another "essential prerequisite".

While it's true David doesn't use arrows, he can attack from a range with all his available weapons

If that's the only data point that's worthy of consideration, then why not just call him an Archer? Archers attack from range with all of their available weapons. For that matter, why even have a Ranger class at all, even in SF2, SFG, or SFCD? Why not just call May an Archer? She uses an Archer's weapons, after all. So by your logic above, that's what they should've done. But in reality, race matters for class labels in this franchise.

He's the first and only character of his kind in a SF, so I think it's a bit reasonable to treat him as an exception of sorts.

Agreed. All the more reason to give him his own unique class label.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Wed Apr 03 2019 1:31am
by knight0fdragon
Hattari wrote:I'm not sure how "conventional" you consider this series to be, but you seem a little close-minded on the subject. Consider: the localization of SF3 - if we're holding the English releases as the standard - changed many names that had been used previously, from Egress(Return) and the Robin Arrow(Fairie Bow) to the Turbo Pepper (Nimble Onion) and Bolt (Spark). Even the Hero class was dropped.



This is not the same comparison. "Ranger" is already established in the Shining Force world as Centaur Archers. Everything you have listed is not replacing anything else already in the lore. This would be the same as saying Spiriel is a Knight, when we know that Knights belong to Centaurs as well.

Making David a "Ranger" would essentialy force pages like https://shining.fandom.com/wiki/Ranger to change (Pretending that we were acting as the authority on SF3 of course)



You know, since we are talking about weapons not making the class, this has got me thinking, why is David not a Commander/General? How is he any different than Edmund, Produn, Spirial, or Rogan?

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Wed Apr 03 2019 12:51pm
by legalize freedom
While I appreciate the conventions, race and class are two separate things. Granted MOST knights are centaurs, but I don't think it's set in stone that every knight must be a centaur. Some classes are certainly tied to race such as Birdsolidier and so it's easy to assume the same for others. Where it did blur quite a bit for me is when Innovators and Vandals are called races, which I believe them to be classes personally. There are also a lot of unique ones in SF3.

I believe any magical jellyfish can become a mage who is almost as good as an elf.

Spiriel's White Knights aren't centaurs.

Uryudo is a hobbit. Grace is a kyantol. Isabella is human (while not called a cleric, she would be if she weren't royalty).

Rock is a beastman, Horst is a half beastman and they are both warriors.

For a couple of examples of multiple races as the same classes.

I personally believe the "right" answer is to change Waltz and Justin's first class (currently Archer Knight) to Ranger to match the convention and decide on the best fit for David (which would also fix Waltz's long bar early in the game). I usually leave my personal feelings out of it for these decisions, but this one seems easy now that we have tossed it around for a bit.

BTW, the votes are flexible. Anyone can change their vote based on new information or perspectives.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Wed Apr 03 2019 6:57pm
by Tor_Heyerdal
While I appreciate the conventions, race and class are two separate things.

No one claimed otherwise. To say that race is an important factor that goes into the consideration of a class label is not to say that race and class are the same thing.

Granted MOST knights are centaurs,

No, ALL knights are centaurs. I challenge you to name ONE knight who isn't a centaur.

but I don't think it's set in stone that every knight must be a centaur.

Given that across all ten different titles, 100% of knights are centaurs, I'm inclined to powerfully disagree.

Some classes are certainly tied to race such as Birdsolidier and so it's easy to assume the same for others.

It's important to note that I didn't actually claim that all classes are tied to race. Some classes aren't. It's also important to note that there are racial groups for this purpose, as I'll get into below.

Where it did blur quite a bit for me is when Innovators and Vandals are called races, which I believe them to be classes personally.

Yeah, no, Innovators and Vandals are races, to the best of my understanding. But perhaps someone with a greater understanding could provide details as to why this isn't true, if it's not true.

There are also a lot of unique ones in SF3.

Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting, but it does seem like the implication you're making here is that because not everyone of X race is Y class that goes with that race, not everyone of Y class needs to be of X race. If that's what you're saying here, then I strongly disagree. If that's not what you're saying here, then I don't see your point.

I believe any magical jellyfish can become a mage who is almost as good as an elf.

Nonsense. Magical Jellyfish can't just stop being jellyfish... I mean... unless maybe some magical thing turns them into an elf or something....

Spiriel's White Knights aren't centaurs.

Spiriel's White Knights do not have classes. They are not playable characters. You never actually see what their classes are because they do not, in fact, have classes. This is a nonsequitur and a moot point. In their case, "white knight" is a title, not a class. What does it promote to? What does it promote from? It's not a class.

Uryudo is a hobbit. Grace is a kyantol. Isabella is human (while not called a cleric, she would be if she weren't royalty).

Rock is a beastman, Horst is a half beastman and they are both warriors.

Hobbits and other dwarf-like races have always been part of the cleric racial group (think Lowe, Torasu, etc.). Kyantols have always been casters one way or the other. Humans, too, have always been part of the cleric racial group (which does seem to be a lot larger than most other racial class groups). I always thought Rock and Horst were both dwarves, but I guess I can accept that Rock, at least, is a beastman. Though I have a great deal of trouble accepting that Horst is a beastman. But nevertheless, accepting in beastmen as part of the racial class group for Warriors is not that big of a stretch.

For a couple of examples of multiple races as the same classes.

Like I said, no one ever said that there's no such thing as a class that can have more than one race. We (or at least I) said that this applies for many classes, not all classes. Although, admittedly, perhaps I should've said some rather than many. But nevertheless. Knight and Ranger are two such examples. Although, granted, Ranger is the weaker example as it has a FAR smaller corpus of supporting examples.

I personally believe the "right" answer is to change Waltz and Justin's first class (currently Archer Knight) to Ranger to match the convention and decide on the best fit for David (which would also fix Waltz's long bar early in the game). I usually leave my personal feelings out of it for these decisions, but this one seems easy now that we have tossed it around for a bit.

This paragraph strikes me as a markedly out-of-nowhere contradiction to everything you've just said. lol. I mean, I completely agree with it, but the rest of your post has been arguing against the existence of any convention, but now here you're accepting it as a thing. lol. I guess I have no argument to be made here, since I absolutely 100% agree, but the 180 really bamboozles me. xDDDD
EDIT: Oh, and because Justin actually starts out promoted, this would really only apply to Waltz's first class.

BTW, the votes are flexible. Anyone can change their vote based on new information or perspectives

Yo, I wouldn't even change my vote to save Garosh. lol. But this is a good thing for people to know, so thanks for pointing that out.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Wed Apr 03 2019 7:50pm
by knight0fdragon
Spiriel's troops are White Lords, not White Knights. This is a translation problem. ホワイトロード = white lord. ホワイトナイト = white knight


I did find an example of a bipedal Knight, the Steam Knight. So if we want to keep Ranger, we would need to tag it with something like Elf Ranger or Forest Ranger or something.

Does anybody have the katakana for David? Does it match the katakana for May?

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Wed Apr 03 2019 7:56pm
by Rune
Insisting on following conventions because they are conventions is a surefire way to do something stupid.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Wed Apr 03 2019 9:16pm
by Tor_Heyerdal
Insisting on following conventions because they are conventions is a surefire way to do something stupid.

Not because of the fact that they're conventions in and of itself. Because they're conventions that contribute towards forming the identity of this franchise. Because they're conventions that contribute towards making this franchise so endearing and familiar. Because they're conventions that make Shining Force what it is (among other things). And because they're conventions surrounding a game that I hold so near and dear to my heart (and, presumably, so do the rest of you, or y'all wouldn't be here, which is why I find the results of this poll so staggering; I can't comprehend how you would all vote against what you supposedly love so dearly). Foregoing these critical conventions (among others) is how we end up with Shining Force Neo, and other such 'non-Shining' Shining titles. Hell, even The Forbidden Series isn't what it used to be for the same reason of throwing convention to the wind. Breaking convention, and abandoning things that make a franchise what it is, is a surefire way to do something stupid by betraying the identity of your franchise. Insisting that conventions shouldn't be followed solely on the basis that they are, in fact, conventions, is how we end up with yellow Spiderman, pink Sonic, or Chinese Mario without any explanation or canonical cause. And while any of those things could potentially be seen as cool when removed from their original context, they're all wrong.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Wed Apr 03 2019 11:19pm
by legalize freedom
I'm only interested in achieving the best possible solution. That involves everyone adding their ideas to the conversation and to hopefully build consensus.

Good ideas don't require loud voices.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Thu Apr 04 2019 12:28pm
by Rune
Tor_Heyerdal wrote:
Granted MOST knights are centaurs,

No, ALL knights are centaurs. I challenge you to name ONE knight who isn't a centaur.


Various characters (including the main) in SITD are called knights, Guntz is a steam knight, Kokichi is a wing knight, Knight the enemy is a chess piece, various characters in Shining Wisdom (including the main) are called knights, Basso is a dragon knight, and Lisa is a paladin (I mention this as this is the promoted class for all centaur knights).


So there you go, Lisa is an existing example of a class commonly associated to one race and weapon type going to a different race and weapon type.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Thu Apr 04 2019 3:44pm
by knight0fdragon
Rune wrote:
Tor_Heyerdal wrote:
Granted MOST knights are centaurs,

No, ALL knights are centaurs. I challenge you to name ONE knight who isn't a centaur.


Various characters (including the main) in SITD are called knights, Guntz is a steam knight, Kokichi is a wing knight, Knight the enemy is a chess piece, various characters in Shining Wisdom (including the main) are called knights, Basso is a dragon knight, and Lisa is a paladin (I mention this as this is the promoted class for all centaur knights).

So there you go, Lisa is an existing example of a class commonly associated to one race and weapon type going to a different race and weapon type.


SITD and SF1 cannot be used as good references to what we consider established classes because they had no idea what they were trying to determine what a "class" means. This is why Lyle is the only assault knight.

"Knight" as a chess piece does not work because that is his title/name, not class.



Shining Wisdom is a working designs translation, and they have been known to deviate from the original source time and time again.

Lisa is a Paladin by name only, she has absolutely nothing that pertains to what a "Paladin" is in the Force world.

We are left with Basso and Ratchet, who are not Knights, but (Prefix) Knights, which goes back to my last comment that perhaps David should be (Prefix) Ranger

Here is the thing we are all forgetting. Class pertains to what weapons a person can equip (Excluding the Commander/General and Lisa.) Can anybody name 2 characters of the exact same class that can't equip the exact same weapons?. If not, then Rangers can equip bows, David cannot equip bows, there-fore David cannot be a "Ranger".

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Thu Apr 04 2019 6:18pm
by Rune
(Prefix) Ranger just looks awful. It works with the various knights, but otherwise is just awful. I am not forgetting that class dictates equipment, I am explicitly disagreeing with that statement. It is probably true that in each game, a given class dictated the equipment, but classes are not uniform across the different games. Since there is no other "ranger" in SF3 (correct?), there is no contradiction in David being a ranger. If you want an additional example of classes being inconsistent across the games, take the warrior class; in sf1 they can equip the starting swords, but in the other games they are forced to use only axes.

The Working Designs comment makes little sense. They used the term "knight", because it has an established meaning in English. You are arguing that we must use a considerably more restrictive definition, and one that has not been used consistently throughout the series.

I don't understand your argument about Lisa. It's the same thing we're arguing with David, as such it must be wrong?



As for a possible example of two classes in the same game having different equipment, but a really stupid example... Do Penn and Penko have the same starting class and can they swap starting beaks? I do not know, myself.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Thu Apr 04 2019 6:31pm
by legalize freedom
knight0fdragon wrote:Spiriel's troops are White Lords, not White Knights. This is a translation problem. ホワイトロード = white lord. ホワイトナイト = white knight


I don't consider this a translation problem as much as a they-named-them-wrong problem. I don't think the literal translation works very well in English... which happens.

They are certainly not lords in the SF3 sense. That would be a civilian steward of land of some sort.

In a military sense there are Wing/Sky Lords, but I consider the intent different. As in lord of the skies.

It is quite odd that a non-centaur (or non-mounted unit) would use a lance in combat, but I guess it relates to a spearman of sorts.

But I agree this example is questionable for translation reasons.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Thu Apr 04 2019 6:43pm
by Rune
Yes, it doesn't make much sense for a non-mounted unit to use a lance. It is specifically a weapon meant for cavalry. However, there's plenty of pole arms meant for soldiers on foot.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Thu Apr 04 2019 6:58pm
by legalize freedom
Maybe the perspective we should be focusing on is:

Are Waltz and Justin Rangers?

Take David out of the equation for a moment and imagine the question is if we should change Waltz's first class from Archer Knight to Ranger to match with the rest of the series. I would expect pretty much unanimous support. In fact, I probably wouldn't even poll it, I would probably just announce the change was made.

So if the answer to that is yes, then we need to figure out what to call David, who is unique to the series and has unique classes.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Thu Apr 04 2019 7:06pm
by Rune
While they could be Rangers if you are following conventions of race and equipment, I think Archer Knight is more fitting for the situation. Why? Because that is their class (assuming unpromoted Justin) when they are in the army. They are soldiers.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Thu Apr 04 2019 8:37pm
by Tor_Heyerdal
By that logic, they might as well change Synbios back to Soldier while they're at it.

Pretty sure they changed him to Swordsman, yes?

I don't think that the fact that they're in the army should justify such a significant vernacular shift. Army or not, it's still Shining Force.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Thu Apr 04 2019 11:20pm
by legalize freedom
Rune wrote:While they could be Rangers if you are following conventions of race and equipment, I think Archer Knight is more fitting for the situation. Why? Because that is their class (assuming unpromoted Justin) when they are in the army. They are soldiers.


I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Please elaborate.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Thu Apr 04 2019 11:46pm
by knight0fdragon
Rune wrote:(Prefix) Ranger just looks awful. It works with the various knights, but otherwise is just awful. I am not forgetting that class dictates equipment, I am explicitly disagreeing with that statement. It is probably true that in each game, a given class dictated the equipment, but classes are not uniform across the different games. Since there is no other "ranger" in SF3 (correct?), there is no contradiction in David being a ranger. If you want an additional example of classes being inconsistent across the games, take the warrior class; in sf1 they can equip the starting swords, but in the other games they are forced to use only axes.
. Again, nothing is established via SF1 so we should expect things to change. Can we find examples in Force games only (not including SF1) where a class has drastically changed?

Rune wrote:The Working Designs comment makes little sense. They used the term "knight", because it has an established meaning in English. You are arguing that we must use a considerably more restrictive definition, and one that has not been used consistently throughout the series.
"Knight" in the Force realm usually refers to a "horse" style unit and in English (not including ceremonious knights) as a "mounting" style unit, with notable exceptions of course. "Steam Knight" I can see because Ratchet is still mounting a device, so it could still be seen as a Knight, but I have nothing for Basso.



Rune wrote:I don't understand your argument about Lisa. It's the same thing we're arguing with David, as such it must be wrong?
Yes, because if we agree that Lisa is wrong, then David would also be wrong.


Rune wrote:As for a possible example of two classes in the same game having different equipment, but a really stupid example... Do Penn and Penko have the same starting class and can they swap starting beaks? I do not know, myself.
. Penn and Penko are odd balls, so I have no idea.


legalize freedom wrote:I don't consider this a translation problem as much as a they-named-them-wrong problem. I don't think the literal translation works very well in English... which happens.


Not sure why you would think this. Spiriel is a very prestigious general for the Empire, for her to have Lords under her would make perfect sense. These Lords were people who would work for a person in exchange for control of their land. Of course these lords would then lease the land to individiuals, there by having an army, but these levels of troops do not exist in SF, so I always imagined that each units HP was an individial "soldier" (Let's face it, a King would not be in a battalion of 12 grunts lol)

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Fri Apr 05 2019 11:54am
by Hattari
....Well, this is a lot to respond to. I'll do my best, so apologies for the long length. Also, I've attached a screenshot for anyone wondering that confirms David's class in the original game to be "ranger" in katakana. As it is katakana, there's no other way to translate it.

knight0fdragon wrote:This is not the same comparison. "Ranger" is already established in the Shining Force world as Centaur Archers. Everything you have listed is not replacing anything else already in the lore. This would be the same as saying Spiriel is a Knight, when we know that Knights belong to Centaurs as well.

Making David a "Ranger" would essentialy force pages like https://shining.fandom.com/wiki/Ranger to change (Pretending that we were acting as the authority on SF3 of course)

Nobody is making David a ranger. He's been one since day one. To clarify: I only mentioned scenario 1's release as a response to this contradiction: "The way I see it, the English releases of Shining Force titles are a series of convention." Also, I fail to see how one character in a main game and a few others in gaidens firmly establishes such a strict convention for the series. What I found most interesting in this discussion is the fact that neither you nor Tor mentioned the fact that David is an elf. does that not count for anything, if race or species is as vital to one's job as you're making it out to be? (I'm personally not convinced it is, and I've seen how similar thinking can set mankind's progression back in numerous ways, to get "real world" for a moment)

You know, since we are talking about weapons not making the class, this has got me thinking, why is David not a Commander/General? How is he any different than Edmund, Produn, Spirial, or Rogan?

To be fair: in the official release of scenario 2 his promoted class characters can easily be translated to Commander - the same as the 3 generals who start promoted. Any ideas as to what they would've been pre-promotion are purely hypothetical, and besides the point.


Tor_Heyerdal wrote:I'm not at all open to breaking convention in a conventional series which I hold closer to myself than any other series. It would be like making Spiderman yellow. You just don't do it... even if it would actually look pretty cool.

I apologize if this comes off disrespectfully, and I may be wrong, but it honestly seems as if you're basing series convention here on your own personal preferences, rather than what has (and hasn't) been set by the creators of said series themselves. You mentioned 10 titles in a future post, but what are those 10? For the purposes of this discussion, I'd assumed we were only considering Shining Force 1-3, and the gaidens and GBA remake if you like. (It would be more accurate to simply say I was.) To include anything else would strain an already flimsy foundation for "conventions". I'm not debating what your preferences for the series are, or if they're "right" or "wrong"; this is a wholly subjective issue and we all have a right to like things the way we like them. But the fact is, the creators of the series made these games the way they made them, and they gave these characters certain classes.

Sometimes, they change things from game to game - just look at how different SF2 is to SF1. SF3 then went on to ignore many of the changes SF2 made, while also introducing many new ideas that would ultimately go on to impact gameplay far more significantly than a party member's job status. If we focus on the three main numbered entries in the series, it is clear that the Takahashi brothers were full of ideas and consistently trying out new things and expanding what SF could be. The series wasn't particularly rigid or predetermined concerning these things, so I fail to see any reason why we should approach it as such. Obviously, there were consistencies and conventions across the games, but mostly from a narrative and gameplay mechanics standpoint. New races and species were constantly being introduced, and classes were always evolving. If it was there wish that all rangers had to be centaurs, David wouldn't have been called one, and Waltz would have. For all we know, they surmised it made more sense to call him a ranger, all things considered (he is, after all, a forest elf as well.) That part's conjecture, but they clearly had some reason for making such an intentional change. It's unfortunate that they weren't able to produce more before the fall-out and subsequent "Shining Force" titles, but I'd argue that the little we have doesn't constitute a convention regarding this particular class. Incidentally: do you know how many looks Spiderman has had over the years?


They really dropped the ball with SF3's localization. And all of these things are being fixed (because yes, they are broken) in my remake.

You're picking and choosing which localisations to follow. That's a slippery slope. If consistency and less confusion is truly the intent, we'd be better off sticking with matching the original Japanese releases as much as possible - something the SF3 translation project has generally achieved thus far.

That's cool you're working on a remake. As a personal project, I say go all out and (respectfully, hopefully) fashion it as you see fit; that's what fan projects are for. However, when it comes to translating an official release for the benefit of a worldwide audience, I think it's more fair to keep character names and titles as close to the Japanese as possible. Which for David is very clearly ranger.


Equippable weapons are not the only piece of data that goes into the application of a class label in Shining Force, and they never have been....Being a centaur is absolutely another "essential prerequisite".

Absolutely? Absolutely? I get that you're attached to this series - we all are - but do you know how that sounds? It has never been explicitly stated in any SF - please correct me if this is wrong - that all knights had to be centaurs.

While it's true David doesn't use arrows, he can attack from a range with all his available weapons

If that's the only data point that's worthy of consideration, then why not just call him an Archer?


Because (I assume) archers work exclusively with arrows and can't attack from any range. David cannot use arrows, and he is capable of attacking from 1-2 squares (3 with the right hatchet).

legalize freedom wrote:While I appreciate the conventions, race and class are two separate things. Granted MOST knights are centaurs, but I don't think it's set in stone that every knight must be a centaur. Some classes are certainly tied to race such as Birdsolidier and so it's easy to assume the same for others. Where it did blur quite a bit for me is when Innovators and Vandals are called races, which I believe them to be classes personally. There are also a lot of unique ones in SF3.

According to the game, bearers of spirit become either Vandals or Innovators based on their thoughts and desires. Based on that alone, I'd consider them as classes before races. Assuming the spirits could choose to inhabit any sentient species (and it was never stated that they could not), there's no reason we couldn't have seen a elven Innovator or a birdman Vandal. It just so happens that the central protagonists in these games tend to be human - and since becoming a Vandal alters one's appearance demonically, it'd be even harder to distinguish their original form.

I personally believe the "right" answer is to change Waltz and Justin's first class (currently Archer Knight) to Ranger to match the convention and decide on the best fit for David (which would also fix Waltz's long bar early in the game). I usually leave my personal feelings out of it for these decisions, but this one seems easy now that we have tossed it around for a bit.

This is one of the reasons I think the simplest solution is to translate - rather than change - the original character classes when feasible. Not only does it make things easier, but rather than trying to appeal to a fanbase with varying viewpoints, staying true to the creator's intent is the best way to maintain or establish some semblance of recognition and stability. Again, there may be times where a class won't translate verbatim and some creative thinking may be required... this just doesn't seem to be the case here.


knight0fdragon wrote:Does anybody have the katakana for David? Does it match the katakana for May?

It does: https://youtu.be/EZydYXPVSv4?t=657

Tor_Heyerdal wrote:because they're conventions surrounding a game that I hold so near and dear to my heart (and, presumably, so do the rest of you, or y'all wouldn't be here, which is why I find the results of this poll so staggering; I can't comprehend how you would all vote against what you supposedly love so dearly). Foregoing these critical conventions (among others) is how we end up with Shining Force Neo, and other such 'non-Shining' Shining titles.


Again, not to be redundant, but I fail to see how relegating the ranger job to centaurs exclusively works to preserve the integrity of the series. Many factors constitute the deviations of the PS2 Shining Force games; this obviously wasn't one of them. Again, a "critical convention" would be something like general gameplay, the hero having egress, the menu system, the battle system, the promotion system, chapter-based, a holy/light sword, centaur knights and bird soldiers, an HQ, the TAKAHASHI BROS, etc. Beyond that, I think it's safe to say we can agree to disagree on what David's class "should" be.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Fri Apr 05 2019 11:57am
by legalize freedom
knight0fdragon wrote:Not sure why you would think this. Spiriel is a very prestigious general for the Empire, for her to have Lords under her would make perfect sense. These Lords were people who would work for a person in exchange for control of their land. Of course these lords would then lease the land to individiuals, there by having an army, but these levels of troops do not exist in SF, so I always imagined that each units HP was an individial "soldier" (Let's face it, a King would not be in a battalion of 12 grunts lol)


Lords are essentially the civilian leadership in SF3. Granted the definition could be stretched in many directions.

Lords wouldn't join armies or serve generals as common soldiers. They may commission an army or become generals... and generals could also be lords. An individual could fill both roles. But I wouldn't consider it appropriate for a lord to be a common soldier.


@Hattari
While we certainly try to stick to the original intent, it's pretty clear after doing this for so many years that the people making these games didn't care nearly as much as we do about word choices in things like classes.

There are many, many instances in SF3, both English and Japanese scenarios where what was in the game is clearly wrong. The same can be said for shifting to different words to relate the same meaning (which can partially be blamed on translation, but not all) such as Bow vs Arrow or Egress vs Return.

I would bet the person who assigned Waltz's class didn't intentionally give her a different class name than all the other centaur archers in the series. I would guess that David's class was assigned first, used Ranger without regard for its prior use in the series and then Waltz couldn't be the same, so instead of spending the time to work out something so trivial (to them), they just used other words that mean the same thing. It's pretty clear they didn't care that much. That's why we sometimes decide to change things so they make more sense.

This discussion really changed for me when I realized that Waltz's class was "wrong". Before that, no other centaur archer had a stated first class in the game (since Justin comes promoted). When I realized that change was obvious, the David change becomes obvious as well.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Fri Apr 05 2019 1:09pm
by knight0fdragon
legalize freedom wrote:
knight0fdragon wrote:Not sure why you would think this. Spiriel is a very prestigious general for the Empire, for her to have Lords under her would make perfect sense. These Lords were people who would work for a person in exchange for control of their land. Of course these lords would then lease the land to individiuals, there by having an army, but these levels of troops do not exist in SF, so I always imagined that each units HP was an individial "soldier" (Let's face it, a King would not be in a battalion of 12 grunts lol)


Lords are essentially the civilian leadership in SF3. Granted the definition could be stretched in many directions.

Lords wouldn't join armies or serve generals as common soldiers. They may commission an army or become generals... and generals could also be lords. An individual could fill both roles. But I wouldn't consider it appropriate for a lord to be a common soldier.

What do you have to back this claim?

You know Synbios is a lord right?


Also, it all depends on the hierarchy, they would be soldiers if there is a higher ranking commander leading them. But regardless, they still wouldn’t be “knights” if you do not like lord, they would be something else, but somebody dropped the ball when it came to the translation.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Fri Apr 05 2019 2:50pm
by knight0fdragon
Hattari wrote:
[b][i][color=#0000BF]Nobody is making David a ranger. He's been one since day one.


No, he has not been a ranger since day one. He has no westernized class because he was never brought over to the west. Just because his Japanese class is Ranger does not make his western part Ranger as well. There are many classes that were changed.

We are making his class whatever we want because of this, and this is why we are having this debate. His class just hasn't been westenized yet since it was a low priority that nobody thought to even question it, so he retained his Japanese class.

Does anybody have the Japanese versions of Shining Force 2 or Shining Force Gaiden to see what their classes are to see if they are known as rangers there as well?

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Fri Apr 05 2019 6:47pm
by legalize freedom
knight0fdragon wrote:
Hattari wrote:
[b][i][color=#0000BF]Nobody is making David a ranger. He's been one since day one.


No, he has not been a ranger since day one. He has no westernized class because he was never brought over to the west. Just because his Japanese class is Ranger does not make his western part Ranger as well. There are many classes that were changed.

We are making his class whatever we want because of this, and this is why we are having this debate. His class just hasn't been westenized yet since it was a low priority that nobody thought to even question it, so he retained his Japanese class.


I have a deep respect for what people have come to know and love about the translations, both official Sc1 and Japanese translations. Perception is often reality. In that sense he has been a Ranger since the first attempt to translate and there is little doubt the translation is accurate literally.

The point to be made is that the game as shipped has flaws and we have tasked ourselves as a community with correcting those so that the game experience is improved.

Not everyone will be happy for sure. In fact, I've noticed that names and classes in particular really get people riled up when we talk about change, so it's in these times that we should be especially considerate.

In the end it's just a word. It's not like we are talking about changing who David is or what weapons he uses. He'll still be himself.

knight0fdragon wrote:What do you have to back this claim?

You know Synbios is a lord right?

Also, it all depends on the hierarchy, they would be soldiers if there is a higher ranking commander leading them. But regardless, they still wouldn’t be “knights” if you do not like lord, they would be something else, but somebody dropped the ball when it came to the translation.


It's not a claim as much as an observation.

Yes, Synbios would fit, but he's more of a lord in training. He only has that title because he stands to inherit the leadership role his father created.

During Sc1 he becomes more of a general, but probably transitions to a proper lord at a later point in his life.

I can't see a situation where a lord of any sort would be a common soldier under a general.

I'm not sure this is really relevant to the topic at hand, but still interesting to discuss.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Fri Apr 05 2019 7:38pm
by knight0fdragon
I would not doubt that a few of the Shining members that join JuMeSyn forces are Lords, I mean hell, Julian has Generals acting as common soldiers, so the argument that a lord would not act as a common soldier under a general is as much of an argument that a general would not act as a common soldier under a drifting mercenary from a far off land lol.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Fri Apr 05 2019 8:11pm
by Rune
legalize freedom wrote:
Rune wrote:While they could be Rangers if you are following conventions of race and equipment, I think Archer Knight is more fitting for the situation. Why? Because that is their class (assuming unpromoted Justin) when they are in the army. They are soldiers.


I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Please elaborate.

Stock (Gaiden 1), Graham (Gaiden 2), and May (SF2) were all just jackasses wondering around with a bow and presumably shooting stuff in the woods. They were not members of any army or battalion prior to their class being Ranger. They wouldn't hold a title like Archer Knight, or the promoted Bow Knight, because they are not knights. I feel the need to point out this is also true of David, he was just some buff jackass hanging out in the woods. However, Waltz and Justin start out in the army.


knight0fdragon wrote:"Knight" in the Force realm usually refers to a "horse" style unit and in English (not including ceremonious knights) as a "mounting" style unit, with notable exceptions of course.

I believe you mean "numerous", not "notable". I also disagree with your statement about the use of the word knight in the English language. It sounds to me that you are confusing knight with cavalry.

As for one case of a class changing between games, but excluding SF1...
Gyan the Berserker kicks his opponents (with no equipped weapons), yet Doyle the Berserker uses claws.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Fri Apr 05 2019 9:04pm
by Tor_Heyerdal
Nobody is making David a ranger. He's been one since day one.

If we're deciding whether or not to change his class, then whatever he ends up as, they're making him ('they' being the folks here at SFC making the Translation Project). Furthermore, as has been said, there was never an English localization. The good folks here at SFC are creating the English localization. Whatever David (or anyone else) ends up as in this localization is, in fact, being made by them (I'd like to say "us", but that could imply that I'm putting myself in there, when I'm clearly not involved in any capacity other than cheering from the bleachers xD).

To clarify: I only mentioned scenario 1's release as a response to this contradiction: "The way I see it, the English releases of Shining Force titles are a series of convention."

In what way is that a contradiction? The English releases of Shining Force titles ARE a series of convention.

Also, I fail to see how one character in a main game and a few others in gaidens firmly establishes such a strict convention for the series.

Why not? I'd call 100% a pretty firmly established convention.

What I found most interesting in this discussion is the fact that neither you nor Tor mentioned the fact that David is an elf. does that not count for anything, if race or species is as vital to one's job as you're making it out to be?

That hasn't been necessary because we're focusing on the fact that Rangers are centaurs, but if you want the obvious to be pointed out, then sure: Elves are not centaurs.

(I'm personally not convinced it is, and I've seen how similar thinking can set mankind's progression back in numerous ways, to get "real world" for a moment)

We're not talking about real-world politics and the fall of nations here. We're talking about a class label convention in a video game. Let's not get pretentious and above ourselves here. Let's keep this in perspective.

I apologize if this comes off disrespectfully, and I may be wrong, but it honestly seems as if you're basing series convention here on your own personal preferences, rather than what has (and hasn't) been set by the creators of said series themselves.

Umm... no? It's not just my personal preference that every single centaur archer after the first game has been classed as "Ranger". That's just historical fact. My "personal preference" has nothing to do with historical fact. With the exception of the first game (which was still feeling itself out and can't be rightly referenced as establishing convention, because you need more than one iteration to establish a convention), literally 100% of centaur archers were Rangers up until SF3 came around and broke that convention. That's not my preference, that's fact. It's also worthy of note that Lyle used a bazooka or some sort of cannon. I don't think that a bazooka/cannon wielder could rightly be called an archer, so an argument could be made that he doesn't even count in the first place. Furthermore, in terms of the intent of the creators, SF3 was kind of rushed, understaffed, underbudgetted, and much of their staff from the previous games had left the company. It's not unreasonable to assume that one or two mistakes could have been made.

You mentioned 10 titles in a future post, but what are those 10? For the purposes of this discussion, I'd assumed we were only considering Shining Force 1-3, and the gaidens and GBA remake if you like. (It would be more accurate to simply say I was.) To include anything else would strain an already flimsy foundation for "conventions".

Yeah. That is what we're talking about. 1) SF1, 2) SF2, 3) SFG1, 4) SFG2, 5) SFG3, 6) SFCD, 7) SF3:S1, 8) SF3:S2, 9) SF3:S3, and 10) SF3:PD. But now that you mention the GBA remake, yeah, that too. 100% of all knights across all eleven Force titles are centaurs.

I'm not debating what your preferences for the series are, or if they're "right" or "wrong"; this is a wholly subjective issue and we all have a right to like things the way we like them. But the fact is, the creators of the series made these games the way they made them, and they gave these characters certain classes.

That's not subjective. Preferences are, but you go on to not talk about preferences. "The creators of the series made these games the way they made them, and they gave these characters certain classes." Right. Like giving centaur archer characters the "Ranger" class. That's not subjective, that is entirely objective. It's also entirely empirical.

You're picking and choosing which localisations to follow. That's a slippery slope. If consistency and less confusion is truly the intent, we'd be better off sticking with matching the original Japanese releases as much as possible - something the SF3 translation project has generally achieved thus far.

I'm going off of the relevant localization to follow. ie, the English one. The English localization is the only relevant localization because this is an English community, and the Translation Project is an English localization project. The Japanese version is largely (though, admittedly, not completely) irrelevant. At least when it comes to conventions. Whatever conventions the Japanese version might have are completely irrelevant when we're talking about an English localization. The English localization conventions apply to the English localization.

That's cool you're working on a remake. As a personal project, I say go all out and (respectfully, hopefully) fashion it as you see fit; that's what fan projects are for. However, when it comes to translating an official release for the benefit of a worldwide audience, I think it's more fair to keep character names and titles as close to the Japanese as possible. Which for David is very clearly ranger.

Then while we're at it, we need to change Synbios back to Soldier, we need to change Bolt back to Spark, we need to change Egress back to Return... These sorts of changes were all made for the exact same reason that I'm proposing David's class be changed: to respect the established convention of the English localization of this franchise.

Absolutely? Absolutely? I get that you're attached to this series - we all are - but do you know how that sounds? It has never been explicitly stated in any SF - please correct me if this is wrong - that all knights had to be centaurs.

It doesn't have to be explicitly stated. Actions speak louder than words. It was never "explicitly stated" that Materia in FF7 couldn't be square shaped either, but we all know that they can't be. We don't need to be told that the sky is blue in order to figure it out.

Because (I assume) archers work exclusively with arrows and can't attack from any range. David cannot use arrows, and he is capable of attacking from 1-2 squares (3 with the right hatchet).

But it has never been explicitly stated in any SF - please correct me if this is wrong - that archers work exclusively with arrows and can't attack from any range.
Why do you get to make this (obviously correct) assumption, but we can't make the obvious assumption that Knights and Rangers are centaurs? It's the same thing. You've got a double standard for yourself. Only you can make obvious assumptions, but the rest of us can't.

Again, not to be redundant, but I fail to see how relegating the ranger job to centaurs exclusively works to preserve the integrity of the series. Many factors constitute the deviations of the PS2 Shining Force games; this obviously wasn't one of them. Again, a "critical convention" would be something like general gameplay, the hero having egress, the menu system, the battle system, the promotion system, chapter-based, a holy/light sword, centaur knights and bird soldiers, an HQ, the TAKAHASHI BROS, etc. Beyond that, I think it's safe to say we can agree to disagree on what David's class "should" be.

Absolutely not. Everything you just listed are all essential conventions as well, but that doesn't mean that class label conventions aren't essential conventions too. Imagine if The Forbidden Series came out with a new game where Black Mages cast white magic, or where Blue Mages didn't copy enemy spells, or where Chocobos were arbitrarily called "Quetzols" when they're clearly still Chocobos. You're essentially proposing that none of these things are essential conventions for the FF series. If class consistency isn't important, then class consistency isn't important, regardless of what game we're talking about.

Lords wouldn't join armies or serve generals as common soldiers. They may commission an army or become generals... and generals could also be lords. An individual could fill both roles. But I wouldn't consider it appropriate for a lord to be a common soldier.

They're not common soldiers, though. They're Spiriel's personal retinue. They're sort of like the Roman Praetorian Guard, although not quite to that level, as Spiriel is hardly the Emperor. lol. But nevertheless, it's the same sort of deal. They're the personal guard of a very important person. That's not "common soldiery".

While we certainly try to stick to the original intent, it's pretty clear after doing this for so many years that the people making these games didn't care nearly as much as we do about word choices in things like classes.

:thumbsup:

There are many, many instances in SF3, both English and Japanese scenarios where what was in the game is clearly wrong. The same can be said for shifting to different words to relate the same meaning (which can partially be blamed on translation, but not all) such as Bow vs Arrow or Egress vs Return.

And like I mentioned earlier in this post, much of the staff that worked on SF3 were not the same people who worked on the previous SF titles, so many of the people responsible for these labels probably just didn't even know.

I would bet the person who assigned Waltz's class didn't intentionally give her a different class name than all the other centaur archers in the series. I would guess that David's class was assigned first, used Ranger without regard for its prior use in the series and then Waltz couldn't be the same, so instead of spending the time to work out something so trivial (to them), they just used other words that mean the same thing. It's pretty clear they didn't care that much. That's why we sometimes decide to change things so they make more sense.

EXACTLY! <3

This discussion really changed for me when I realized that Waltz's class was "wrong". Before that, no other centaur archer had a stated first class in the game (since Justin comes promoted). When I realized that change was obvious, the David change becomes obvious as well.

Agreed. And because of this, I wonder why you opened a poll at all instead of just fixing it, but I guess we're here now. lol.

Yes, Synbios would fit, but he's more of a lord in training. He only has that title because he stands to inherit the leadership role his father created.

There's no such thing as a lord in training. You either own land or you don't. Presumably, Synbios must own land somewhere, even if we're never explicitly shown it in the game.

I can't see a situation where a lord of any sort would be a common soldier under a general.

A lord is simply someone who owns land and leases it out to serfs. There are many historical examples of lords going to war for their king. Lords are still subject to the whims of their kings who facilitate their ability to own their land in the first place. Lord is not a military ranking. Lords can and did fight in wars under the leadership of others.

I'm not sure this is really relevant to the topic at hand, but still interesting to discuss.

Agreed. This is a completely different question and conversation, really. But it is still interesting.

Stock (Gaiden 1), Graham (Gaiden 2), and May (SF2) were all just jackasses wondering around with a bow and presumably shooting stuff in the woods. They were not members of any army or battalion prior to their class being Ranger. They wouldn't hold a title like Archer Knight, or the promoted Bow Knight, because they are not knights. I feel the need to point out this is also true of David, he was just some buff jackass hanging out in the woods. However, Waltz and Justin start out in the army.

Except they DO hold the promoted title of Bow Knight (granted, without the space). And I still maintain my point from a previous post: Just because they're in the army doesn't change the fact that this is Shining Force, and in Shining Force, centaur archers are Rangers. Whether they're "some jackass" or not is completely beside the point.

I believe you mean "numerous", not "notable". I also disagree with your statement about the use of the word knight in the English language. It sounds to me that you are confusing knight with cavalry.

I agree with this. Knights weren't always mounted. Although it did originally start out that way, the meaning of the word changed a lot throughout the centuries. So, depending on the century that we're talking about, this could range from "true" to "not necessarily true". But nevertheless, we're not talking about real life. We're talking about Shining Force. And in Shining Force, Knights are necessarily centaurs, and so are Rangers.

As for one case of a class changing between games, but excluding SF1...
Gyan the Berserker kicks his opponents (with no equipped weapons), yet Doyle the Berserker uses claws.

Doyle is from Shining in the Darkness, which is not a Force title.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Fri Apr 05 2019 9:29pm
by Rune
Tor_Heyerdal wrote:
Stock (Gaiden 1), Graham (Gaiden 2), and May (SF2) were all just jackasses wondering around with a bow and presumably shooting stuff in the woods. They were not members of any army or battalion prior to their class being Ranger. They wouldn't hold a title like Archer Knight, or the promoted Bow Knight, because they are not knights. I feel the need to point out this is also true of David, he was just some buff jackass hanging out in the woods. However, Waltz and Justin start out in the army.

Except they DO hold the promoted title of Bow Knight (granted, without the space).


Yes, they hold the title of Bow Knight after joining an army and earning a promotion while in that army!



And what, we're just supposed to ignore STHA because "force" isn't in the title? Shining Force 3 is the direct sequel. So if you want to argue established conventions, you should be starting with STHA.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Fri Apr 05 2019 10:29pm
by Tor_Heyerdal
Yes, they hold the title of Bow Knight after joining an army and earning a promotion while in that army!

But you said they WOULDN'T hold the title of Archer Knight OR Bow Knight.

And what, we're just supposed to ignore STHA because "force" isn't in the title? Shining Force 3 is the direct sequel. So if you want to argue established conventions, you should be starting with STHA.

Yes. That's the way titles work. Crisis Core is a direct prequel to FF7, but it's not a numbered, main series FF title, and as such, should not (and is not) judged on the same basis, by the same metric, or under the same conventional standards as FF7. The fact that they're related games doesn't put them in the same titular series. The same applies to STHA/SF3. SF3 is not part of the HA series, it's part of the Force series, and should be judged on the same basis, by the same metric, and under the same conventional standards as the Force series.
However, if you absolutely INSIST on erroneously treating them as though they are the same titular series, then fine: Boots and equippable claws (for a wolfling) are both extensions of one's natural body. Further, it's normal for classes in the Shining universe to have more than one potential weapon type.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Sat Apr 06 2019 4:30am
by legalize freedom
@Tor
I started the poll because the thread had been quiet for about three weeks after last call.
I make the poll and now everybody wants to talk. It's ultimately a good thing.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Sat Apr 06 2019 4:57am
by knight0fdragon
Rune wrote:
legalize freedom wrote:
Rune wrote:While they could be Rangers if you are following conventions of race and equipment, I think Archer Knight is more fitting for the situation. Why? Because that is their class (assuming unpromoted Justin) when they are in the army. They are soldiers.


I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Please elaborate.

Stock (Gaiden 1), Graham (Gaiden 2), and May (SF2) were all just jackasses wondering around with a bow and presumably shooting stuff in the woods. They were not members of any army or battalion prior to their class being Ranger. They wouldn't hold a title like Archer Knight, or the promoted Bow Knight, because they are not knights. I feel the need to point out this is also true of David, he was just some buff jackass hanging out in the woods. However, Waltz and Justin start out in the army.


knight0fdragon wrote:"Knight" in the Force realm usually refers to a "horse" style unit and in English (not including ceremonious knights) as a "mounting" style unit, with notable exceptions of course.

I believe you mean "numerous", not "notable". I also disagree with your statement about the use of the word knight in the English language. It sounds to me that you are confusing knight with cavalry.

As for one case of a class changing between games, but excluding SF1...
Gyan the Berserker kicks his opponents (with no equipped weapons), yet Doyle the Berserker uses claws.


No, I meant notable, as in the exceptions we have already mentioned, or “noted” in our discussions.

Also,
knight
Noun
(in the Middle Ages) a man who served his sovereign or lord as a mounted soldier in armor.


As for your comments about May being a random jackass... in real life, when a civilian joins an army, do we still call them civilians before they get promoted? No, they have a starting military class upon joining, and as far as Waltz is concerned, he could be considered a “private”, aka the lowest class. Otherwise, our argument here would be the hierarchy should be ranger -> archer knight -> bow knight -> buster knight

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Sat Apr 06 2019 8:14am
by Rune
knight0fdragon wrote:Also,
knight
Noun
(in the Middle Ages) a man who served his sovereign or lord as a mounted soldier in armor.


I would say this is my complaint about your general argument, you are cherry picking:

1 a mounted soldier serving under a feudal superior in the Middle Ages.

2 (in Europe in the Middle Ages) a man, usually of noble birth, who after an apprenticeship as page and squire was raised to honorable military rank and bound to chivalrous conduct.

3 any person of a rank similar to that of the medieval knight.

4 a man upon whom the nonhereditary dignity of knighthood is conferred by a sovereign because of personal merit or for services rendered to the country. In Great Britain he holds the rank next below that of a baronet, and the title Sir is prefixed to the Christian name, as in Sir John Smith.

5 a member of any order or association that designates its members as knights.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Sat Apr 06 2019 12:40pm
by knight0fdragon
Cherry picking? None of the definitions you provided says I am cherry picking. Already said “not including ceremonious”, which knocks out 4 and 5, 3 points to 1, and part of the duties of 2 include horseback riding to perform those chivalrous duties and achieve that military rank. Can’t be jousting and accepting some other knightly challenges, as well as traveling to far off lands to rescue princesses or fight dragons if you can’t ride a horse.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Sat Apr 06 2019 1:44pm
by Rune
You also can't fight on castle stairs while on a horse, so I guess no centaur can be a knight.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Sat Apr 06 2019 2:15pm
by knight0fdragon
Now you are taking it way to literal.... but now that you bring it up, the centaurs speed do get impeded around certain terrain

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Sat Apr 06 2019 11:36pm
by Tor_Heyerdal
Fundamentally, I'm inclined to agree with Rune when it comes to the definition of knight. There is a lot more to it than just armour+horse. Furthermore, by the sixteenth century, mounted combat had been rendered largely obsolete, but knights continued to exist without the horses. But if you're talking about something closer to the thirteenth or fourteenth century, then the horse is an intrinsic part of what a knight is. Like I said some posts ago, it strongly depends on which century you're talking about. Depending on what point in time you're talking about, the whole "horse" factor can range from anywhere from "true" to "not necessarily true". Technically, you're both right. But knightOfdragon's correct point stops being strictly correct after a certain point in history (around the 15th/16th century).

These videos won't touch on everything I've said, but here's some videos about knights. These videos all focus on knights before the obsolescence of horses in battle. I'm having trouble right now finding the material that pertains to later knights after horses stopped being used.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgY5VnUQfxk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PxKPSTEq6Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LygKNa-xDW4

However, that said, the semantic quality of the word "Knight" is quite obviously shifted somewhat in the Shining universe as compared to reality (which--I can't believe I have to point this out--the Shining universe is not). It has been made abundantly clear throughout the entire franchise that the word "knight" has a somewhat different usage in the Shining universe, wherein it explicitly refers to lance/polearm-wielding centaurs. There is not a single example of the contrary throughout the entire series (although I can't speak for any titles post SF3, but we can all recognize that those games are SF games in name only, courtesy of interpersonal drama in Sega).

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Sun Apr 07 2019 8:38pm
by Swalchy
Tor_Heyerdal wrote:It has been made abundantly clear throughout the entire franchise that the word "knight" has a somewhat different usage in the Shining universe, wherein it explicitly refers to lance/polearm-wielding centaurs. There is not a single example of the contrary throughout the entire series (although I can't speak for any titles post SF3, but we can all recognize that those games are SF games in name only, courtesy of interpersonal drama in Sega).

I can think of two: Kokichi in Shining Force 1: https://sf1.shiningforcecentral.com/cha ... e/kokichi/ ; as well as Guntz in Shining Force 1: https://sf1.shiningforcecentral.com/cha ... rce/guntz/

Though despite not being centaurs, the fact that both are lance carrying character may be the clincher as to why they labelled first as "Wing Knight" and "Steam Knight".

As I'm writing this post, I'm remembering stuff from Shining in the Darkness as well.


The old man at the beginning, talking of yourself:

Ah! I knew it!
[name] is it? I was expecting you!
There's something terrible going on in the kingdom of Thornwood. Something that I fear could plunge our world into eternal darkness.
With your help, [name], this can be prevented. It's all up to you.
From this point on, [name]...
... you are the son of Mortred...
and a Knight in the Kingdom of Thornwood.
I almost forgot! You've got two good friends now

In the castle:

King Drake:
Ah! Mortred's son and one of my finest knights! [name], isn't it? A fine name it is. A fine name indeed.

Tristan:
With your permission, my liege. Of all my knights, this lad is the youngest. But he is second only to his father when it comes to swordplay.

In the tavern in town:

Dai:
I am a loyal knight and servant of Baron Vyrun. My lord is a gentle man, but he's not been himself lately.

Back in the castle:

Tristan:
[name], son of my dear friend, Mortred. Bring back the Princess! I pray that no harm has come to either the Princess or your father. Now go! Show Mephisto what it means to face a knight of the realm!

Melvyl:
The Labyrinth was once the proving ground for young knights. It's true challenge is in the upper levels known as the Labyrinth Proper. Only those deemed worthy by the Ancients can enter the upper levels. To prove his worth, a knight must face the Trials of the Ancients. It is said, that the way to the upper levels lies beyond an altar. Some have recently faced the Trials, but none have returned. For the Princess' sake, I pray that you are worthy enough.

Theos:
You're about to face the Trial of Courage, aren't you? Well, listen. The Cave of Courage is designed to test a knight's bravery. It is also a place known to instill fear in magic-users.

Back in the tavern:

Old Vik:
Wait, Mrs. Myst! Hold it! Just hold on a minute! Please calm down. The young knight over there needs Pyra and Milo.

Back in the castle:

Theos:
Mephisto may be defeated with the Arms of Light. The Arms of Light are 4 items that can only be used by a true knight.

Theos:
There's no time to rest! We've yet to defeat the forces of Darkness! I almost forgot. I found something interesting regarding DEMONBREATH. Legends speak of a Dark Wizard, who once wielded this terrible spell. He met his doom at the hands of a man known only as the Shining Knight.

Vyrun:
I bow to you, [name]. If only there were more like you in the realm. By the way, have you ever heard the Song of the Shining Knight? "Blessed by Water Spirit. Armed in Light. Darkness fears a Shining Knight."

Theos:
My condolences to you, brave knight. But don't let it get you down!

King Drake:
[name], Jessa's told me everything. I'm sorry to hear about your father. Mortred was my finest knight. I won't rest until he is avenged!

(See more mentions at https://www.shiningforcecentral.com/?p= ... &ch=1&se=3 )

Don't know what the original Japanese is of the above sentences, but at least at the start of the series, as there were no centaurs as part of your team, it does seem like "knight" was used in a bit more historically-accurate instance of someone who fought for a King of sorts. Perhaps people here can recall the famous Knights Templar.

In Shining the Holy Ark as well, Lisa is referred to as a knight:

Desire Village Pub:

Owner:
The woman is a knight, and the other is a dragon warrior. I heard that they were hired by sage Sabato to come out and join this expedition. They don't seem to now what to do next, now that they've lost that outlaw in the cave-in and the border's been closed down.

And when Lisa joins the party:

Narrator:
Lisa, the knight, joins the party.

Then in the Enrich Village pub after you defeat the final enemies:

O’Brien:
You have done such splendid work for Enrich, and now you are to serve as a Knight. That sounds like a dream come true. If you continue to do a good job, you could even become an aristocrat, maybe even a King.

Owner:
She’s a good girl with a good head on her shoulders. Please remember her even after you become a knight. OK?

Lisa:
I didn’t see you around for a while. Where did you go? I guess we will be leaving pretty soon, and I wanted to say good-bye before we left. Hmm... Looking back, it turns out that all of us were dancing to Sabato the sage’s tune. Well... I’m glad we met. I had wanted to ask you if you wanted to join us but... Good luck, Sir Knight.


So as can be seen, Knight is used in different contexts in the shining series, and not just for lance wielding centaurs, or just lance wielding characters.

Classes can, in my opinion then, be re-used if the need warrants it :)

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Sun Apr 07 2019 9:15pm
by Tor_Heyerdal
I can think of two: Kokichi in Shining Force 1: https://sf1.shiningforcecentral.com/cha ... e/kokichi/ ; as well as Guntz in Shining Force 1: https://sf1.shiningforcecentral.com/cha ... rce/guntz/

Though despite not being centaurs, the fact that both are lance carrying character may be the clincher as to why they labelled first as "Wing Knight" and "Steam Knight".

As has already been stated, and as you even mentioned yourself, Kokichi and Guntz are not "Knight"s, they are "(Adjective) Knight"s. Kokichi is not a Knight, he is a Wing Knight, and Guntz is not a Knight, he is a Steam Knight. These qualifying adjectives draw a distinction. That is the purpose of a qualifying adjective.

As I'm writing this post, I'm remembering stuff from Shining in the Darkness as well.

Shining in the Darkness and Shining the Holy Ark are a different franchise. They are not part of the Force line. And considered from an in-universe perspective rather than an in-franchise perspective, the vernacular in Thornwood is obviously a little different. But I think that point is a lot less important than the point that it's a different (though related) franchise. Different franchise, different standards.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Sun Apr 07 2019 9:35pm
by Swalchy
Well technically, "Wing" and "Steam" are either nouns or verbs depending on context, but I get your point. They're not just "Knights" in the sense that Shining Force 1 and 2 use "Knight".

I also disagree that SitD and STHA aren't part of the same franchise: they are part of the overarching Shining franchise, and Shining Force 3 is a direct sequel to STHA. Think you're meaning they're not of the same style - SitD are Dungeon crawlers; the strictly "force" games are SRPGs. Hence, there's enough difference between them that the application of "Knight" shouldn't be crossed over from one to the other.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Sun Apr 07 2019 11:12pm
by Tor_Heyerdal
Well technically, "Wing" and "Steam" are either nouns or verbs depending on context, but I get your point. They're not just "Knights" in the sense that Shining Force 1 and 2 use "Knight".

They're nouns, yes, but they're being used as adjectives here. They are describing the word "knight". That's an adjective. Nouns can be used as adjectives in many cases.

I also disagree that SitD and STHA aren't part of the same franchise: they are part of the overarching Shining franchise, and Shining Force 3 is a direct sequel to STHA. Think you're meaning they're not of the same style - SitD are Dungeon crawlers; the strictly "force" games are SRPGs. Hence, there's enough difference between them that the application of "Knight" shouldn't be crossed over from one to the other.

No. I don't just mean that they're a different style. They're different--though related--franchises. Just like The Forbidden Series Crystal Chronicles is not part of the numbered The Forbidden Series series. Resident Evil Code Veronica is not part of the numbered Resident Evil series (though it was originally planned to be). Shining in the Darkness and Shining the Holy Ark are not part of the numbered Shining Force series. They're set in the same universe, but that doesn't make them the same series on a technical level. If they were part of the same series, they would be called "Shining Force >Insert number here<" and "Shining Force >Insert number here<". Just because two franchises are closely related doesn't mean they're the same franchise. It doesn't matter that SF3 is a canonical sequel to STHA. It's still a different franchise. SF3 is not part of the Holy Ark franchise and Holy Ark is not part of the Force franchise. They're both part of the Shining continuum, but they are two different franchises therein. Each with their own respective standards and conventions.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Sun Apr 07 2019 11:55pm
by Hattari
knight0fdragon: "No, he has not been a ranger since day one. He has no westernized class because he was never brought over to the west. Just because his Japanese class is Ranger does not make his western part Ranger as well. There are many classes that were changed.

We are making his class whatever we want because of this, and this is why we are having this debate."


If this is true, I may have misunderstood from the very start. I thought the goal was to translate the game(s), making changes to names and titles as deemed necessary for clarity and continuity. If we're literally just polling to rename things as we see fit, regardless of the source material, then I have no desire to participate.



Tor_Heyerdal: "That's not subjective. Preferences are, but you go on to not talk about preferences. "The creators of the series made these games the way they made them, and they gave these characters certain classes." Right. Like giving centaur archer characters the "Ranger" class. That's not subjective, that is entirely objective. It's also entirely empirical."

I was very clearly talking about that. Some centaurs in previous SF games were given the ranger class; yes, that is fact. That this fact means ALL centaurs with bows have been called or must be called rangers, is not a fact. Again: is this following convention, or cherry-picking?

"Why do you get to make this (obviously correct) assumption, but we can't make the obvious assumption that Knights and Rangers are centaurs? It's the same thing. You've got a double standard for yourself. Only you can make obvious assumptions, but the rest of us can't."

Granted, my original statement was written poorly, but the difference in our positions is I'm basing mine on fact. The definition of archer is one who works specifically with bows and arrows. The two are literally bound together. Nothing in the history or definitions for knight and ranger either implies or demands the need of a centaur - even within the context of the games exclusively. Which ties into another point I failed to make, mostly due to cutting corners to save time: (and I apologize for that)

"We're not talking about real-world politics and the fall of nations here. We're talking about a class label convention in a video game. Let's not get pretentious and above ourselves here. Let's keep this in perspective."

Again, apologies. I even knew while typing that I wasn't taking the time to explain myself properly there, so please pardon me for that. Chalk it up as a symptom of my time spent exploring psychology courses, but I'm very keen to point out behavioral tendencies and mental habits that can be potentially harmful - not to criticize or attack, but for the sake of promoting understanding and awareness. I do this to myself as well, if that helps... at any rate, what I was alluding to: the utmost strictness with which you perceive class and race in this series. Before the SF series was taken from Camelot, their team demonstrated an ongoing growth and evolution with each successive game. To limit them and their work to such a degree does them a disservice - particularly when their last game is forced to defer to classifications from an earlier entry which could be considered to be obsolete (explanation further down).

Not even saying this is you per se - I don't know you, at all - but I've seen similar thinking lead to unhealthy results firsthand in my community, and at the workplace ("That's not a job for them" "We aren't capable of doing that" "Leave that to the --" "-- are naturally suited for --") Allow things in life to develop and grow as they will - within reason. Just because it was one way, doesn't mean it always has to be that way. Too much control tends to suffocate and stifle. As you said, this is a video game we're discussing. Let's not take things too seriously - for our own sanity's sake.




legalize freedom: "While we certainly try to stick to the original intent, it's pretty clear after doing this for so many years that the people making these games didn't care nearly as much as we do about word choices in things like classes.
...
I would bet the person who assigned Waltz's class didn't intentionally give her a different class name than all the other centaur archers in the series. I would guess that David's class was assigned first, used Ranger without regard for its prior use in the series and then Waltz couldn't be the same, so instead of spending the time to work out something so trivial (to them), they just used other words that mean the same thing."


That's one possibility. Another likely scenario: the game devs actually knew what they were doing with this one. It's possible they realized ranger described his job better than the centaur archers, so they gave him the class instead.

Intention is everything. I can't speak for the devs, but your reason for considering the change makes sense, and I appreciate that you take the time to clarify your reasoning, while continuing to show consideration for various viewpoints. However, given the real-life applications of ranger, and considering David's position in his village, it isn't an inappropriate title for him:


Ranger: 1 a: the keeper of a British royal park or forest; b: FOREST RANGER 2: one that ranges 3 b: a soldier specially trained in close-range fighting and in raiding tactics

That's Webster's definition. Can anyone explain how that doesn't describe David's occupation? If the intention behind these changes is achieving the most apt classifications, then I'd say the team's work in this case is done. Waltz is currently listed as bow knight or archer knight unpromoted, right? If anything, why not just change her 1st class to archer? Why should the fact that she's a centaur have that much bearing on her job? Her species may affect how well she performs that job (i.e. movement penalties), but it doesn't change the job itself. As was pointed out a couple posts back by Swalch, non-centaurs have held the title of knight. What they shared in common wasn't their species.

If it isn't broken, there's no need to fix it. If the only reason his starting class is being changed is due to past characters of a different species holding the same title, then I must defer to this wisdom:


"Insisting on following conventions because they are conventions is a surefire way to do something stupid."

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Mon Apr 08 2019 2:41am
by knight0fdragon
Hattari wrote:knight0fdragon: "No, he has not been a ranger since day one. He has no westernized class because he was never brought over to the west. Just because his Japanese class is Ranger does not make his western part Ranger as well. There are many classes that were changed.

We are making his class whatever we want because of this, and this is why we are having this debate."


If this is true, I may have misunderstood from the very start. I thought the goal was to translate the game(s), making changes to names and titles as deemed necessary for clarity and continuity. If we're literally just polling to rename things as we see fit, regardless of the source material, then I have no desire to participate.


Yes, you must have misunderstood every translation of a game that has existed since the beginning of time because the entire point of the translation is to translate the experience for the audience in a way that makes them understand. Having a word for word literal translation never works because the way the words are used may not correlate with the culture you are trying to translate for. Many different parts of this project has been changed and westernized, I am not sure why you think this is a whole new concept.

As for your comment on "regardless of the source material", I guess you haven't been paying attention to the entire debate going on, because the source material is what is constantly being cited when arguements are being made to words in the translation.

Hattari wrote:Ranger: 1 a: the keeper of a British royal park or forest; b: FOREST RANGER 2: one that ranges 3 b: a soldier specially trained in close-range fighting and in raiding tactics
1) He is not just a keeper, he is the leader of an entire forest community. 2) kind of broad on the definition of "range" and could be taken in a lot of aspects. 3) David is not a close range fighter, close range fighting is hand to hand combat.

The problem here isn't what Webster defines "Ranger" as, it is what the western shining world defines "Ranger" as. If this was the first time Ranger was used, absolutely none of us would be questioning if the translation needs to be changed. But the fact that it is already defined, and his promoted classes do not correlate with that of a Ranger, the class needed to be scrutenized to match the changes that are being addressed in his heirarchy.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Mon Apr 08 2019 7:31am
by Tor_Heyerdal
If this is true, I may have misunderstood from the very start. I thought the goal was to translate the game(s), making changes to names and titles as deemed necessary for clarity and continuity. If we're literally just polling to rename things as we see fit, regardless of the source material, then I have no desire to participate.

This is a localization. That's the way localizations work. Things get changed along the way to make them more appropriate for the audience it's being localized for. And if it's a series, then previously established deviations from earlier localizations of earlier games must remain for the sake of continuity. That's just the way localization works. This isn't some unique thing that this project is doing wrong. Localization has always worked like this.

Some centaurs in previous SF games were given the ranger class; yes, that is fact. That this fact means ALL centaurs with bows have been called or must be called rangers, is not a fact. Again: is this following convention, or cherry-picking?

How is it not fact? May, Graham, Stock. Up until SF3 came around, that was literally all the centaur archers (I would argue that Lyle was a centaur cannoneer; he didn't really use a proper bow). That is factually 100% of all centaur archers having been called Rangers. This isn't cherry picking unless I'm deliberately leaving out some other centaur archer(s) who aren't called Rangers, which I'm not. That is fact. It's also empirical. May, Graham, and Stock constitute the entire corpus of data pertaining to centaur archer characters in Shining Force before SF3. 100% of that corpus are classed as Rangers. That is empirical fact by definition. It's also established convention by definition.

Granted, my original statement was written poorly, but the difference in our positions is I'm basing mine on fact.

My position is absolutely based on fact. And if you believe that it isn't--if you believe I'm just making stuff up--then I challenge you to find another bow-wielding centaur prior to Shining Force 3 within the Force series who wasn't classed as a Ranger.

The definition of archer is one who works specifically with bows and arrows. The two are literally bound together. Nothing in the history or definitions for knight and ranger either implies or demands the need of a centaur - even within the context of the games exclusively.

The factually established 100% in-game track record would beg to differ. I'd call that a pretty strong in-game context. Literally every single character classed as Knight throughout the Force series has been a centaur, with no exceptions. Likewise, literally every single character classed as a Ranger throughout the Force series has been a centaur, up until David in SF3, which was created by a team that largely (admittedly, not entirely, but still largely) had nothing to do with the previous games in the franchise, and was a rushed project, leaving lots and lots of room for error, which we know for a fact did occur. Even if we put aside the whole "ranger/knight" fiasco, there are plenty of other errors that were made in SF3. To treat that error-ridden project as infallible is absolutely ridiculous. Especially when it ends up going against the established conventions of the franchise.

Before the SF series was taken from Camelot, their team demonstrated an ongoing growth and evolution with each successive game. To limit them and their work to such a degree does them a disservice - particularly when their last game is forced to defer to classifications from an earlier entry which could be considered to be obsolete

"To such a degree"? It most certainly does not. We're talking about a class label. That's not a limitation that will prevent the developers from carrying out their vision. If we change David's and Waltz's class labels so as to be in line with the rest of the series, that's not going to cause SF3 to just collapse. It's not going to compromise the game's integrity. It's not going to somehow damage the author's vision of the project. It's not going to fundamentally alter the core identity of what SF3 is. Literally all it's going to do is change two character's labels to be more in line with the rest of the series. That's all. Again, let's not get pretentious. Let's keep this in perspective.

Not even saying this is you per se - I don't know you, at all - but I've seen similar thinking lead to unhealthy results firsthand in my community, and at the workplace ("That's not a job for them" "We aren't capable of doing that" "Leave that to the --" "-- are naturally suited for --") Allow things in life to develop and grow as they will - within reason. Just because it was one way, doesn't mean it always has to be that way. Too much control tends to suffocate and stifle. As you said, this is a video game we're discussing. Let's not take things too seriously - for our own sanity's sake.

Keeping the game in line with its own series is not "too much control". I reiterate my point about arbitrarily changing the name of chocobos to quetzols in The Forbidden Series (not to insinuate that such a thing ever happened, but as a hypothetical scenario). To insist that it's wrong to arbitrarily rename chocobos to quetzols (in a main series, numbered FF title, no less) when nothing has been fundamentally changed about them would not be exercising too much control. It's called respect for the franchise and the lore. It's the same here. To insist that it's wrong to arbitrarily rename Rangers to Archer Knights (in a main series, numbered SF title, no less) when nothing has been fundamentally changed about them would not be exercising too much control. It's called respect for the franchise and the lore. You want to make a game that changes, ignores, or disrespects the established lore and/or conventions? Okay. That's alright. I'm not trying to say that that can't or even shouldn't be done. But if you want to do that, don't make it part of the main, numbered series. Make it part of a divergent sub-series. Like, I don't know, "Shining Force: Unleashed" or something. Like how The Forbidden Series: Crystal Chronicles was not titled "The Forbidden Series XII". That game broke a great deal of FF conventions, which is fine, but they appropriately made it a divergent sub-series rather than putting it in the main, numbered series. All we're doing is calling a spade a spade. Or, more specifically, calling what this franchise has established as being a spade a spade. That's not at all unreasonable. Not only is it not unreasonable, but it's not even remotely harmful on any conceivable level, as you seem to be trying to insinuate. And trying to make such a change without any good justification and when you know better as a fan of the series (which many of the SF3 devs, frankly, didn't and weren't) is disrespectful to the lore and the world that the original authors concocted.

That's one possibility. Another likely scenario: the game devs actually knew what they were doing with this one. It's possible they realized ranger described his job better than the centaur archers, so they gave him the class instead.

Except we know that something along the lines of what Legalize Freedom proposed is the case. Most of the SF3 team did not consist of the same people as the SF2 team. There is an extremely high probability that these inconsistencies were not deliberate, which I'll touch on more in the next point.

Intention is everything. I can't speak for the devs, but your reason for considering the change makes sense, and I appreciate that you take the time to clarify your reasoning, while continuing to show consideration for various viewpoints. However, given the real-life applications of ranger, and considering David's position in his village, it isn't an inappropriate title for him:

From a semantic perspective, no, it's not an inappropriate title for him. That's true. But this isn't just about semantics. This is about lore. In the established SF lore (ie, convention), Rangers describe a kind of centaur. Furthermore, "Hunter" is also a semantically appropriate title for him whilst simultaneously not violating the lore. The lore, I might add, which we know for a fact that the devs didn't prioritize above just finishing something, as they were under very constraining circumstances with this project. Massively underbudgetted, overspent, overworked, and extremely dicey deadlines almost prevented the game from even seeing the light of day at all. Scenarios 2 and 3 were never localized in an official capacity for a reason. And they knew ahead of time that they wouldn't have the luxury of localizing Scenarios 2 or 3 due to both budgetary and time constraints. As such, the localization we did receive for Scenario 1 did not put into consideration any kind of consistency with Scenarios 2 or 3, and many finer details ended up falling by the wayside in favour of just releasing the game at all. Hence the Translation Project feeling the need to retranslate SC1 in the first place. It's not that they "knew what they were doing" and deliberately decided to break these particular conventions. It's that they literally just didn't have the time or the money to fine tune such things and fix what wasn't broken on a functional level. Because, admittedly, while it may be broken on a lore level, it's not actually broken on a functional level. So fixing it was not a priority for them due to their constraints. It was more important that the game be released at all than that it be completely consistent and air tight. But now the Translation Project staff actually HAS the luxury that the original devs didn't have, to be able to fine-tune the game, and show its lore and continuity the respect it deserves.

That's Webster's definition. Can anyone explain how that doesn't describe David's occupation? If the intention behind these changes is achieving the most apt classifications, then I'd say the team's work in this case is done.

Again, "Hunter" is an equally apt description. The difference is that Hunter doesn't violate the established lore.

Waltz is currently listed as bow knight or archer knight unpromoted, right? If anything, why not just change her 1st class to archer? Why should the fact that she's a centaur have that much bearing on her job?

Because that's just not how Shining Force works. Centaurs are just labelled differently. Again. Lore. And if you truly love the series, then its lore ought to matter to you. Respect it. Is it kind of arbitrary? Sure. But that's just how it is.

Her species may affect how well she performs that job (i.e. movement penalties), but it doesn't change the job itself.

Not just movement penalties, but movement potential. Mounted soldiers get different titles even in real life. Knight (at least before the obsolescence of horses in battle), cavalry, cataphracts. Hell, even "horse archers". When talking about, for instance, the mounted archers of ancient Mongolia, they don't just get called "archers". They're called "horse archers" or "mounted archers". Because that distinction of having an incredible maneuverability advantage (or even disadvantage, as the case may be) is actually kind of extremely significant. Having the body of a horse influences what we call their roll in-game for the same reasons that being mounted on top of a horse influences what we call their roll in real life.

As was pointed out a couple posts back by Swalch, non-centaurs have held the title of knight. What they shared in common wasn't their species.

No. They haven't. Not in the Shining Force series. In Shining in the Darkness and Shining the Holy Ark, sure. But those aren't Shining Force. They're a different (though related) series. Just like how The Forbidden Series Crystal Chronicles is a different (though related) series to the main, numbered FF line, with different established conventions, different lore standards, and different vernacular. Even if those things are interwoven with or heavily inspired by the conventions, lore, and vernacular of the main series from which they deviate.

If it isn't broken, there's no need to fix it. If the only reason his starting class is being changed is due to past characters of a different species holding the same title, then I must defer to this wisdom:
"Insisting on following conventions because they are conventions is a surefire way to do something stupid."

Exactly. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. So Camelot shouldn't have "fixed" Waltz's class by changing it to Archer Knight when Ranger worked just fine. That's the whole point. Don't fix the lore. It's not broken. Ranger worked perfectly adequately and was established as the thing to call centaur archers. Also, that's not wisdom. Convention and tradition are not bad things in and of themselves. Convention and tradition can, sometimes, grow obsolete. But that's not the case with this particular example. Or most examples, really. Convention and tradition become convention and tradition specifically because they work. And when convention equals lore, and you insist on breaking convention, you're insisting on breaking the lore. You're insisting on retconning. You insist on fixing what isn't broken (thereby breaking it to some degree). Insisting on breaking convention just because you can is a (more or less) surefire way to do something stupid. Because at that point, let's just make Spiderman yellow, let's make Sonic pink, let's rename chocobos to quetzols, let's make Shining Force stop being a strategy series, let's rename Homer Simpson to Gregory Sampson, and let's make Achilles black because screw established lore and convention. Anything that's established just needs to go. For no good reason. Forget about endearing personality. Forget about intriguing oddities. Forget about unique quirkiness. Forget about the integrity of what we supposedly love. Let's just transform it into something completely different. And yes, I know that arbitrarily changing a class name isn't going to transform SF into something completely different in and of itself, but why stop there? Why don't we just change all the class names? Why don't we label Synbios and Julian as "Cutty Guy" while arbitrarily giving Medion a different label of "Knifey Fuddyduddy"? Let's call mages "Sparklers". Let's call Brass Gunners "Vehicular Bam Bams." I mean, after all, convention is necessarily bad, right? So Swordsman, Mage, and Brass Gunner must be bad too. And these proposed changes are semantically accurate labels. So let's change them. If convention is bad, then why don't we celebrate Shining Force Neo et al for killing established convention? Why do we almost universally lament the modern Shining games? Fundamentally, we lament them because they don't respect the established convention of what Shining Force is. And if it's okay (and even encouraged) to disrespect the established convention of what Shining Force is on this small level, then it's only a few degrees of removal from encouraging the massive divergence that is the modern Shining Force titles that almost none of us like. Convention is not a bad thing. Lore is not a bad thing. Tradition is not a bad thing. Familiarity is not a bad thing. Stability is not a bad thing.

The problem here isn't what Webster defines "Ranger" as, it is what the western shining world defines "Ranger" as. If this was the first time Ranger was used, absolutely none of us would be questioning if the translation needs to be changed.

^ This.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Mon Apr 08 2019 8:33am
by Rune
The western shining world never defined Ranger. It gave three examples. Three examples is not the same as a definition.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Mon Apr 08 2019 8:53am
by Tor_Heyerdal
The western shining world never defined Ranger. It gave three examples. Three examples is not the same as a definition.

It most certainly is. That's like saying that Final Fantasies 1, 2, and 3 weren't enough to define "Black Mage".
EDIT: ... Did FF2 even have a black mage? I can't remember. Whatever. Supposing it didn't, then 1, 3, and 4 make my point just as well. It's not just three characters, it's three games. When each game that has Rangers at all only has one, then three Rangers equates to three games' worth of examples. That's plenty. And it's still 100%.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Mon Apr 08 2019 12:29pm
by legalize freedom
Does Ranger Elf or Elf Ranger solve our problem?

While I agree Waltz's class should be changed to match the rest of the series, I also agree that Ranger is a good fit for David. Maybe we just add Elf and everyone is happy...?

Unfortunate that they are in the same scenario... where you have to look at them side by side. I don't know if it would be odd.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Mon Apr 08 2019 1:32pm
by knight0fdragon
I would say no, unless we have races in other class names. It would be more like Forest Ranger for David, but then you go WTF to his promotion classes.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Mon Apr 08 2019 2:24pm
by MXC
Know what would really solve the issue? My suggestion :lol:

Striker
Guerrilla
Commando

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Mon Apr 08 2019 3:27pm
by knight0fdragon
MXC wrote:Know what would really solve the issue? My suggestion :lol:

Striker
Guerrilla
Commando



Or Hunter, Guerrilla, Commando haha

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Mon Apr 08 2019 6:41pm
by legalize freedom
knight0fdragon wrote:I would say no, unless we have races in other class names. It would be more like Forest Ranger for David, but then you go WTF to his promotion classes.


There are several other races in class names, but mainly only non-typical or exclusive ones.

Birdsoldier/knight
Penguin
Wolf Baron
Dragonman
Unicorn
White Dragon
Lion Warrior/King
Pegasus Knight
Fairy

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Mon Apr 08 2019 6:56pm
by DiegoMM
the others are shining ranger, david is d&d ranger. problem solved. lol

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Mon Apr 08 2019 7:27pm
by Rune
Tor_Heyerdal wrote:
The western shining world never defined Ranger. It gave three examples. Three examples is not the same as a definition.

It most certainly is. That's like saying that Final Fantasies 1, 2, and 3 weren't enough to define "Black Mage".
EDIT: ... Did FF2 even have a black mage? I can't remember. Whatever. Supposing it didn't, then 1, 3, and 4 make my point just as well. It's not just three characters, it's three games. When each game that has Rangers at all only has one, then three Rangers equates to three games' worth of examples. That's plenty. And it's still 100%.


Except you start FF1 with explicitly choosing your party based on their class and they have no other defining characteristics. That is a key difference. Every Black Mage in FF1 is identical. And FF3 is a bad choice to support your claim, as anyone can be a Black Mage in that game.

And it's not 100%, it's 75%. We have David.



I do have a couple questions. What are the current translated states of the following items from Stamp village? These are what SFC has, but they are the very old versions:

Bookcase:
Elf Diets.
Beer is popular, as is wine. Common meals often include some kind of soup element.

Woman 1 in the Trees:
David is an excellent ranger. He explores the forest very often to whether or not it is in danger.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Mon Apr 08 2019 9:09pm
by legalize freedom
@Rune

~8-236~ Bookcase in Inn/Tavern:
"How Dwarves Dine" First is beer, then wine. The meal is fine as long as there's bread and soup!

~8-220~ Woman in House 1:
David is an excellent ranger. He watches over the whole forest and doesn't allow anyone to cause trouble.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Mon Apr 08 2019 10:03pm
by sulfuroxp
Power Ranger
End.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Tue Apr 09 2019 1:38am
by Tor_Heyerdal
Except you start FF1 with explicitly choosing your party based on their class and they have no other defining characteristics. That is a key difference. Every Black Mage in FF1 is identical.

'Cause there's sOoOoOoOoOo much variation between May, Stock, and Graham.

And FF3 is a bad choice to support your claim, as anyone can be a Black Mage in that game.

Anyone can be a black mage in FF1 as well. Like you said, you choose your party, and you're free to choose four black mages. And the fact that they're identical strengthens my argument, not weakens it. That makes it so that every black mage in the game can be reduced to just one example of a black mage, just like there's only one example of a Ranger per SF game.

And it's not 100%, it's 75%. We have David.

That's retarded. "Prior to SF3" does not include SF3. I've said again, and again, and again: "prior to SF3", or "up until SF3", or "before SF3 came along". And I've made a myriad of points pertaining to why SF3 can't be treated as an authority on this matter above literally every other game in the series. I get the impression that you're not even reading my posts. Although, to be fair, they are pretty long, so I can't entirely blame you. But nevertheless. You're either not reading my posts or you're deliberately ignoring key parts and large chunks of them.

While I agree Waltz's class should be changed to match the rest of the series, I also agree that Ranger is a good fit for David. Maybe we just add Elf and everyone is happy...?

I can accept this compromise. I believe knightOfdragon suggested the same thing a couple pages back. Said something about using (Adjective) Ranger just like there are (Adjective) Knights. Although I still think that Hunter is better, this at least works without compromising the lore too badly.

Know what would really solve the issue? My suggestion :lol:

Striker
Guerrilla
Commando

I also think that this suggestion by MXC is better than Elf Ranger as well. This option seems perfectly adequate to me.

Or Hunter, Guerrilla, Commando haha

This could potentially work too, but I see no reason to strike striker (pun intended not intended). There's nothing wrong with striker. It doesn't really have any immediate need to be changed like Ranger does.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Tue Apr 09 2019 3:12pm
by Rune
legalize freedom wrote:@Rune

~8-236~ Bookcase in Inn/Tavern:
"How Dwarves Dine" First is beer, then wine. The meal is fine as long as there's bread and soup!

~8-220~ Woman in House 1:
David is an excellent ranger. He watches over the whole forest and doesn't allow anyone to cause trouble.



Thanks. I was hoping for something about the forest elves’ diet. Whether they eat meat or not would strengthen/weaken the argument for Hunter.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Tue Apr 09 2019 6:16pm
by legalize freedom
Rune wrote:Thanks. I was hoping for something about the forest elves’ diet. Whether they eat meat or not would strengthen/weaken the argument for Hunter.


Agreed. That is a weak spot for Hunter. I'm not sure killing wildlife is his thing. He got the spear skills somewhere. We just don't know if it might have been repelling aggressors and/or training in preparation to vs actual hunting.

Maybe there are more clues around the village. If there is nothing but fruit and veggies on the tables...

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Wed Apr 10 2019 1:50am
by Tor_Heyerdal
He's the leader of a forest community in a pre-industrial society. You're damn right he hunts. He wouldn't be seen as a leader in such an environment if he wasn't putting food on the table.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Wed Apr 10 2019 2:10am
by legalize freedom
Tor_Heyerdal wrote:He's the leader of a forest community in a pre-industrial society. You're damn right he hunts. He wouldn't be seen as a leader in such an environment if he wasn't putting food on the table.


There's a good possibility that forest elves are vegetarians. But Gatherer ain't such a hot class name. :)

But I tend to agree that they would hunt...

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Wed Apr 10 2019 12:22pm
by knight0fdragon
legalize freedom wrote:
Tor_Heyerdal wrote:He's the leader of a forest community in a pre-industrial society. You're damn right he hunts. He wouldn't be seen as a leader in such an environment if he wasn't putting food on the table.


There's a good possibility that forest elves are vegetarians. But Gatherer ain't such a hot class name. :)

But I tend to agree that they would hunt...



Oh they hunt, that is why they are notorious for being archers.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Wed Apr 10 2019 6:05pm
by Rune
Two other relevant (old translation) lines are:

Man in the Bar:
The harvest in Barrand was very bad this year because of the very changing weather... That?s why they have run out of food... We?re very lucky that there?s a lot of fruit to eat in this forest...


Dwarf Dressed in Yellow:
I and the the other tribes of the wood defend and protect the Sea of Forests from wild animals and other creatures that live in this area. The Sea of Forests lies between the territories of the Empire and the Republic. But it still remains under our control.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Thu Apr 11 2019 3:40pm
by Tor_Heyerdal
Neither of those lines preclude the practice of hunting.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Thu Apr 11 2019 8:14pm
by Rune
I am not saying they do, but if we're even considering changing David's class, we should think carefully if a different title actually fits.

And KOD, how notorious of archers are the wood elves? Of the two that join the party, neither wields a bow.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Thu Apr 11 2019 8:51pm
by MXC
Looks like my comments got some traction in here. That's a good start.

Each of the current starting class suggestions are flawed for being either generic or having use elsewhere in the series (Ranger). Striker has more specific connotations than any of the starting class suggestions but is still vague enough to be an initial class.

That's why I laid out my suggestion in that form. And for those that don't know, a Guerrilla, as defined by dictionary.com is: a member of a small independent group taking part in irregular fighting, typically against larger regular forces. This definition could kind of apply to everyone but in giving the class to David, it evokes guerrilla warfare and David's diversity. Commando feels like a natural progression from this as well.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Fri Apr 12 2019 2:24am
by DomingoRules!
I know it's not part of the poll, but I was just thinking earlier today while taking a walk. What if his classes weren't so associated with his armaments at all? David's so much more than just another armed recruit, and since he's also such a unique character, perhaps his job class could be something that reflects that?

It's been awhile, so forgive me if some of what I'm remembering is a bit off, but as I recall, right when you meet him he's the leader of the village where he lives. Then, even after joining your party, he's frequently involved in matters of the plot. Offering his opinions on matters such as strategy, diplomacy, not to mention his authoritative personality resulting in him being put in charge of the second force during the final battle. Perhaps generic classes like Ranger and Hunter could be saved for more generic characters, and David could be given titles more closely tied to who he is, and the skills he brings to the Shining Force outside of simply running around with a spear or knife. The already existent Commando could become Commander, and some other possibilities could be Chief, Leader, or General. Since he's already a unique class, something of that nature could further accentuate his status as such, while also serving to be more intimately connected to who he is as a whole, accounting for his entire arsenal of skills both on and off the battlefield.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Fri Apr 12 2019 4:35am
by Tor_Heyerdal
I am not saying they do, but if we're even considering changing David's class, we should think carefully if a different title actually fits.

I'm fine with using a different title. It doesn't have to be Hunter. Just as long as it's appropriate and not Ranger. Hunter is a title that actually fits, but of course, that doesn't mean that there aren't other potential titles which could also fit or even fit better. So in this regard, I agree with you.

That's why I laid out my suggestion in that form. And for those that don't know, a Guerrilla, as defined by dictionary.com is: a member of a small independent group taking part in irregular fighting, typically against larger regular forces. This definition could kind of apply to everyone but in giving the class to David, it evokes guerrilla warfare and David's diversity. Commando feels like a natural progression from this as well.

Guerilla works very well too, I think. I have no qualms with this. It also falls in line with Striker and Commando a whole lot better than Hunter does. I think we should seriously consider this option.

Perhaps generic classes like Ranger and Hunter could be saved for more generic characters, and David could be given titles more closely tied to who he is, and the skills he brings to the Shining Force outside of simply running around with a spear or knife. The already existent Commando could become Commander, and some other possibilities could be Chief, Leader, or General.

I actually think that Chief works very well. Arguably better than Hunter. We can presume with a fair degree of reasonableness that he does, in fact, hunt, but there's no presumption necessary when it comes to Chief. He is a chief, and no one can really dispute that. I think this option should also be seriously considered.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Fri Apr 12 2019 12:36pm
by legalize freedom
DomingoRules! wrote:It's been awhile, so forgive me if some of what I'm remembering is a bit off, but as I recall, right when you meet him he's the leader of the village where he lives. Then, even after joining your party, he's frequently involved in matters of the plot. Offering his opinions on matters such as strategy, diplomacy, not to mention his authoritative personality resulting in him being put in charge of the second force during the final battle.
...
The already existent Commando could become Commander, and some other possibilities could be Chief, Leader, or General. Since he's already a unique class, something of that nature could further accentuate his status as such, while also serving to be more intimately connected to who he is as a whole, accounting for his entire arsenal of skills both on and off the battlefield.


We might be on to something here... or returning to it. It has been suggested that he should be a General like Produn, Spiriel, Edmund, etc. I can see that solving a lot of problems.

I'm not a fan of having such specific military classes as Guerrilla and Commando. It just doesn't seem to fit. Not only in the game, but David as a character.

If we made David share his final two classes with the other generals (Commander, General) it would make a lot of sense. All the general characters have odd weapon combinations. Commander is the literal translation of his second class. And as a character he does take a leadership role very quickly. To top it off there are no general characters in Sc2.

Of course then we would be back to deciding on a starting class, but with a better focus of what that class could/should be. Chief is a good start. It's unique and describes a tribal leader. Maybe there is something better... or one of the existing options.


@Rune
I'm going to get those lines as they are currently.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Fri Apr 12 2019 1:08pm
by MXC
Except those other characters actually have those titles in the military. I don't recall specifics of David's story but I don't recall that really being the case.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Fri Apr 12 2019 3:52pm
by DomingoRules!
David's background may not be as a member of the military, but he veritably becomes one upon joining the Shining Force, so by time he's promoted he would certainly have those same qualifications.

Either way though, those were just the first examples that came to mind of authoritative job classes (and honestly I couldn't remember if characters like Produn already shared some of those classifications). I'm sure there's plenty of other options, including perhaps ones that would be better suited for David specifically; maybe if something like D&D has specific terms for high ranking officers who are elves or forest dwellers. My point is simply that because he has a unique class, and actively serves a larger role in the party than fighting, I feel we could do more than simply look at his weapons for labeling him; as opposed to other character who are either much more generic in the personal role they play, or belong to a widely shared job class. David's much more than just another guy with a sword, and because he doesn't suffer the inhibition of sharing his job with other characters, I believe he deserves recognition of his abilities as a whole.

Heck, we could even take a route of expanding upon more generic classes. Like how Lemon in Shining Force 2 is a Red Baron, as opposed to just Baron like Jaha and Randolf. David could be something like a Chief Ranger, implying that he's much more than a standard Ranger while also opening up the possible use for the Ranger class for other characters, if so desired down the line.

As for the part about him specifically sharing class names with the likes of Produn and Edmund, while I suppose that could work, I feel like one problem is that the convention of the SF3 trilogy (convention being a word that I imagine people being sick of hearing in this thread at this point, judging from when I skimmed through to try and see if my point about David had already been made) dictates that they don't only use strange weapons, but can also cast magic; a skill David lacks. Now, I wouldn't say that disqualifies him outright from the concept of sharing their class, but I do believe it should be considered as a con for the decision.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Fri Apr 12 2019 4:24pm
by knight0fdragon
DomingoRules! wrote:David's background may not be as a member of the military, but he veritably becomes one upon joining the Shining Force, so by time he's promoted he would certainly have those same qualifications.

Either way though, those were just the first examples that came to mind of authoritative job classes (and honestly I couldn't remember if characters like Produn already shared some of those classifications). I'm sure there's plenty of other options, including perhaps ones that would be better suited for David specifically; maybe if something like D&D has specific terms for high ranking officers who are elves or forest dwellers. My point is simply that because he has a unique class, and actively serves a larger role in the party than fighting, I feel we could do more than simply look at his weapons for labeling him; as opposed to other character who are either much more generic in the personal role they play, or belong to a widely shared job class. David's much more than just another guy with a sword, and because he doesn't suffer the inhibition of sharing his job with other characters, I believe he deserves recognition of his abilities as a whole.

Heck, we could even take a route of expanding upon more generic classes. Like how Lemon in Shining Force 2 is a Red Baron, as opposed to just Baron like Jaha and Randolf. David could be something like a Chief Ranger, implying that he's much more than a standard Ranger while also opening up the possible use for the Ranger class for other characters, if so desired down the line.

As for the part about him specifically sharing class names with the likes of Produn and Edmund, while I suppose that could work, I feel like one problem is that the convention of the SF3 trilogy (convention being a word that I imagine people being sick of hearing in this thread at this point, judging from when I skimmed through to try and see if my point about David had already been made) dictates that they don't only use strange weapons, but can also cast magic; a skill David lacks. Now, I wouldn't say that disqualifies him outright from the concept of sharing their class, but I do believe it should be considered as a con for the decision.

Negative on the casting of magic, Spiriel and Rogan cannot cast magic, only Produn and Edmund can

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Fri Apr 12 2019 5:14pm
by MXC
DomingoRules! wrote:David's background may not be as a member of the military, but he veritably becomes one upon joining the Shining Force, so by time he's promoted he would certainly have those same qualifications.

But is he trained in formal military combat? No, and that's why guerrilla becomes a fitting name.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Fri Apr 12 2019 5:20pm
by Rune
I propose the following:
Guerrilla -> Gorilla -> Gorerilla

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Fri Apr 12 2019 6:47pm
by legalize freedom
Chieftain would fit nicely.

Chieftain
Commander
General


It could also be worked in a couple of lines where the townsfolk call him "leader".

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Fri Apr 12 2019 8:33pm
by Rune
Myself, I could live with that. Something about assigning him existing classes within shining force 3 annoys me, but I could live with it.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Fri Apr 12 2019 10:10pm
by DomingoRules!
knight0fdragon wrote:Negative on the casting of magic, Spiriel and Rogan cannot cast magic, only Produn and Edmund can

In my defense, I've only beaten the game once, and recruited neither Spiriel nor Rogan when I did. Only Produn, although I also have a tiny bit of experience with Edmund as well from when I was curious about what level Scenario 3 would start you at if not loading a save from a previous Scenario. I just assumed that since Produn and Edmund both have magic, all others of their same class would as well.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Sat Apr 13 2019 12:39am
by Tor_Heyerdal
Rune wrote:Myself, I could live with that. Something about assigning him existing classes within shining force 3 annoys me, but I could live with it.

I'm inclined to agree with Rune on this one. I could live with it, but it does kind of annoy me that we would be assigning him existing classes within SF3. Especially when, as has been noted, he actually lacks magic, which is kind of a defining feature of those classes.

MXC wrote:But is he trained in formal military combat? No, and that's why guerrilla becomes a fitting name.

Indeed. "General" is an extremely formal title. David may have joined the Medion army, but in a very informal capacity. He's not like, on some military registrar somewhere. In an official capacity, he likely wouldn't be recognized, which would certainly be a requirement for a title such as general. Though this is only speculation, though, of course.

I really like Chieftain, and I really like Guerilla. I don't know what the hell "Striker" is even supposed to mean. Sounds like "guy what hits things." lol.

At this point, I'm inclined to propose Chieftain > Guerilla > Commando.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Sat Apr 13 2019 5:16am
by DomingoRules!
Tor_Heyerdal wrote:Indeed. "General" is an extremely formal title. David may have joined the Medion army, but in a very informal capacity. He's not like, on some military registrar somewhere. In an official capacity, he likely wouldn't be recognized, which would certainly be a requirement for a title such as general. Though this is only speculation, though, of course.

I'm not saying this to dispute your statement, but reading this paragraph just got me thinking that I'm sure Medion would have the authority to have David made a general (at least under himself) if he had half a mind to do so, and David were consensual.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Sat Apr 13 2019 7:38am
by Rune
Tor_Heyerdal wrote:At this point, I'm inclined to propose Chieftain > Guerilla > Commando.


I also considered this, but I not convinced Guerrilla is a higher rank than Chieftain. To me it doesn't sound like a promotion.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Sat Apr 13 2019 10:46am
by Tor_Heyerdal
DomingoRules! wrote:I'm not saying this to dispute your statement, but reading this paragraph just got me thinking that I'm sure Medion would have the authority to have David made a general (at least under himself) if he had half a mind to do so, and David were consensual.

You know, that's a really good point. Medion does have a very high position of authority in the Empire as a prince ("prince of an Empire" sounds kind of ridiculous when I say it out loud, but hey, so does "king of the Republic", so whatever, I guess xD). If anybody would have the ability to enact such a thing, it would be him and his brothers. However, even with that, there is still the problem of the inconsistency regarding the whole "lack of magic" problem with that particular class label.

EDIT: Oh. Wait. I just noticed knightOfdragon's comment about Spiriel and Rogan not being able to cast magic. I mean, I read it, but I wasn't really "listening to myself" when I read it, if that makes sense (a bad habit I have... ADHD, you see...). And yeah, that's right, isn't it? Okay. Yeah. In that case, the General line could actually work...

Rune wrote:I also considered this, but I not convinced Guerrilla is a higher rank than Chieftain. To me it doesn't sound like a promotion.

Also a very good point. And I had actually already thought this, but now that someone else has voiced it and I'm now forced to confront that point from the perspective of being on the other side of an argument from it, I'm inclined to very much agree. Chieftain > Guerilla doesn't exactly sound like a promotion. It sounds like a sidestep at best, or even a downgrade. Guerilla > Chieftain would definitely sound like an upgrade, but it wouldn't really make much sense due to the fact that he was already a chieftain to begin with. How can you promote to something that you already are, right? Chieftain > Striker sounds like a sidestep or a downgrade as well. And like I said before, Striker doesn't even really make much sense in the first place, because it's vague as all hell. It works as a promotion from Ranger, but from Chieftain? Hmm. Not so much, does it? I'm all for keeping Commando in the mix, though. And I actually really love the idea of Chieftain. I think that's my favourite suggestion so far. But I'm not really sure what to do about that second class. I'm sure we can come up with something, though. Also, at risk of jinxing it, I feel like we may be coming closer to something resembling a consensus. lol.

Is the poll able to be adjusted so that we can put the Chieftain > ? > Commando line into it once we work out the Underpants Gnome factor (ie, figure out a good class 2 label)?

EDIT: Now at this point, I feel like I'm leaning more towards Chieftain > Commander or Commando (probably Commander for the sake of consistency) > General.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Sat Apr 13 2019 1:00pm
by legalize freedom
Yes, this poll was premature. We will have another, but with more interesting choices. :)

The Chieftain really only works with the Commander > General line.

For the Striker > Commando line it will need to be Elf Ranger, Hunter, etc.


Keep in mind when these happen, esp for the General line. Chieftain first half of Sc2, Commander second half of Sc2, General end of Sc3.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Sat Apr 13 2019 1:50pm
by Tor_Heyerdal
legalize freedom wrote:Yes, this poll was premature. We will have another, but with more interesting choices. :)

Right on.

legalize freedom wrote:The Chieftain really only works with the Commander > General line.

Well, for now. Up until someone comes up with something else with which it could also work. Which may or may not happen, but it certainly could.

legalize freedom wrote:Keep in mind when these happen, esp for the General line. Chieftain first half of Sc2, Commander second half of Sc2, General end of Sc3.

Well, yeah, of course.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Sat Apr 13 2019 1:59pm
by DiegoMM
I feel giving General class to David is like giving A Wizard class to Marky and Hedva, its close enough but its different, in the original we have General and Striker class side by side, and assigning a already existing class is crossing the line for me. If it was the intention to give David military authority the developers would had done that in sc3, but they gave him a class which focus is much more the combat.

Its not the worst thing in the world he becomes a general, but feels strange for me. When I think about David comes in mind a dynamic and agressive fighter, not a formal leader with shinig armor like Produn.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Sat Apr 13 2019 2:41pm
by DomingoRules!
legalize freedom wrote:Keep in mind when these happen, esp for the General line. Chieftain first half of Sc2, Commander second half of Sc2, General end of Sc3.

That stream of events is why I was thinking that it might be good to consider the end of Sc2 in deciding his second class. Giving him a title that would complement Medion's confidence in his leadership abilities that resulted in Medion wholeheartedly entrusting him with the final operation, but without outright telegraphing it in advance. Something like Commander or Captain would definitely achieve that, giving him authority to take part in meetings and such, but without giving him too much responsibility outright compared to Medion and his advisor (I forget who his advisor is). Not to mention it would also fit as a last-minute promotion in preparation for that final battle, in the event that the player wasn't using him until that point. Then, after having been granted the responsibility to lead his own unit during the final operation in Sc2, the next obvious step would be a promotion that further endows him with even higher authority as recognition for that momentous achievement.

He goes above and beyond for the Shining Force, being more than just a soldier like the rest, so definitely deserves that to be reflected in his promotions; especially if promotions are some sort of divine rite divvied out by the gods (which is how I always saw it, being performed at a church) as a reflection of one's innate abilities.

If not military ranks though, then perhaps something more informal that expresses the same thing, although I can't think of much off the top of my head for that.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Sun Apr 14 2019 4:19am
by Tor_Heyerdal
DiegoMM wrote:I feel giving General class to David is like giving A Wizard class to Marky and Hedva, its close enough but its different, in the original we have General and Striker class side by side, and assigning a already existing class is crossing the line for me.

At risk of sounding flip-floppy, I guess you're right.

What about maybe Chieftain > Champion > Commando? Or perhaps Chieftain > Primal > Commando?

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Sun Apr 14 2019 1:05pm
by legalize freedom
@DiegoMM
If you mean that you believe David should be unique (speaking in doubt of the general line), he will be for his first class. By the time he's promoted, he'll have grown into the establishment enough to be a Commander and obviously after he orchestrates the take down of the Juggernaut, he will have earned the General he gets in Sc3.
Having him be unique all the way through will still be an option with the Commando line. I believe I have the options in mind, but want to make sure it's not premature again. :blush:


@Rune
~8-229~ Man in Inn/Tavern:
Due to bad weather this year, Barrand is experiencing a food shortage. Fortunately, we're surrounded by abundant plant life. Due to the fruits of the forest, we're never short of food.

~8-217~ ~Yellow~ Dwarf 5 in Dwarves House:
We and the other forest tribes protect this forest so its wild animals can live free and in safety. That's because neither the Empire nor the Republic can reach the interior of this forest to exert their power.

Nothing definitive, but it doesn't look good for the carnivore aspect...

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Sun Apr 14 2019 4:03pm
by Tor_Heyerdal
legalize freedom wrote:~8-217~ ~Yellow~ Dwarf 5 in Dwarves House:
We and the other forest tribes protect this forest so its wild animals can live free and in safety. That's because neither the Empire nor the Republic can reach the interior of this forest to exert their power.

Nothing definitive, but it doesn't look good for the carnivore aspect...

There never was any carnivore aspect. Their participating in hunting does not entail that they only eat meat. However, even if it did, nothing about that makes it "not look good" for the carnivore aspect. From a humanoid context, the statement that the animals can live free and in safety doesn't mean that they're never hunted. It just means that their populations as a whole are not in danger due to the prevention of overharvesting via the exclusion of the Empire and the Republic. Unless you can show a line of dialogue that explicitly states that this is actually a wildlife reserve, then it's not exactly reasonable to assume that he's not talking about populations considered as a whole across time rather than each and every individual animal at all times. However, that said, I don't think it really matters, as I get the impression that most of us have moved past the idea of Hunter anyway, in lieu of the more fitting options which have come to light.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Sun Apr 14 2019 4:53pm
by legalize freedom
Tor_Heyerdal wrote:
legalize freedom wrote:~8-217~ ~Yellow~ Dwarf 5 in Dwarves House:
We and the other forest tribes protect this forest so its wild animals can live free and in safety. That's because neither the Empire nor the Republic can reach the interior of this forest to exert their power.

Nothing definitive, but it doesn't look good for the carnivore aspect...

There never was any carnivore aspect. Their participating in hunting does not entail that they only eat meat. However, even if it did, nothing about that makes it "not look good" for the carnivore aspect. From a humanoid context, the statement that the animals can live free and in safety doesn't mean that they're never hunted. It just means that their populations as a whole are not in danger due to the prevention of overharvesting via the exclusion of the Empire and the Republic. Unless you can show a line of dialogue that explicitly states that this is actually a wildlife reserve, then it's not exactly reasonable to assume that he's not talking about populations considered as a whole across time rather than each and every individual animal at all times. However, that said, I don't think it really matters, as I get the impression that most of us have moved past the idea of Hunter anyway, in lieu of the more fitting options which have come to light.


Pardon me. Mesocarnivore aspect. :stare:

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Sun Apr 14 2019 6:11pm
by DomingoRules!
Tor_Heyerdal wrote:What about maybe Chieftain > Champion > Commando? Or perhaps Chieftain > Primal > Commando?

Personally, I feel as though Primal falls more into a berserker archetype. It makes the character sound powerful, but mindlessly bloodthirsty or aggressive. At least that's what comes to my mind when I consider the prospect of using the word as a job class. Either that, or used as an alternative for a beastman character instead of simply listing their race as a class.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15 2019 8:52am
by Tor_Heyerdal
DomingoRules! wrote:Personally, I feel as though Primal falls more into a berserker archetype. It makes the character sound powerful, but mindlessly bloodthirsty or aggressive. At least that's what comes to my mind when I consider the prospect of using the word as a job class. Either that, or used as an alternative for a beastman character instead of simply listing their race as a class.

Fair enough that that's what comes to your mind, but that's not actually what that word necessarily entails. It makes him sound powerful, yes, which was the intention. But it doesn't necessarily suggest bloodthirstiness, aggressiveness, or mindlessness.
1: Relating to an early stage in evolutionary development; primeval.
2: Essential; fundamental.
I was going for a combination of both of these meanings simultaneously. The first meaning can basically be broken down as "primitive" (notice the root connection between PRIMal and PRIMitive), which is appropriate because he lives out in the woods without the trappings of modern society (I mean "modern" from an in-game context, of course). The second definition is also appropriate because, as the chieftain of his people, he is certainly essential. I still kind of lean more towards "Champion", however, which is why I mentioned it first. While it's fair enough to presume that Medion COULD bestow David with a rank of Commander or General, he never actually does so, so it would be kind of presumptuous of us to just shoehorn that in there, I think. However, he most certainly proves himself as one of Medion's most indispensable champions throughout the course of the story. As such, I think Champion would be very appropriate. Although as one of Medion's most indispensable champions, he is also quite essential to Medion's Force, and therefore, Primal fits pretty well too, I think. He's essential to Medion, he's essential to his people, and he leads a primitive lifestyle. I'd say Primal fits the bill pretty well. So does Champion. I like the idea of either of them, and I hope that people might consider these suggestions; the thread seems to be petering off at this point...

legalize freedom wrote:Pardon me. Mesocarnivore aspect. :stare:

I stand by my statement. Carnivore. Mesocarnivore. Omnivore. The actual point still remains, which was that there's been nothing to discredit the idea that they hunt game. Whether or not that game constitutes the bulk of their diet is irrelevant. Also, David is frickin' ripped. You don't get a physique like that without some significant protein in your diet, and he's sure as hell not gettin' that from forest berries and mushrooms.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15 2019 12:09pm
by legalize freedom
Tor_Heyerdal wrote:David is frickin' ripped. You don't get a physique like that without some significant protein in your diet, and he's sure as hell not gettin' that from forest berries and mushrooms.


Beans, man. Good for the heart. :thumbsup:

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15 2019 1:57pm
by DiegoMM
Sorry to bring a new word, but anyone thought about Strider?
1 - Its a word related to Ranger in every lord of the ring inspired story
2 - Gives the idea of a dynamic, moving hero in the battlefield
3 - Gives me the feeling that its more experienced than ranger, like the guerrila name suggested but without the heavy military conotation, sound like a fantasy guerrila.

Hunter - Commando - Strider

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15 2019 2:40pm
by DomingoRules!
Not to sound pompous, but I know what primal means. It's just that generally speaking, the word is usually only associated with humans when talking about things like cavemen, so that's the sort of thing that comes to mind when applied as a class. Still, your point is solid.

As for strider, I don't think that would be a terrible choice if going down the more generic soldier class route, so long as your first point is valid. I don't read enough to know the frequency of that word being used outside a character name in Lord of the Rings, as the only other fantasy realm in which I've seen it used is the Strider video game series.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15 2019 4:32pm
by MXC
I'm reading through the translation posted on SFC and found this line:

Child 1 in the Trees:
There's no chief in Stamp Village. But David, who lives in the biggest tree, takes care of the management of the village.
So Chieftain seems pretty out of place :lol:

Regardless, here is a list of the suggested class names (for all tiers):

Code: Select all
Battler
Brawler
Champion
Chieftain
Commando
Fighter
Guerrilla
Hunter/Huntsman
Ranger
Scout
Skirmisher
Strider
Striker


I probably missed a few due to paragraphs of commentary so if I did, add it here.

I believe Commando is the desired final class though so maybe that should be used as a starting (ending) point. What two classes should come before Commando?

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15 2019 6:23pm
by Tor_Heyerdal
DiegoMM wrote:Sorry to bring a new word, but anyone thought about Strider?

I'm okay with that suggestion. It definitely seems like a pretty solid potential.

MXC wrote:
Child 1 in the Trees:
There's no chief in Stamp Village. But David, who lives in the biggest tree, takes care of the management of the village.

So Chieftain seems pretty out of place :lol:

Oh... Well, shit. xD That actually really bites, 'cause I was really feelin' that class option.

Okay, so since there's clearly no arguing with the kid in the trees, I suppose that now I'm leaning towards Strider > Champion > Commando. I'm still feelin' that Champion idea, and--at least for the time being--I'm diggin' the Strider label. In the realm of fantasy, it's basically synonymous with Ranger without actually being Ranger. So it's not actually striding (heheh) too far from his original, unfortunately misplaced, class.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15 2019 6:57pm
by legalize freedom
I can check that line, how it ended up, but it's semantics. Use a different word or phrasing there and Chieftain still works. It is a good point, though, that the villagers do say there is no official chief, but David is their leader. Again, I think the words are interchangeable. I think it's just that they have no officially recognized leader, but David is the acting leader. I believe his class could still be Chieftain without being Stumps official village chief.

I would say if Strider were to be an option, it would be in replacement of Striker.

Champion is already in use by Penn.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15 2019 7:53pm
by DiegoMM
I think Strider works as a replacement either to Ranger or Striker.

Tor has a good point, Strider is basically a ranger where we avoid the ranger word, so no conflict with old shining and same concept.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15 2019 9:55pm
by DomingoRules!
That whole thing with the kid is semantics, yes, but I do feel as though a lot of this is coming down to semantics. Digging into them to figure the perfect title for David. An effort I feel wouldn't be worth it for most characters in the game, but as I've already stated, David's significance means he deserves deeper consideration for his class titles than most of the Shining Force.

I suppose it would come down to how literal a translation that line is from the original Japanese, and if it would be worth modifying or disregarding for the sake of appeasing the semantics. Not to mention if David technically isn't a chief, would he still perceive himself as one in essence, seeing as he still serves the same essential role despite lacking the official title? After all, giving him the title of Acting Chief is not only a mouthful, but sounds tacky.

Perhaps Chief or Chieftain could even work as a second promotion instead, if not first, since he'd be promoted based on his qualifications. That way he'd become a Chieftain through the divine powers of promotion in recognition of him having the qualifications, but never before having formally taken up the mantle of said authoritative status.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15 2019 10:18pm
by knight0fdragon
legalize freedom wrote:I can check that line, how it ended up, but it's semantics. Use a different word or phrasing there and Chieftain still works. It is a good point, though, that the villagers do say there is no official chief, but David is their leader. Again, I think the words are interchangeable. I think it's just that they have no officially recognized leader, but David is the acting leader. I believe his class could still be Chieftain without being Stumps official village chief.

I would say if Strider were to be an option, it would be in replacement of Striker.

Champion is already in use by Penn.


Not a fan of Champion, makes David sound like he belongs in an arena.

Also, we should avoid using his leadership role as his class, because any promotion sounds like a demotion after “Chieftain”.

Like he is no longer the acting chief of Stamp village? LOL.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Tue Apr 16 2019 2:30am
by MXC
I think I'm becoming more partial to Scout after reading through some of the game context. Again, correct me if I'm wrong with some of this but it seems like David has literally done a good job scouting the area and looking out for the village. He gets brought in on Medion's team and becomes a more active physical force. He goes from being just a pair of eyes to actively doing something. To that end, I like Scout -> Guerrilla -> Commando.

Otherwise agree with points against Chieftain and Champion.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Tue Apr 16 2019 3:23am
by knight0fdragon
MXC wrote:I think I'm becoming more partial to Scout after reading through some of the game context. Again, correct me if I'm wrong with some of this but it seems like David has literally done a good job scouting the area and looking out for the village. He gets brought in on Medion's team and becomes a more active physical force. He goes from being just a pair of eyes to actively doing something. To that end, I like Scout -> Guerrilla -> Commando.

Otherwise agree with points against Chieftain and Champion.



That really isn't the job of a scout, scouts are used for survelience of new areas, not for security of a current area.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Tue Apr 16 2019 12:57pm
by MXC
I mean, kind of both? You can scout for threats and return to your position. But also, it sounds a hell of a lot better than Lookout lol.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Tue Apr 16 2019 3:54pm
by knight0fdragon
You are then calling him a sentry at that point, which again is not David. His job is to not gather intel, stand guard, spy, sneak, explore, etc lol.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Tue Apr 16 2019 5:59pm
by Tor_Heyerdal
legalize freedom wrote:Champion is already in use by Penn.

Is it? Are you for reals? I just checked my notes, and according to what I have written here, Penn's classes are Penguin > Flare Penguin > Penguin King.

DiegoMM wrote:I think Strider works as a replacement either to Ranger or Striker.

Agreed, for reasons already stated.

DomingoRules! wrote:Perhaps Chief or Chieftain could even work as a second promotion instead, if not first, since he'd be promoted based on his qualifications.

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I disagree. At no point after joining Medion's forces does he "become" a chieftain. Either he was chief of Stump Village or he wasn't.

DomingoRules! wrote:That way he'd become a Chieftain through the divine powers of promotion in recognition of him having the qualifications, but never before having formally taken up the mantle of said authoritative status.

While that does seem like a plausible thing that could happen, I think we should probably avoid canonizing speculation. It's not really our place to do that. It's one thing to make the odd tweak here and there for the sake of localization consistency, it's another thing entirely to add new details to the lore. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that's what this project is about. As far as I understand it, this is the same reason we appear to have already more or less taken General off the table.

knightOfdragon wrote:Not a fan of Champion, makes David sound like he belongs in an arena.

It really doesn't. Champion is not another word for gladiator. Actually, on that note, what about gladiator? The traditional SF promoted Warrior class? Why don't they sound like they belong in an arena? But that aside, the word champion does not entail an arena. It's true that it's often used in that context, but that's not intrinsic to the word. If you can't dissociate the word from that particular context, then that's your bias.

knightOfdragon wrote:Also, we should avoid using his leadership role as his class, because any promotion sounds like a demotion after “Chieftain”.

Like he is no longer the acting chief of Stamp village? LOL.

Do Mages stop being Mages when they get promoted to Wizard? Do Priests stop being Priests when they get promoted to Vicars? Do Swordsmen stop being Swordsmen when they get promoted to Heroes? Do Archers stop being Archers when they get promoted to Snipers? Of course not. The same would be true for a hypothetical Chieftain>Champion David. He wouldn't stop being a Chieftain. He would just also be a Champion.

However, all of that said, I'm inclined to forsake the idea of Chieftain when it's canonically established in-game that Stump Village explicitly does not have a chieftain. So, at least from my perspective, it's something of a moot point.

MXC wrote:I think I'm becoming more partial to Scout after reading through some of the game context.

MXC wrote:You can scout for threats and return to your position.

I'm okay with Scout as being a viable option.

So, okay, if Chieftain is off the table, what about Warden? "A person responsible for the supervision of a particular place or thing or for ensuring that regulations associated with it are obeyed." That actually sounds like EXACTLY what David is/does.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Tue Apr 16 2019 6:22pm
by legalize freedom
Penns classes are Penguin, Champion and Emperor.

Chieftain and General are not only still in play, they are leading contenders, albeit for different line options.

I'm guessing we will need a poll to determine if we want to go the Commando or General route. If it is decided for the Commando route, then another poll to determine the first (and maybe the second) class options.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Tue Apr 16 2019 7:29pm
by MXC
Curious how Chieftain and General are still in play when other concepts from SF3 really weigh against them. Commando has had all the support even from the last topic.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Tue Apr 16 2019 11:08pm
by legalize freedom
MXC wrote:Curious how Chieftain and General are still in play when other concepts from SF3 really weigh against them. Commando has had all the support even from the last topic.


Far more weighs in their favor than against. There have been some misrepresentations in this thread and I haven't the time or the desire to debate them. I'm simply mining the good ideas. I will, however, fully explain each option when the time comes, so they all get a fair shake.

The Commando line is certainly still in play.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Wed Apr 17 2019 4:22am
by knight0fdragon
Tor_Heyerdal wrote:
knightOfdragon wrote:Not a fan of Champion, makes David sound like he belongs in an arena.

It really doesn't. Champion is not another word for gladiator. Actually, on that note, what about gladiator? The traditional SF promoted Warrior class? Why don't they sound like they belong in an arena? But that aside, the word champion does not entail an arena. It's true that it's often used in that context, but that's not intrinsic to the word. If you can't dissociate the word from that particular context, then that's your bias.

We are dealing with a mideval style game here.... so bias is going to exist. What exactly is he the Champion of? Who is rallying behind him? What is the competition in which he can become "champ"?


Tor_Heyerdal wrote:
knightOfdragon wrote:Also, we should avoid using his leadership role as his class, because any promotion sounds like a demotion after “Chieftain”.

Like he is no longer the acting chief of Stamp village? LOL.



Do Mages stop being Mages when they get promoted to Wizard? Do Priests stop being Priests when they get promoted to Vicars? Do Swordsmen stop being Swordsmen when they get promoted to Heroes? Do Archers stop being Archers when they get promoted to Snipers? Of course not. The same would be true for a hypothetical Chieftain>Champion David. He wouldn't stop being a Chieftain. He would just also be a Champion.



...Is this a serious question? Yes, Wizards are not Mages, Vicars are not Priests, Heroes are not Swordsmen, Snipers are not Archers, Generals are not Soldiers, Presidents are not Citizens, Kings are not Peasants, Blastoise is not a Squirtle .... wait wrong game. Title has meaning, and a "Promotion" dictates that you have a higher ranking title than your previous title. If you hold the title of "Chief", a "Champion" does not sound like a promotion. I ask my question again, what is the competition in which he became Champion? Did all of the Chiefs of the area hold reindeer games and he is now Champion of Chiefs? I would think his title would then be Champion of Chiefs, and not mearly Champion.

Another good example of why I am against Chieftain is Rogan. He is the Govenor of Barrand, but Govenor is not anywhere in his class names.

MXC wrote: Curious how Chieftain and General are still in play when other concepts from SF3 really weigh against them. Commando has had all the support even from the last topic.


What concepts from SF3 weigh against his title of General? The only argument I saw was that of Marky being a Witch and not a Wizard, but I wouldn't exactly call that a heavy weight against the argument, but I do agree that him being a General does move down on the list. Speaking of which, in Scenario 3, are the 4 generals unique in their classes, as in they hold a seperate location in the file that is addressed differently?



As far as the class "Strider", that is usually given to somebody who travels great distances. If his speed was 7, I would be more inclined to go with it. Does he move better in terrains than normal foot soldiers?

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Wed Apr 17 2019 6:36am
by Tor_Heyerdal
knightOfdragon wrote:We are dealing with a mideval style game here.... so bias is going to exist.

The fact that bias exists doesn't justify treating it as though it's not bias and pretending that things mean things that they don't mean.

knightOfdragon wrote:What exactly is he the Champion of?

Not the, but a champion of Medion's army. But it hardly matters, since apparently, they've already changed Penn's second class to Champion anyway. So it's an extremely moot point. But nevertheless...

knightOfdragon wrote:Who is rallying behind him? What is the competition in which he can become "champ"?

Being rallied behind and participating in competition are not necessary requirements to be a champion. Again, that's just your personal bias. Your personal bias doesn't actually dictate what a champion is. Although war is certainly quite the competition.

knightOfdragon wrote:...Is this a serious question? Yes, Wizards are not Mages, Vicars are not Priests, Heroes are not Swordsmen, Snipers are not Archers, Generals are not Soldiers, Presidents are not Citizens, Kings are not Peasants, Blastoise is not a Squirtle .... wait wrong game.

Dude... Are you for reals?
Mage: a person with magical powers.
Priest: (Relevant definition) a person who performs religious ceremonies and duties in a non-Christian religion.
Archer: a person who shoots with a bow and arrows, especially at a target for sport.
Swordsman: a man who fights with a sword (typically with his level of skill specified).
So you're honestly going to sit there with a straight face and tell me that Noon is NOT a person with magical powers? Promoted Grace is NOT a person who performs religious ceremonies and duties? Garosh is NOT a person who shoots with a bow and arrows? And promoted Synbios is NOT a man who fights with a sword? That is absolutely ridiculous. Nobody ever suggested that General promotes from Soldier (it promotes from Commander; interesting cherrypick to avoid the obvious fact that generals are people in positions of command), and there is no President, Citizen, King or Peasant class, so those are irrelevant strawmen. And Pokemon are even less relevant. But you're talking here as though promotion from Mage > Wizard is tantamount to one's entire being being transmogrified into a wholly different entity by directly comparing it to a Pokemon evolution like that. When you get promoted, you're still you. You still have all of the traits and skills that you possessed before. A title doesn't rewrite your entire existence, it adds to it. "I hereby declare thee... a hero!" "Oh, noes! I've suddenly forgotten how to use a sword! :0"

knightOfdragon wrote:I ask my question again, what is the competition in which he became Champion? Did all of the Chiefs of the area hold reindeer games and he is now Champion of Chiefs?

Again, you don't require competitive games to be a champion.
Champion: 1. a person who has defeated or surpassed all rivals in a competition, especially in sports.
^ Yes, this is one definition of champion. But so is this:
Champion: 2. a person who fights or argues for a cause or on behalf of someone else.
David is a person who fights for a cause. Technically, pretty much the entire Force could be classified as champions.
And again, regarding definition 1, "especially in sports" does not mean "exclusively in sports", and war is pretty damn competitive.

knightOfdragon wrote:I would think his title would then be Champion of Chiefs, and not mearly Champion.

Except not everyone on Medion's force are all chiefs, so that's absurd.
EDIT: I realize now that this was intended in context to the suggestion of that ridiculous "reindeer games" comment, so I'm just going to dismiss this as nonsense since such absurdity is not required for him to be called a champion for reasons that have already been addressed.

knightOfdragon wrote:Another good example of why I am against Chieftain is Rogan. He is the Govenor of Barrand, but Govenor is not anywhere in his class names.

Further supported by the fact that Isabella is the Princess of the Empire, but Princess is not anywhere in her--oh, wait... yeah, it is. Not every single character in the game is classed by the same metric, y'know.

knightOfdragon wrote:What concepts from SF3 weigh against his title of General?

The fact that he's never actually appointed with a title of general (class or otherwise). We can't just go making up new canon. It's plausible that he COULD be appointed with that title by someone like Medion, but it never actually happens, nor is it implied to happen. This has been discussed, so I guess you must've somehow missed that.

knightOfdragon wrote:Speaking of which, in Scenario 3, are the 4 generals unique in their classes, as in they hold a seperate location in the file that is addressed differently?

I'm not sure what you mean.

knightOfdragon wrote:As far as the class "Strider", that is usually given to somebody who travels great distances.

That's actually a really good point. I think that's true. I can't speak for anyone else, but I will absolutely take that as a valid disqualification of Strider.

My proposition of "Warden" still stands. In case that was missed too, I'll point out the definition again: a person responsible for the supervision of a particular place or thing or for ensuring that regulations associated with it are obeyed. In other words, David's exact role for his village without sounding so authoritative that literally anything under the sun can apparently only be perceived as a downgrade because Chieftain is the highest thing ever, apparently.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Wed Apr 17 2019 12:37pm
by legalize freedom
Rogan, Edmund, Produn and Spiriel share all 3 class lines in the game files. David does not share any lines with them, but his given second promotion is the same (Commander). That is, the original Japanese release gives him a military title leading up to his role against the tank.

BTW, I wouldn't consider Rogan a governor. He is a general acting as the lord after an uprising/invasion. He uses it as a base and manages it, but I've never thought it to be his permanent home or position.

About David not being village chief, I believe the reason this was done is so he can freely leave Stump without looking like he abandoned his people and responsibilities. He essentially is the village chief... everyone looks to him as their leader, but he is not at a time in his life where he would take on such a role officially. He's free to pursue his higher calling. It is a problem for Chieftain as his class, but swap a couple of words in a couple of lines and it works just fine. Instead of the villager saying "he is kind of our leader", they would say something like "he's our acting Cheiftain". Really saying the same thing, just using the words that support the class.

Warden passes the smell test also. Warden is really good.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Wed Apr 17 2019 2:59pm
by knight0fdragon
Tor_Heyerdal wrote:
knightOfdragon wrote:We are dealing with a medieval style game here.... so bias is going to exist.

The fact that bias exists doesn't justify treating it as though it's not bias and pretending that things mean things that they don't mean.


At no point is that happening. It however does not mean that you get to ignore the bias completely. The way words are defined in the game lean heavy on the bias.

Tor_Heyerdal wrote:
knightOfdragon wrote:What exactly is he the Champion of?

Not the, but a champion of Medion's army. But it hardly matters, since apparently, they've already changed Penn's second class to Champion anyway. So it's an extremely moot point. But nevertheless...



I would think Medion would be the champion of Medion's army

Tor_Heyerdal wrote:
knightOfdragon wrote:...Is this a serious question? Yes, Wizards are not Mages, Vicars are not Priests, Heroes are not Swordsmen, Snipers are not Archers, Generals are not Soldiers, Presidents are not Citizens, Kings are not Peasants, Blastoise is not a Squirtle .... wait wrong game.

Dude... Are you for reals?
Mage: a person with magical powers.
Priest: (Relevant definition) a person who performs religious ceremonies and duties in a non-Christian religion.
Archer: a person who shoots with a bow and arrows, especially at a target for sport.
Swordsman: a man who fights with a sword (typically with his level of skill specified).
So you're honestly going to sit there with a straight face and tell me that Noon is NOT a person with magical powers? Promoted Grace is NOT a person who performs religious ceremonies and duties? Garosh is NOT a person who shoots with a bow and arrows? And promoted Synbios is NOT a man who fights with a sword? That is absolutely ridiculous. Nobody ever suggested that General promotes from Soldier (it promotes from Commander; interesting cherrypick to avoid the obvious fact that generals are people in positions of command), and there is no President, Citizen, King or Peasant class, so those are irrelevant strawmen. And Pokemon are even less relevant. But you're talking here as though promotion from Mage > Wizard is tantamount to one's entire being being transmogrified into a wholly different entity by directly comparing it to a Pokemon evolution like that. When you get promoted, you're still you. You still have all of the traits and skills that you possessed before. A title doesn't rewrite your entire existence, it adds to it. "I hereby declare thee... a hero!" "Oh, noes! I've suddenly forgotten how to use a sword! :0"



You are now confusing class with something else here.

Just because a person can perform the actions of their previous class, does not mean they are that class. Class in Shining Force also holds the meaning of a Title, which is why we can promote. To call a person of a promoted class their less class name is demeaning, just like calling a person of a promoted title a lesser title is demeaning. You wouldn't call a store manager a cashier because he running a register. You wouldn't call a Software Architect a Developer because he is writing code. Also, each promotion title implies the previous abilities. We know a wizard can perform the duties of a mage. We know a hero can wield a sword. Do we know a champion is also a chieftain? No, because it is not a natural progression.


Tor_Heyerdal wrote:
knightOfdragon wrote:Who is rallying behind him? What is the competition in which he can become "champ"?


Being rallied behind and participating in competition are not necessary requirements to be a champion. Again, that's just your personal bias. Your personal bias doesn't actually dictate what a champion is. Although war is certainly quite the competition.

knightOfdragon wrote:I ask my question again, what is the competition in which he became Champion? Did all of the Chiefs of the area hold reindeer games and he is now Champion of Chiefs?

Again, you don't require competitive games to be a champion.
Champion: 1. a person who has defeated or surpassed all rivals in a competition, especially in sports.
^ Yes, this is one definition of champion. But so is this:
Champion: 2. a person who fights or argues for a cause or on behalf of someone else.
David is a person who fights for a cause. Technically, pretty much the entire Force could be classified as champions.
And again, regarding definition 1, "especially in sports" does not mean "exclusively in sports", and war is pretty damn competitive.




I lumped these two quotes together.
I stated both definitions of Champion and asked how it relates to David.
I asked who is rallying behind David? aka 2. a person who fights or argues for a cause or on behalf of someone else. Either the "cause" is rallying behind David, or a group of people is rallying behind David. This is not David, this is Medion, because Medion is the one fighting for the cause, and David comes along.
A real life example is Bernie Sanders is the Champion of universal health care. This is not because he is simply fighting for universal health care, it is because the "cause" believes in his vision of it, as opposed to others who are also fighting for universal health care.

I asked What is the competition in which he can become "champ"? aka 1. a person who has defeated or surpassed all rivals in a competition, especially in sports.
In the war scenario, the entire Force would be the champion, not David. David is not the guy who is taking out enemy battalions, this again falls on Medion. If not Medion, then the next likely champion would be Campbell as far as story is concerned, so we can throw out this definition as well.


Tor_Heyerdal wrote:
knightOfdragon wrote:Another good example of why I am against Chieftain is Rogan. He is the Governor of Barrand, but Governor is not anywhere in his class names.

Further supported by the fact that Isabella is the Princess of the Empire, but Princess is not anywhere in her--oh, wait... yeah, it is. Not every single character in the game is classed by the same metric, y'know.

Yeah.... you just proved my point with Isabella. She goes from Princess to Princess of Light or whatever new title she is given in the latest translation, She doesn't go from Princess to Priest

Tor_Heyerdal wrote:
knightOfdragon wrote:What concepts from SF3 weigh against his title of General?

The fact that he's never actually appointed with a title of general (class or otherwise). We can't just go making up new canon. It's plausible that he COULD be appointed with that title by someone like Medion, but it never actually happens, nor is it implied to happen. This has been discussed, so I guess you must've somehow missed that.


knightOfdragon wrote:Speaking of which, in Scenario 3, are the 4 generals unique in their classes, as in they hold a seperate location in the file that is addressed differently?

I'm not sure what you mean.

What do you think we are doing here exactly? We are literally establishing new canon for David because his class does not translate well. We are simply trying to keep it as close to existing canon as we can, which is why we have this pretty awesome debate going on. He has been given the title of Commander, LF confirmed this for us. Which is why I asked the question "do the Generals share the same address in the game file?". LF confirmed that they do, so now I agree that David should not be general in this regard since there is a very clear distinction.

Tor_Heyerdal wrote:My proposition of "Warden" still stands. In case that was missed too, I'll point out the definition again: a person responsible for the supervision of a particular place or thing or for ensuring that regulations associated with it are obeyed. In other words, David's exact role for his village without sounding so authoritative that literally anything under the sun can apparently only be perceived as a downgrade because Chieftain is the highest thing ever, apparently.


as for "Warden", I have two concerns. 1) We should keep the natural flow of promotion like I explained earlier, Warden to Commando would not make a lot of sense promotion wise, and 2) not a huge thing, but it gives the perceived notion that Stump Village is a prison based on this title LOL.


We really should keep David's social title off of the table and just stick to military titles only. This way he can be both acting leader of Stump village and a soldier in Medion's army without causing confusion. If we are to combine the social titles and military titles into a single title, then the promotions should reflect that, just like it does for Isabella.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Wed Apr 17 2019 6:35pm
by legalize freedom
The devs have given unique class (or other types) slots to characters in other places only to use the same ones as others. I believe they did it when they weren't sure if they would be different or not and wanted to be safe until the decision was made. Otherwise, they could have used the same second class line as the generals for him. It's a clue into their thinking, but I don't think it should weigh too heavily on our decision. What's works best is most important.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Thu Apr 18 2019 3:59am
by DomingoRules!
knight0fdragon wrote:If we are to combine the social titles and military titles into a single title, then the promotions should reflect that, just like it does for Isabella.

I do think going from Chieftain to Commander accomplishes exactly that. As he goes from being a leader of a village, to a leader of an army. Both are leadership roles that carry similar responsibilities, yet the latter takes that authority to the next level, while also suggesting combat experience. Sure, he's not in the same leadership position as Medion, but that doesn't take away how actively he involves himself in leadership responsibilities when it comes to voicing his opinion, not to mention (again) the battle against the Juggernaut. Just saying. Besides, all armies have things like captains, commanders, and so on, so just because he's not the main leader doesn't mean he can't be a leader. Just more of an auxiliary one, which he essentially is whether Medion knights him as such or not, because that's the role he applies to himself through his actions.

Or like how Slade goes from being a Thief, to being a Ninja. Aside from relying on stealth, they aren't remotely similar. One's a robber, the other's an assassin. It's simply taking the core element of a job that depends on stealth, and applies it to Slade's new role in which he goes from a wayward thief, to a (veritably so) military soldier that demands combat prowess. And likewise to David, who very possibly returns to watching over his home after the game, I'm sure Slade returned to being a thief regardless of now being a ninja; albeit a wiser thief who deeply considers the consequences of the items he steals before doing so.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Thu Apr 18 2019 4:56am
by knight0fdragon
I am not sure if it does. I would be more inclined for Warden to be his first title, then we could go with Commandant for his second title, then maybe we use some other title like Colonel or Marshal for the third title or something just to keep it consistent, even though we technically have no strong basis for Colonel or Marshal. If there is a rank higher than Commandant that involves striking, maybe we can finally have a fair compromise.

BTW, I am not sure why you think Ninjas are only assasins. Ninjas are also thieves, and I can tell you that the thief in The Forbidden Series 1 also goes to Ninja when promoted, so there are examples of this going back to the late 80s.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Thu Apr 18 2019 9:09am
by Tor_Heyerdal
knightOfdragon wrote:At no point is that happening. It however does not mean that you get to ignore the bias completely.

If you're going to pretend that the word champion doesn't mean what it means due to your personal bias surrounding that word, then yeah, that's you using your existing bias as justification for treating it like it's not bias and that the word means something other than what it means. That's exactly what's happening.

knightOfdragon wrote:I would think Medion would be the champion of Medion's army

This one is more than a little frustrating because I never said that David was "the" champion of Medion's army. In fact, I explicitly stated that he's NOT "the" champion of Medion's army, but *A* champion of Medion's army. Every single member of Medion's army are all champions of Medion's army. As I will explain in further detail a little bit further down.

knightOfdragon wrote:I stated both definitions of Champion and asked how it relates to David.

No you didn't. You didn't state any definition of Champion. I did.

knightOfdragon wrote:I asked who is rallying behind David? aka 2. a person who fights or argues for a cause or on behalf of someone else. Either the "cause" is rallying behind David, or a group of people is rallying behind David. This is not David, this is Medion, because Medion is the one fighting for the cause, and David comes along.

How can you have this so backwards? You even prove yourself to have it backwards by repeating the definition. "A person who fights or argues FOR A CAUSE or ON BEHALF OF SOMEONE ELSE." He's not a champion because people are rallying behind him. He's a champion because he's rallying behind Medion. If people were rallying behind him, that would make him a leader, not a champion. He's also a champion because he's fighting for a cause. Anyone fighting for a cause is a champion. He's fighting for Medion's cause. That makes him a champion. He's rallying behind Medion and fighting on Medion's behalf. That makes him a champion. The entire Force from Syntesis to Pappets are all champions by definition.

knightOfdragon wrote:A real life example is Bernie Sanders is the Champion of universal health care. This is not because he is simply fighting for universal health care, it is because the "cause" believes in his vision of it, as opposed to others who are also fighting for universal health care.

No. That socialist is not THE champion of universal and totally-not-actually-free-but-would-bankrupt-the-country health care. He's A champion of it. Just like David is A champion of Medion's army.

knightOfdragon wrote:I asked What is the competition in which he can become "champ"? aka 1. a person who has defeated or surpassed all rivals in a competition, especially in sports.
In the war scenario, the entire Force would be the champion, not David. David is not the guy who is taking out enemy battalions, this again falls on Medion. If not Medion, then the next likely champion would be Campbell as far as story is concerned, so we can throw out this definition as well.

Again, I never claimed that David is the champion of Medion's force. Not only did I not say that he was the champion of Medion's force, but I explicitly did say that he's not the champion of Medion's force. I said that he is A champion of Medion's force. These are not the same thing. That said, unless David has canonically died throughout the plot of the game (which I don't recall happening), then he HAS surpassed all rivals in the competition of war in which he's participating. This applies to everyone else on the force too. And no, in a war scenario the force would not be "the champion", the force would be "the champions".

knightOfdragon wrote:Yeah.... you just proved my point with Isabella. She goes from Princess to Princess of Light or whatever new title she is given in the latest translation, She doesn't go from Princess to Priest

That doesn't prove your point. The fact that she doesn't go from Princess to Priest has nothing to do with anything. Nobody tried to suggest anything of the kind. Your point wasn't that she doesn't go from Princess to Priest, so how can it prove a point you didn't make? The point you made was that David can't have a class name based on his social occupation because Rogan's social occupation is not in his class description. But that's discredited by the fact that "princess" is Isabella's social occupation and it's in HER class description, so you're clearly wrong. It doesn't prove your point, it disproves it. David CAN have his social occupation as his class description because there is a precedent for such a thing as seen in the class description of Isabella. And furthermore, she definitely doesn't just stop being a princess just because now she's "Princess of Light". Does she just magically stop being Medion's sister? Of course not. Don't be stupid. Just because she's now the Princess of Light doesn't mean that she's no longer ALSO the Princess of the Empire.

knightOfdragon wrote:Just because a person can perform the actions of their previous class, does not mean they are that class.

Yes, it does. If a sniper can use a bow, he's an archer. If a hero can use a sword, he's a swordsman. If a wizard can cast spells, he's a magician. Plain and simple. You can be more than one thing. These aren't military ranks (except for maybe Commander and General). They're occupational skills. Just because you gain a new occupational description or skill doesn't mean you magically stop being or having the old occupational skill.

knightOfdragon wrote:Class in Shining Force also holds the meaning of a Title, which is why we can promote. To call a person of a promoted class their less class name is demeaning, just like calling a person of a promoted title a lesser title is demeaning.

In some cases, yes, but not universally or necessarily.

knightOfdragon wrote:You wouldn't call a store manager a cashier because he running a register.

Yes. I would. I don't care if he's the King of Spain, if he's working the cashier, and I'm talking about it afterwards, I'm gonna' call him "the cashier" or "the guy behind the cash" or "the checkout guy", because that is the capacity he's serving in that relevant moment. Unless maybe he's actually dressed as the King of Spain, with a crown and everything, in which case, I would call him "that cashier who was dressed like a king."

knightOfdragon wrote:You wouldn't call a Software Architect a Developer because he is writing code.

Yes. I would. I wouldn't deny that he's a software architect, but he's still performing the capacity of a developer, and therefore is such.

knightOfdragon wrote:Also, each promotion title implies the previous abilities. We know a wizard can perform the duties of a mage. We know a hero can wield a sword.

EXACTLY! So Wizards are Mages, Snipers are Archers, Heroes are Swordsmen, Princesses of Light are Princesses, Cavaliers are Knights, and etc.

knightOfdragon wrote:Do we know a champion is also a chieftain? No, because it is not a natural progression.

No, but we know that THIS champion is... more or less. lol. You're definitely right that it's not a natural progression, but hey, sometimes unnatural progressions happen. And even if we do not give him the class label of either Chieftain or Champion (which I don't think we should now, because he's not technically Chieftain, and Champion is already held by Penn--why don't you make all these objections to Penn having the champion class? All of my arguments pertain to Penn as well, but all of your objections pertain to Penn too, so you should be opposing Penn having the Champion class by your own logic), it won't actually change the fact that he is still, by definition and in fact, the acting chieftain of Stump Village turned champion of Medion's cause. With or without those class labels. It's still canonically true.

knightOfdragon wrote:What do you think we are doing here exactly? We are literally establishing new canon for David because his class does not translate well.

We most certainly are not. We're trying to find the right class name for him based on the foundation of ALREADY EXISTING canon. The goal here is not to just make shit up. We don't even NEED to make shit up. There's plenty of established canon to work with.

knightOfdragon wrote:We are simply trying to keep it as close to existing canon as we can, which is why we have this pretty awesome debate going on.

More like we are trying to make it completely in line with existing canon if possible, but then keep it as close to existing canon as we can if divergence should prove necessary. Which, thus far, it hasn't.

knightOfdragon wrote:He has been given the title of Commander, LF confirmed this for us. Which is why I asked the question "do the Generals share the same address in the game file?". LF confirmed that they do, so now I agree that David should not be general in this regard since there is a very clear distinction.

Okay. Fair enough. Agreed.

DomingoRules! wrote:I do think going from Chieftain to Commander accomplishes exactly that. As he goes from being a leader of a village, to a leader of an army. Both are leadership roles that carry similar responsibilities, yet the latter takes that authority to the next level, while also suggesting combat experience. Sure, he's not in the same leadership position as Medion, but that doesn't take away how actively he involves himself in leadership responsibilities when it comes to voicing his opinion, not to mention (again) the battle against the Juggernaut. Just saying. Besides, all armies have things like captains, commanders, and so on, so just because he's not the main leader doesn't mean he can't be a leader. Just more of an auxiliary one, which he essentially is whether Medion knights him as such or not, because that's the role he applies to himself through his actions.

I absolutely agree. Although my initial reaction to the idea of Commander without General is one of skepticism, as it seems odd that there would be some characters who go "Commander > A" and one character who goes "Commander > B". But then, when I think about it for a moment, I remember that we have some characters going "Master Monk > A" and other characters going "Master Monk > B", so there is actually an established precedent there.

DomingoRules! wrote:Or like how Slade goes from being a Thief, to being a Ninja. Aside from relying on stealth, they aren't remotely similar.

That's true. They're also not a quote unquote "natural progression". But hey, sometimes unnatural progressions happen.

DomingoRules! wrote:One's a robber, the other's an assassin.

Technically, historically speaking, ninjas were spies, not assassins (at least not typically). But I guess that within the realm of fantasy, the word ninja has taken on this meaning in the modern era, and such is life, I suppose. The word has taken on this definition in the common lexicon of the people at large in addition to its historical definition. In the minds of many, outright supplanting it. And to preempt knightOfdragon using this statement from me as justification for promoting bias, I'll reiterate the "in addition to" part. Just because this fantasy bias exists doesn't actually stop the historical definition from still being a thing. Yes, the word "champion" can be used in your biased way, Mr. Ofdragon, but that doesn't actually mean that it can't be used in any other sense anymore.

DomingoRules! wrote:It's simply taking the core element of a job that depends on stealth, and applies it to Slade's new role in which he goes from a wayward thief, to a (veritably so) military soldier that demands combat prowess.

What I'm about to say isn't hugely relevant, but I just think it's interesting because I love history, and so I'd like to point out that historically, real ninjas actually did not have a demand to possess combat prowess. Like, at all. Some of them surely did possess combat prowess--law of averages--but that actually wasn't part of the job description. But again, when it comes to fantasy ninjas, which Slade is (which is why what I'm saying here isn't relevant), then yeah, it's certainly a very big part of the job description. lol.

DomingoRules! wrote:And likewise to David, who very possibly returns to watching over his home after the game, I'm sure Slade returned to being a thief regardless of now being a ninja; albeit a wiser thief who deeply considers the consequences of the items he steals before doing so.

Well said, and agreed. Which supports the statement that just because he's a Ninja now doesn't actually magically make him stop being a Thief. Now, he COULD stop being a thief, but that would be his own personal initiative, and not some magical result of having become a ninja. Although I'm sure that even if he did stop stealing, there would still be many people who would say "once a thief, always a thief." So I suppose this is somewhat subjective in some cases.

knightOfdragon wrote:I am not sure if it does. I would be more inclined for Warden to be his first title, then we could go with Commandant for his second title, then maybe we use some other title like Colonel or Marshal for the third title or something just to keep it consistent, even though we technically have no strong basis for Colonel or Marshal. If there is a rank higher than Commandant that involves striking, maybe we can finally have a fair compromise.

I am pleased and honoured that you support my Warden suggestion. The rest of that all sounds really good to me as well. I very strongly support Commandant. I also support Colonel or Marshal, but not quite as strongly as I do Commandant, because they're less canonically established. But they seem a potentially fair compromise.

knightOfdragon wrote:BTW, I am not sure why you think Ninjas are only assasins. Ninjas are also thieves, and I can tell you that the thief in The Forbidden Series 1 also goes to Ninja when promoted, so there are examples of this going back to the late 80s.

Just because there's another example of this doesn't actually make it a natural progression, though. Ninjas are not inherently thieves, and becoming a ninja is not the logical, inevitable, or probable end-point of being a thief. I personally know several thieves IRL, and I can certainly tell you that none of them have become ninjas. Although, I suppose that if they were good ninjas, I wouldn't really know about it, would I? xD Also, totally irrelevant, but if you're not playing any of the remastered re-releases, the Thief is f*cking useless in the original NES version. xD I went through the entire game with that useless sod. Brings nothing to the table other than increased flee chance, which I never even used anyway. lol.

legalize freedom wrote:Warden passes the smell test also. Warden is really good.

Thank you for supporting my suggestion. :)

@knightOfdragon: I know I've gotten a little heated, and I would like to apologize for all the salt, but uhh... yeah, I'm a little salty... And more than a little passionate. Sorry about that (the salt, not the passion). No hard feelings.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Thu Apr 18 2019 12:20pm
by legalize freedom
Tor_Heyerdal wrote:@knightOfdragon: I know I've gotten a little heated, and I would like to apologize for all the salt, but uhh... yeah, I'm a little salty... And more than a little passionate. Sorry about that (the salt, not the passion). No hard feelings.


You have been more than a little confrontational and argumentative in this thread. It's unbecoming of the discussion and frankly, diminishes your credibility.

I can appreciate your passion, but please try to be more respectful.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Thu Apr 18 2019 1:03pm
by knight0fdragon
@Tor_Heyerdal,l You have nothing to apologize for, we are simply debating, at no point were insults thrown. I actually disagree with what LF is saying, argumentative is not a bad thing, but I will concede that we just drop the argument at this point since we clearly have different views and will not be giving in anytime soon.

Also, Warden works as long as the promotion works with it. Like Warden -> Striker -> Commando makes no sense. Also, since we brought up the tank, it makes more sense that David becomes a Commander (Which is one reason I used Commandant instead) in his 2nd class. His story is slightly different than Scenario 1 with Fynnding sending a crew of rejects to open a dam lol

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Thu Apr 18 2019 5:19pm
by DomingoRules!
knight0fdragon wrote:BTW, I am not sure why you think Ninjas are only assasins. Ninjas are also thieves, and I can tell you that the thief in The Forbidden Series 1 also goes to Ninja when promoted, so there are examples of this going back to the late 80s.


I feel like the progression from thief to ninja in Forbidden Series 1 is just the result of Square being unable to come up with anything better. There really isn't much of a natural progression to a thief, other than maybe a master thief, but that wouldn't really bring anything new to the table in regards to abilities; especially if they were set on giving the job class access to magic from the start. So they just went with the closest alternative they could come up with. Then Shining Force (along with many other things) just copied them.

Unless of course D&D did it first, as is oftentimes the case when it comes to any form of modern fantasy.

Tor_Heyerdal wrote:
DomingoRules! wrote:One's a robber, the other's an assassin.

Technically, historically speaking, ninjas were spies, not assassins (at least not typically). But I guess that within the realm of fantasy, the word ninja has taken on this meaning in the modern era, and such is life, I suppose. The word has taken on this definition in the common lexicon of the people at large in addition to its historical definition. In the minds of many, outright supplanting it. And to preempt knightOfdragon using this statement from me as justification for promoting bias, I'll reiterate the "in addition to" part. Just because this fantasy bias exists doesn't actually stop the historical definition from still being a thing. Yes, the word "champion" can be used in your biased way, Mr. Ofdragon, but that doesn't actually mean that it can't be used in any other sense anymore.


Well, to my knowledge, they also didn't parade around in black garbs that gave away their profession. They looked like anybody else walking the streets, because they depended on not drawing attention to themselves. It really just comes down to where the line is drawn between fantasy, and reality. A line that was likely blurred because watching murder is typically more entertaining than watching espionage

As for ninjas not inherently being fighters, while certainly true (since even in the case of performing assassination, you don't need to know how to wield a sword if you know how to poison somebody), I'm fairly confident that they would still generally be more suited for combat than the average hoodlum. No doubt they'd have some form of training to defend themselves in case their mission goes awry, since said missions would typically involve being planted in the middle of enemy territory.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Thu Apr 18 2019 6:32pm
by legalize freedom
knight0fdragon wrote:Also, Warden works as long as the promotion works with it. Like Warden -> Striker -> Commando makes no sense. Also, since we brought up the tank, it makes more sense that David becomes a Commander (Which is one reason I used Commandant instead) in his 2nd class. His story is slightly different than Scenario 1 with Fynnding sending a crew of rejects to open a dam lol


I think Warden is about the only class brought up so far that could work with both lines. It infers both a leadership position and a certain level of combat skill, at least to my mind. Maybe it's because of the way it has been used in fiction, like in Dragon Age for example. I see a Warden as both a guardian and an enforcer. Granted it does work better with the General line.

Warden > Striker > Commando
Warden > Commander > General

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Thu Apr 18 2019 6:53pm
by Rune
I prefer commando to commander, when considering the tank. Why, because he's taking a small team in for an elite special operations mission. Somehow it doesn't feel like a crew of rejects, as KOD put it, as in scenario 1. However, I also prefer commander with warden, than commando with warden.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Thu Apr 18 2019 7:12pm
by knight0fdragon
DomingoRules! wrote:
knight0fdragon wrote:BTW, I am not sure why you think Ninjas are only assasins. Ninjas are also thieves, and I can tell you that the thief in The Forbidden Series 1 also goes to Ninja when promoted, so there are examples of this going back to the late 80s.


I feel like the progression from thief to ninja in Forbidden Series 1 is just the result of Square being unable to come up with anything better. There really isn't much of a natural progression to a thief, other than maybe a master thief, but that wouldn't really bring anything new to the table in regards to abilities; especially if they were set on giving the job class access to magic from the start. So they just went with the closest alternative they could come up with. Then Shining Force (along with many other things) just copied them.

Unless of course D&D did it first, as is oftentimes the case when it comes to any form of modern fantasy.

Tor_Heyerdal wrote:
DomingoRules! wrote:One's a robber, the other's an assassin.

Technically, historically speaking, ninjas were spies, not assassins (at least not typically). But I guess that within the realm of fantasy, the word ninja has taken on this meaning in the modern era, and such is life, I suppose. The word has taken on this definition in the common lexicon of the people at large in addition to its historical definition. In the minds of many, outright supplanting it. And to preempt knightOfdragon using this statement from me as justification for promoting bias, I'll reiterate the "in addition to" part. Just because this fantasy bias exists doesn't actually stop the historical definition from still being a thing. Yes, the word "champion" can be used in your biased way, Mr. Ofdragon, but that doesn't actually mean that it can't be used in any other sense anymore.


Well, to my knowledge, they also didn't parade around in black garbs that gave away their profession. They looked like anybody else walking the streets, because they depended on not drawing attention to themselves. It really just comes down to where the line is drawn between fantasy, and reality. A line that was likely blurred because watching murder is typically more entertaining than watching espionage

As for ninjas not inherently being fighters, while certainly true (since even in the case of performing assassination, you don't need to know how to wield a sword if you know how to poison somebody), I'm fairly confident that they would still generally be more suited for combat than the average hoodlum. No doubt they'd have some form of training to defend themselves in case their mission goes awry, since said missions would typically involve being planted in the middle of enemy territory.



I can definitely give more examples. In TMNT, the foot clan starts out as kids who are thieves. In Fire Emblem, thief promotes to assassin, which is what you believe a ninja is. In batman begins, Bruce Wayne is arrested for being a thief and gets trained to be a ninja. The connection is there, both are classes designed to be quick and undetectable, they are masters of illusion, and they wear light nimble clothing.

Btw, Ninjas do not go parading around in ninja garb lol. The only reason we see it in movies and video games is so that we can make that association.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Thu Apr 18 2019 7:39pm
by knight0fdragon
legalize freedom wrote:
knight0fdragon wrote:Also, Warden works as long as the promotion works with it. Like Warden -> Striker -> Commando makes no sense. Also, since we brought up the tank, it makes more sense that David becomes a Commander (Which is one reason I used Commandant instead) in his 2nd class. His story is slightly different than Scenario 1 with Fynnding sending a crew of rejects to open a dam lol


I think Warden is about the only class brought up so far that could work with both lines. It infers both a leadership position and a certain level of combat skill, at least to my mind. Maybe it's because of the way it has been used in fiction, like in Dragon Age for example. I see a Warden as both a guardian and an enforcer. Granted it does work better with the General line.

Warden > Striker > Commando
Warden > Commander > General



I am not sure it does, the point of the Warden in Dragon Age is to raise and maintain an army. “Striker” does not feel like a class that also emphasizes this.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Thu Apr 18 2019 7:57pm
by DiegoMM
Warden reminds me of a magical class, like a more combative shaman. there is something mystical implied.
But maybe is just me.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Fri Apr 19 2019 1:20am
by DomingoRules!
knight0fdragon wrote:Btw, Ninjas do not go parading around in ninja garb lol. The only reason we see it in movies and video games is so that we can make that association.

That's what I said. Was just raising a point in regards to real ninjas versus fantasy ninjas, since them being spies rather than assassins came up.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Fri Apr 19 2019 3:55am
by knight0fdragon
Oh, by they, I thought you meant thieves do not go parading around in garbs and that is why thieves are not ninjas

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Fri Apr 19 2019 6:37am
by DomingoRules!
Pronouns can be deceptive when context is misleading, or indistinct.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Sat Apr 20 2019 8:27am
by Tor_Heyerdal
knightOfdragon wrote:@Tor_Heyerdal,l You have nothing to apologize for, we are simply debating, at no point were insults thrown. I actually disagree with what LF is saying, argumentative is not a bad thing, but I will concede that we just drop the argument at this point since we clearly have different views and will not be giving in anytime soon.

I tremendously respect your attitude regarding this. And I agree that argumentativeness is not a bad thing in and of itself. And it does nothing to diminish credibility. I was apologizing for the salt, not the argumentativeness. I'm outright not sorry for being argumentative. lol. One needs to be argumentative in order to present an argument and debate its validity (or lack thereof). The idea that such a thing diminishes credibility is ridiculous, as it suggests that the only way to present a credible argument is to not argue. So I disagree with LF on that particular point as well.

I second the motion to drop the subject, because yes, we clearly have different views and will not be giving in any time soon. But what's more than that is that it's wholly irrelevant at this point. All we're really doing now is debating semantics because Champion is not even on the table, since it's already been assigned to Penn. So no amount of arguing this subject is actually going to be of any practical use to anyone. lol. So yeah, best to just drop it.

knightOfdragon wrote:Also, Warden works as long as the promotion works with it. Like Warden -> Striker -> Commando makes no sense. Also, since we brought up the tank, it makes more sense that David becomes a Commander (Which is one reason I used Commandant instead) in his 2nd class. His story is slightly different than Scenario 1 with Fynnding sending a crew of rejects to open a dam lol

I completely agree.

DomingoRules! wrote:Well, to my knowledge, they also didn't parade around in black garbs that gave away their profession. They looked like anybody else walking the streets, because they depended on not drawing attention to themselves. It really just comes down to where the line is drawn between fantasy, and reality. A line that was likely blurred because watching murder is typically more entertaining than watching espionage

Indeed. lol You're especially right about the garb. The "ninja uniform" is pure fantasy fiction. That never actually existed historically. At all. xD

DomingoRules! wrote:As for ninjas not inherently being fighters, while certainly true (since even in the case of performing assassination, you don't need to know how to wield a sword if you know how to poison somebody), I'm fairly confident that they would still generally be more suited for combat than the average hoodlum. No doubt they'd have some form of training to defend themselves in case their mission goes awry, since said missions would typically involve being planted in the middle of enemy territory.

While that seems a reasonable assumption on the surface, as far as I'm aware, no, that wasn't really the case. Ninjas were not trained in how to fight, on any level. Their plan B in the case of getting caught would've more likely been to just kill themselves.

knightOfdragon wrote:I can definitely give more examples. In TMNT, the foot clan starts out as kids who are thieves. In Fire Emblem, thief promotes to assassin, which is what you believe a ninja is. In batman begins, Bruce Wayne is arrested for being a thief and gets trained to be a ninja. The connection is there, both are classes designed to be quick and undetectable, they are masters of illusion, and they wear light nimble clothing.

The connection is certainly well established in the realm of fantasy at this point. That still doesn't mean that the progression is logical, but the fact does remain that the connection is established in fantasy, and it's not going away any time soon. I think it's important to acknowledge both of these facts and to distinguish them. It's true that the connection is established, and it's also true that the progression is not logical. But despite the fact that the progression is not logical, the connection is still established within the realm of fantasy, and there is a certain biased expectation among gamers as a whole regarding that otherwise illogical connection, which is why we're going to continue seeing it. Just like how swords go "shwing" when unsheathed in movies and TV due to the biased expectation of viewers despite the fact that swords don't really do that irl unless the scabbard is made of metal (which is not typically the case because it would dull the blade). There is a certain logic behind the connection insofar as "people what try to be stealthy" is a shared factor among them. But it's not the kind of logic that "logically follows". Like, it logically follows that 3 proceeds 2, and it logically follows that landing proceeds falling, and it logically follows that pooping proceeds eating. They're natural progressions. All 2s are followed by 3s. All falls are followed by lands. All eats are followed by poops. Not all thievery is followed by ninjutsu. lol. It doesn't "logically/naturally follow". But again, despite that, the connection has been established in the realm of fantasy (especially RPGs), and it's a connection that the Shining Force franchise has wholeheartedly embraced. As such, that's just the way it is. Sometimes, unnatural progressions happen, and that's okay.

DiegoMM wrote:Warden reminds me of a magical class, like a more combative shaman. there is something mystical implied.
But maybe is just me.

It's just you. Again, the word warden means: "a person responsible for the supervision of a particular place or thing or for ensuring that regulations associated with it are obeyed."
Someone responsible for watching a jail cell is a warden. Someone responsible for overseeing student welfare is a warden. A janitor responsible for maintaining the tidiness of a hallway is a warden. David is "a person responsible for the supervision of Stump Village and for ensuring that regulations associated with Stump Village are obeyed." Word for word, David is the Warden of Stump Village. Any "acting chieftain" is a warden. David is the "acting chieftain" of Stump Village.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Sat Apr 20 2019 12:39pm
by legalize freedom
Tor_Heyerdal wrote:I tremendously respect your attitude regarding this. And I agree that argumentativeness is not a bad thing in and of itself. And it does nothing to diminish credibility. I was apologizing for the salt, not the argumentativeness. I'm outright not sorry for being argumentative. lol. One needs to be argumentative in order to present an argument and debate its validity (or lack thereof). The idea that such a thing diminishes credibility is ridiculous, as it suggests that the only way to present a credible argument is to not argue. So I disagree with LF on that particular point as well.


This is a side bar, but worth responding to I believe...
I was confounded in school when in writing class they taught the concept of writing to make an argument (debate) because you have to pick a position and spin everything to that point of view. I recognized, even back then, that you can't make a valid argument by defending a position (and now spin and defending positions is a cancer that has taken hold of our discourse). We are somehow supposed to ignore all information to the contrary in order to "prove" something.

If you really want to make a valid argument you argue it from all sides and allow the evidence to guide the outcome. I don't need to "win" a debate or "prove" a point, I need the logical conclusion of the topic. I want to be enlightened. That doesn't happen when you're defending a position.

So yes, when someone argues exclusively for a specific position, presents tenuous evidence or makes irrational statements to help "prove" said position (presenting something as fact that isn't or speaking beyond their knowledge as if they aren't), credibility goes down.

Citing a simple example: "David is either village chief or he's not."
That statement is not true, but was presented as fact. Irrational if you will. Since this situation, like most things, is grey. Very few things can be realistically dealt with in absolutes.

Having said that, I do appreciate your passion and your input. I would just like to see it presented more constructively.

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Sat Apr 20 2019 3:41pm
by DomingoRules!
Tor_Heyerdal wrote:
DomingoRules! wrote:Well, to my knowledge, they also didn't parade around in black garbs that gave away their profession. They looked like anybody else walking the streets, because they depended on not drawing attention to themselves. It really just comes down to where the line is drawn between fantasy, and reality. A line that was likely blurred because watching murder is typically more entertaining than watching espionage

Indeed. lol You're especially right about the garb. The "ninja uniform" is pure fantasy fiction. That never actually existed historically. At all. xD


Which reminds me of a ninja character in the PS1 title Vanguard Bandits, whom during one bit of dialogue explains that the reason he became a ninja was because he thought it meant he'd get to wear said black outfit. Yet that wound up not being the case, as he's one of the most casually dressed party members you get. His mech looks like a traditional fantasy ninja though (aside from being green), so I guess there's that. Still, not once does his employer ever send him on a mission of assassination, or anything of the sort. All his missions are about collecting information, or delivering said information to others, plus I believe one rescue operation depending on which path you take during a certain dialogue tree. That is, before he's ordered to join your party as a soldier, but even then he oftentimes disappears from the group of his own accord, only to return with important intel.

So I guess not all games do ninjas wrong. :thumbsup:

Re: David's Classes Decision

PostPosted: Sat Apr 20 2019 8:13pm
by Tor_Heyerdal
legalize freedom wrote:I was confounded in school when in writing class they taught the concept of writing to make an argument (debate) because you have to pick a position and spin everything to that point of view.

Right. You pick a position (not arbitrarily, but because it seems to you to be the correct position), and you spin everything to that point of view. And then if it doesn't hold up to argument and someone presents an argument from a different position that provides logical reasoning that indicates that your position is flawed, and you're able to recognize that reasoning for what it is, then you discard your position and re-evaluate your perspective based on the new information. That's not confounding, that's just how we figure out the value of a position: by testing it against other positions. Sometimes that test doesn't yield any different results on either side, and that's okay too. It's not some immoral or unhelpful thing. It's called debate, and it's good and healthy. If you don't believe in debate, then you shouldn't have even started this thread in the first place to welcome debate.

legalize freedom wrote:I recognized, even back then, that you can't make a valid argument by defending a position

You can if the position you're arguing for is a valid position and both parties are willing to listen to reason and admit their faults when they're made to recognize them (or when they recognize them themselves, which sometimes happens when presenting one's own argument, as merely the act of putting one's own thoughts into words can sometimes help one to realize that their own logic is flawed).

legalize freedom wrote:If you really want to make a valid argument you argue it from all sides and allow the evidence to guide the outcome. I don't need to "win" a debate or "prove" a point, I need the logical conclusion of the topic. I want to be enlightened. That doesn't happen when you're defending a position.

It certainly does happen when you're defending a position unless you refuse to admit when you're presented with information that proves you wrong. Which has not happened, at least not knowingly on my part. Quite the contrary, there have been MANY times throughout this debate where I've admitted to being wrong. So I really don't appreciate this. Just because things get heated doesn't automatically mean a refusal to admit evidence that plays against your point. Even if you are willing to admit that you're wrong, you can't reach a point of realizing that you're wrong without having the argument. I present my points, you present your points, we agree on some things, we disagree on some things, and the other's points help one to realize that one is wrong about some things. Maybe they don't help one to realize that one is wrong about all the things that one is wrong about all at once, but that's not a bad thing.

legalize freedom wrote:So yes, when someone argues exclusively for a specific position, presents tenuous evidence or makes irrational statements to help "prove" said position (presenting something as fact that isn't or speaking beyond their knowledge as if they aren't), credibility goes down.

Citing a simple example: "David is either village chief or he's not."
That statement is not true, but was presented as fact. Irrational if you will. Since this situation, like most things, is grey. Very few things can be realistically dealt with in absolutes.

While it's true that many, many things cannot be realistically dealt with in absolutes (maybe even most things), that doesn't mean that nothing can, and this is certainly one such thing that can. You're wrong when you say that this statement is not true. Either David is village chief or he's not. There is no middle ground. You can't be "sort of" chief. You can't be "half chief". Just like you can't be "sort of" the president. There is no grey when it comes to a title. You either have the title or you don't. David is certainly the defacto chief. He's the acting chief. He's the stand-in chief. He's the closest thing they have TO a chief. But that doesn't make the fact that he's either chief or not any less absolute; he's still not actually chief. The in-game dialogue makes that explicit. Furthermore, "getting a little salty" does not constitute "arguing exclusively for a specific position, presenting tenuous evidence, making irrational statements, presenting something as fact that isn't, or speaking beyond one's knowledge as if one isn't" And to imply that this is what "getting a little salty" necessarily entails... THAT'S an irrational statement.

legalize freedom wrote:Having said that, I do appreciate your passion and your input. I would just like to see it presented more constructively.

Like knightOfdragon said, I haven't insulted anyone. I've gotten a little bit salty, sure, and I already apologized for that (maybe that was a mistake, as I'm now being treated like the bad guy as a result in a situation where there is, in fact, no bad guy at all) but I haven't degenerated into ad hominem. I haven't started attacking anyone. I haven't strayed from the argument. I haven't lost sight of the topic. Literally all I'm guilty of is getting a little frustrated. Everything I've said has been with the express purpose of reaching some kind of understanding in BOTH directions (successful or otherwise). I've admitted fault at least a half a dozen times or more where logic has been presented to me that indicated I was in error. I have not come at this purely with the intent of "winning", as you seem to imply. It has been entirely constructive. In fact, your very example you're using against me alludes to one such admission, when I admitted that I was wrong that David was chief of Stump Village when it was presented to me that the in-game dialogue makes it explicit that Stump Village has no chief. If I was mindlessly (ie, non-constructively) just trying to win the argument, I would not have admitted to being wrong about that or any of the other several things I admitted to being wrong about. I have allowed the evidence to guide the outcome. I would never have reached the point of suggesting "Warden" otherwise, as if I had not allowed evidence to guide the outcome, I would still be stuck on arguing for "Hunter", which I also discarded several pages back. Someone who's not being constructive and not allowing evidence to guide the outcome doesn't discard ideas that have been proven wrong (or at least insufficient) and then try to come up with something better, thereby re-evaluating one's position.