Welcome to the Shining Force Central Forums!
SFC Forums Index Shining Forums Shining Force III SFIII Translation Project
Register for your free forum account now or Login to remove this advert.

David's Class Options

Updated 6/11*

A place for those working on the Shining Force III Translation Patch.

Re: David's Class Options

Postby legalize freedom » Sun May 05 2019 2:50pm

I'm not sure what to think of Psiloi. My first reaction is that it is someone with PSI powers.

If we were going weird and unknown, we would certainly go with K0D's suggestion of Peltast.

I found a few more just to get everyone thinking. Some may have already been mentioned, but there are a surprising number of ARPG classes that would work.

duelist
bastion
slinger
stalwart
dervish
pathfinder
archon

I also wanted to do something like blademaster, but everything with blade in it sounds like a ninja. Wildblade, windblade, battleblade...
legalize freedom

User avatar
Shining Legend
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 1936
Joined: Sat Apr 29 2006 4:09am
Location: Texas, USA

Re: David's Class Options

Postby Hattari » Sun May 05 2019 3:01pm

Freedom: I appreciate your dedication to this, but I think you've already got gold in the OP. Just my opinion. That having been said, pathfinder isn't too bad.

Tor_Heyerdal wrote:Warden does absolutely nothing to imply high defense at all. Guardian and Sentinel, I can at least understand.

You're not wrong there about warden. But warden does imply someone who guards and/or detains. And it wouldn't be a stretch to associate a warden with a fully-uniformed unit, at the very least. Class 1 David, on the other hand, is about as bush as it gets!


Tor_Heyerdal wrote:I actually think Warden>Overseer>Guardian would be more technically accurate.

Be honest: If you showed the above class progression to anybody who's played through scenarios 1-3 (and hasn't read these threads), and asked them "I changed their classes to this; so which force member is it? Who do they best describe?"... what is the likelihood they'll choose David? Something of a litmus test to consider. It's alright if we disagree; no harm done either way. But just so you know where I'm coming from, and where I have been coming from: my intent is to help us figure out which classes are the most accurate for the character. What I think sounds cool, or what I think best fits how I think of him is not what I'm dealing with here. That last sentence is no contradiction; when I say accurate, I am only dealing with what is visually established in-game - narratively, and mechanically. I personally think David's a boss and a beast with the right equipment and training... but I'm not going to petition either of those as a legitimate replacement.


Tor_Heyerdal wrote:Firstly, I could be mistaken, but I get the impression that you put forth "which rejected titles like chief/chieftain also conveyed" as an argument to discredit W/G/S under the basis that if chief/chieftain were rejected, then W/G/S should be rejected for the same reason. Forgive me if that's a misinterpretation

You were mistaken; no harm done. I was simply pointing out the glaring surface similarities between all of the above, as it pertained to your argument in favor of focusing on his leadership role.


Tor_Heyerdal wrote:And he also "oversees" the tank battle.

Seriously?


Tor_Heyerdal wrote:In other words, we should prioritize one over the other. lol

You missed the point. We should place one over the other (in my opinion), if and only if there isn't a title that satisfies both sides - again: narrative and gameplay. In such cases, I think the one to focus on should depend on what matters most about the character in question, as well as which side can best be conveyed by the title, WITHOUT - and this is vital - compromising the other. Frank is an example of the argument going the reverse: he is a character who is similar to several other characters in combat, but he is the only wolfman. So having his class names focus on that makes sense. David, however, is not the only elf - and there isn't enough in the plot that clearly and concretely identifies his role in a way that many job-related titles can encapsulate (that we know of)... thus, combat and gameplay take priority. This was my argument at least.

David is an important story character, and he is a very unique fighter. If there is a title that highlights his relationship to the rest of the army - without undermining or falsely advertising his combat abilities - then I'm all for it. In the end, it's all about communication, and how these things are communicated to players; it goes beyond first impressions and surface appearances.

BTW, if I bold or capitalize something, it's purely for emphasis. Not anger. Because of the state of the internet, I felt it was worth pointing that out :p


Tor_Heyerdal wrote:In other words, "combat ability doesn't have to trump lore, but for him, I think combat ability ought to trump lore." And look, if you can come up with a good quality suggestion that can encapsulate his combat ability well, I'm all ears. But in lieu of that, falling back on the lore is the only sensible option.

Be fair: I explained why I thought combat came before lore with him. You don't have to agree, but please don't act as if I'm just approaching this frivolously. Also, plenty of suggestions have been made since the earlier poll(s) that covered his combat ability well - including those that referred to someone skilled in multiple weapons (skirmisher for one example). So we had that side covered. And yet here we are.


Tor_Heyerdal wrote:I agree that Ranger is accurate to the lore. Equally as accurate as Warden, even. However, it's not accurate to gameplay, because according to Shining Force gameplay, Ranger = Centaur archer.

According to Shining Force 2 and Gaiden gameplay. Not according to Shining Force 3 gameplay. We never encounter Justin's 1st class, so that's a moot point. Characters get scrapped, art gets altered, and names change in the production process; that's a part of any game's development. Besides, you can't cite the official SFIII localisation as "proof" when it suits you, but disregard it as a mistake that needs fixing when it doesn't. How is that not cherry-picking?


Tor_Heyerdal wrote:Anyway, again, if you can suggest something that actually covers his combat potential well, then I'm all ears. As I am inclined to feel that classes that describe combat ability are generally preferable to classes that describe lore. But again... in lieu of any such classes, falling back on the lore is the only sensible option.

Good thing those have been suggested then. (Not me; OP)


Tor_Heyerdal wrote:That is the most esoteric thing I have ever heard. It's not just a word that's not widely circulated in fantasy or SRPGs that few players are likely to read with potentially misleading preconceptions. That's a word that's not even known by pretty much anyone outside of maybe history buffs that few players are likely to have ever heard in their lives. I think "possible preconceptions due to individual bias" is a far sight preferable to "extremely unlikely to know what it even might mean, let alone even be able to read it." Personally, I think this is among the worst suggestions thus far.

Esoteric.. like "egress"? (My point: this wouldn't be the first time a Shining Force game - or any game for that matter - introduced players to a new word or phrase.)

If you don't like the suggestion, that's fair. But how familiar it is (or isn't) to you seems like a weak reason to disqualify it.


Tor_Heyerdal wrote:the amount to which it's a stretch is arguably within permissible bounds. I mean, I'm not hung up on preconceptions like the rest of you.

You're kidding. You're not, huh? Wasn't your entire reason for arguing against ranger based on the presumption that because centaurs in earlier Shining Force games were rangers, David could not be? I know: "the lore". But here's the thing: Shining Force 3 is its own game. Anybody who plays them all can see that. Rare is the long-running fantasy/RPG series that doesn't make changes along the way. By the time David is introduced, no centaur archers have been introduced to the SFIII story under the title "ranger". That is an objective fact. Not opinion. Most of all: ranger refers to a position, not a species. There isn't even a species called ranger in SF. Centaurs have been rangers, among other things. Other positions. Doesn't mean they hold exclusive rights to it. We've had human and elven archers, for example.

Furthermore, even you agreed that ranger fit him well, from a narrative standpoint (and gameplay too if he were a centaur, if I'm not mistaken). Taking all that into account: how have you not been hung up on a preconception all this time? I don't think I can explain more clearly without writing a thesis. That's all I have to say regarding this. We've been going back and forth over what would be the best class, and why, when in all honesty it's been sitting here this whole time. I'm fully confident that the team have everything they need in the OP to come to a firm decision already, provided they don't overthink it or try to please everyone.

I feel like we've spent entirely too much energy on this as it is, so all I can do to contribute at this time is to not continue feeding the flames. To the team: please disregard my last couple of suggestions of psiloi and partisan. I don't think they're necessary, and I don't want to make your jobs harder than they have to be.
Hattari

User avatar
Shining Member
Shining Member
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jan 20 2009 8:11am
Location: Central Ohio, USA

Re: David's Class Options

Postby Tor_Heyerdal » Sun May 05 2019 11:11pm

legalize freedom wrote:I found a few more just to get everyone thinking. Some may have already been mentioned, but there are a surprising number of ARPG classes that would work.

duelist
bastion
slinger
stalwart
dervish
pathfinder
archon

He's not a duelist. Bastion works. He's not a slinger. Stalwart works. He's not Muslim, so Dervish definitely doesn't work. Pathfinder works. He's not a ruler, so Archon doesn't work. And Archon sounds too elite for a first class, even if it did otherwise work.

I like Bastion. It fits for the exact same reasons that Warden fits, but it also avoids people's biased preconceptions about Warden somehow explicitly meaning jailer when it doesn't.

Hattari wrote:You're not wrong there about warden. But warden does imply someone who guards and/or detains.

No. It doesn't.
Warden:
Dictionary dot com: a person charged with the care OR (not "and") custody of persons, animals, or things; keeper.
Google: a person responsible for the supervision of a particular place or thing OR (not "and") for ensuring that regulations associated with it are obeyed.
Merriam-Webster: one having care or charge of something
Oxford: a person who is responsible for taking care of a particular place and making sure that the rules are obeyed
The Oxford definition is at least teetering on the precipice of implying detainment, but making sure that the rules are obeyed does not necessarily entail detainment. It can, in theory. But inherently? No. There are other definitions that talk about guarding things, but that doesn't stop these definitions about caring for things from existing and being usable.

Hattari wrote:And it wouldn't be a stretch to associate a warden with a fully-uniformed unit, at the very least.

A warden could be a fully-uniformed unit, but it doesn't have to be. As such, this is irrelevant.

Hattari wrote:
Tor_Heyerdal wrote:I actually think Warden>Overseer>Guardian would be more technically accurate.


Be honest: If you showed the above class progression to anybody who's played through scenarios 1-3 (and hasn't read these threads), and asked them "I changed their classes to this; so which force member is it? Who do they best describe?"... what is the likelihood they'll choose David? Something of a litmus test to consider.

I can't imagine that they'd come up with anyone but David, supposing they were knowledgeable about SF3, remembering it well, and that they speak English to any degree of competence.

Hattari wrote:You were mistaken; no harm done.

Apologies.

Hattari wrote:
Tor_Heyerdal wrote:And he also "oversees" the tank battle.

Seriously?

Yeah, seriously. Does he not?

Hattari wrote:You missed the point. We should place one over the other (in my opinion), if and only if there isn't a title that satisfies both sides

Well, that's exactly what W/G/S/etc. do. Although I do really rather like freedom's Bastion suggestion. I think that actually works extremely well, and I may even favour it at this point.

Hattari wrote:Frank is an example of the argument going the reverse: he is a character who is similar to several other characters in combat, but he is the only wolfman. So having his class names focus on that makes sense. David, however, is not the only elf - and there isn't enough in the plot that clearly and concretely identifies his role in a way that many job-related titles can encapsulate (that we know of)

No, David is not the only elf. But he is the only (known) warden of Stump Village, and he is the only one who oversees the tank battle. For a series with notoriously shallow character depth, that's plenty.

Hattari wrote:David is an important story character, and he is a very unique fighter. If there is a title that highlights his relationship to the rest of the army - without undermining or falsely advertising his combat abilities - then I'm all for it.

Likewise. And as I've already alluded to previously in this post, I think freedom may be onto something with Bastion.

Hattari wrote:In the end, it's all about communication, and how these things are communicated to players; it goes beyond first impressions and surface appearances.

Exactly. It goes beyond first impressions and surface appearances. But literally everyone who's rejected Warden has rejected it on the basis of first impressions. Namely, the first impression that it must mean jailer. But if they would take just two seconds to go beyond the surface appearance, they would clearly see that this word has other contexts in which it can be used, and that the "jailer" context is not even its main/parent context, but rather a sub-context, and that this "jailer" context is not the context in which it's being used. By arbitrarily focusing on detainment, you're essentially making the same argument that knightOfdragon was making, which is that the accurate context in which we're using the word is somehow actually inaccurate because there's this other context we're not using that wouldn't be accurate.

Hattari wrote:BTW, if I bold or capitalize something, it's purely for emphasis. Not anger. Because of the state of the internet, I felt it was worth pointing that out :p

I totally understand feeling a need to point that out, but yeah, no, I realize that. I didn't really pick up any hostility from you up until this point. Maybe a smidgen later on in your post, but nothing significant, and it's okay.

Hattari wrote:Be fair: I explained why I thought combat came before lore with him. You don't have to agree, but please don't act as if I'm just approaching this frivolously.

Do you mean the part when you said "because unique weapon selection"? That didn't seem like much of an explanation to me. And it doesn't hold up when the other characters with unique weapon selections don't have class names (Commander/General) that do anything to reflect their unique weapon selections either. Consistency.

Hattari wrote:Also, plenty of suggestions have been made since the earlier poll(s) that covered his combat ability well - including those that referred to someone skilled in multiple weapons (skirmisher for one example). So we had that side covered. And yet here we are.

I do not recall a Skirmisher suggestion. Perhaps I missed that. I suppose it could work, though. But you'll have to reference more than one example (preferably with actual quotes) for me to believe that "plenty" of such suggestions have been made.

Hattari wrote:According to Shining Force 2 and Gaiden gameplay. Not according to Shining Force 3 gameplay. We never encounter Justin's 1st class, so that's a moot point.

It's really not. It's indicative of what the official localization team had in mind. That isn't moot. That's noteworthy.

Hattari wrote:Besides, you can't cite the official SFIII localisation as "proof" when it suits you, but disregard it as a mistake that needs fixing when it doesn't.

What do you mean? Again, I've never claimed that "Ranger" was a mistake. I have speculated that it maybe, could've been a mistake, but I've never actually claimed that it was a mistake. I've expressed multiple times that it doesn't matter if it was a mistake. Firstly, "Ranger" never appears in the official localization, so I couldn't possibly have cited it as a mistake in the official localization, because it's not there to cite. Secondly, what I've expressed multiple times is that the class name "Ranger" being reserved for centaur archers is a longstanding tradition in the English localizations of Shining Force games. I don't give a damn about the Japanese version (not to imply that you said I did), and I don't give a damn if David's class name was a mistake or not. What I give a damn about is maintaining the consistent integrity of English-localized Shining Force tradition. I don't think it's "a mistake that needs fixing" (although it could be), I think it's "a localization issue that needs adaptation".

Hattari wrote:
Tor_Heyerdal wrote:Anyway, again, if you can suggest something that actually covers his combat potential well, then I'm all ears. As I am inclined to feel that classes that describe combat ability are generally preferable to classes that describe lore. But again... in lieu of any such classes, falling back on the lore is the only sensible option.


Good thing those have been suggested then. (Not me; OP)

There are no suggestions in the OP that do anything to describe David's combat ability. The closest that the OP's suggestions come to that is Commander and General implying that "hey, this guy has weird weapons." That's all. Nothing about Commander or General, however (or any of the other classes currently listed in the OP), do anything to communicate to the player that he uses throwing axes, spears, and knives, and that he's highly mobile.

Hattari wrote:Esoteric.. like "egress"? (My point: this wouldn't be the first time a Shining Force game - or any game for that matter - introduced players to a new word or phrase.)

My point wasn't that psiloi is esoteric. My point was that psiloi was just about the most esoteric thing I've ever heard in my life. I'll give you that "egress" is certainly an esoteric word, but it's at least an English word that you can find in a dictionary. I challenge you to find an English dictionary that contains the word "psiloi". And as long as I'm on the subject, I agree with freedom when he says that "psiloi" sounds like someone with psi powers. That's exactly what I thought before you explained it too. And since two people thinking something incorrect as their first impression seems to be enough for you y'all to discount a class suggestion, you should be throwing away this one for the same reason.

Hattari wrote:If you don't like the suggestion, that's fair. But how familiar it is (or isn't) to you seems like a weak reason to disqualify it.

I never said that how familiar it was or wasn't to me was a good reason to disqualify it. I said that it being unfamiliar to just about EVERYONE is a good reason to disqualify it. Let me get the exact quote... Here it is. I said: "That's a word that's not even known by pretty much anyone outside of maybe history buffs that few players are likely to have ever heard in their lives." And please don't try come back at me with a response that seeks to pretend that it's not possible to know that. I'm a linguist, and I pay very close attention to the cultural lexicon. Not that one even needs to be a linguist to do that. I can know that "psiloi" is not a part of the cultural lexicon of the Anglosphere any more than "perspicacity" (an actual English word that you can find in a dictionary) is part of the cultural lexicon of the Anglosphere. Granted, one could argue that "egress" isn't really part of the cultural lexicon of the Anglosphere either, and that would be a fair enough statement to make, but its general meaning can be sussed out without too much effort to anyone with a modest modicum of intelligence due to its obvious root relation to other words that are a part of the cultural lexicon of the Anglosphere, such as "regress". It doesn't take much effort to figure out that it has some kind of meaning that vaguely has something to do with "going back". "Psiloi", on the other hand? What the smeg is psiloi?

Hattari wrote:You're kidding. You're not, huh? Wasn't your entire reason for arguing against ranger based on the presumption that because centaurs in earlier Shining Force games were rangers, David could not be?

That's not a presumption. That's well established (English-localized) Shining fact.

Hattari wrote:But here's the thing: Shining Force 3 is its own game.

It's its own game in the sense that it's not SF1, SF2, or SFG. Sure. But it's not its own game in the sense that it's completely uncoupled from them is not a part of their family. If it was straight up its OWN game, it would not be called "Shining Force III". That "III" establishes it as being subject to the rules and expectations set forth by previous titles in the franchise (part of the reason why the The Forbidden Series franchise has become so polarized, with SquareEnix completely betraying that standard of numbers in a series line actually meaning something). It would've been called something like, I dunno', "Shining Force: Bulzome Rising" or something.

Hattari wrote:Rare is the long-running fantasy/RPG series that doesn't make changes along the way.

Yeah, but fundamental classes are not one of those things. Where's the The Forbidden Series game that says, "Y'know what? "Black mage" doesn't have to describe non-healers who cast offensive magic anymore," or "Y'know what? Dragoons don't really need to use polearms."

Hattari wrote:By the time David is introduced, no centaur archers have been introduced to the SFIII story under the title "ranger". That is an objective fact. Not opinion.

So? That's only true because Justin starts out promoted already and Scenario 2 was never localized for Waltz to have been introduced with that title.

Hattari wrote:Most of all: ranger refers to a position, not a species. There isn't even a species called ranger in SF.

I never tried to suggest that there's a species called ranger in SF. And no, in English-localized SF, it refers to a position WITHIN a species. Centaur is the species name, ranger is the name of members within that species who serve as archers.

Hattari wrote:Centaurs have been rangers, among other things. Other positions. Doesn't mean they hold exclusive rights to it.

True. Centaurs have been other things. And true, the fact that centaurs have been other things doesn't mean that they hold exclusive rights to "Ranger". That would be silly. But the fact that no one else has EVER held the title of Ranger who WASN'T a centaur throughout the ENTIRE English-localized franchise DOES.

Hattari wrote:We've had human and elven archers, for example.

So what? Yeah, we've had human and elven archers. But we've never had a centaur labeled "Archer". Likewise, we've never had a non-centaur labeled "Ranger" or "Knight". Centaurs are consistently treated uniquely with their class names throughout the entire English-localized franchise. I can't speak for the Japanese version, but again, I don't care about the Japanese version. It has little to no bearing on the English localizations (as is the case with any other localizations for any other games). 0 classes that have EVER been held by a centaur in English-localized SF have ever been shared by a non-centaur. Ever. Not even once. That's called "setting a precedent."

Hattari wrote:Furthermore, even you agreed that ranger fit him well, from a narrative standpoint (and gameplay too if he were a centaur, if I'm not mistaken).

Yes, it fits him well from a narrative and semantic standpoint. It would not, however, fit him well from a gameplay standpoint even if he were a centaur, because he does not use bows, crossbows, or shells.

Hattari wrote:Taking all that into account: how have you not been hung up on a preconception all this time?

Firstly, I clearly was talking about semantic preconceptions (eg; "this word must mean B context even though it's being used in C context because I just think it gets used more in B context than it does in C context, therefore, we should treat C context like it doesn't even exist"). That's semantics, and the preconception there is a semantic one. Secondly, a precedent is not a preconception. A preconception is "a conception or an opinion formed beforehand." My objection is based on my respect of the precedent already established by the English-localized SF franchise. If anything, I'm hung up on a "postconception", because the respect of an already established precedent is a conception or an opinion formed after the fact, not beforehand. What y'all are doing is forming a conception or an opinion of semantics before unpacking their actual intended context and simultaneously ignoring their unpacked context when it's explained.

Hattari wrote:We've been going back and forth over what would be the best class, and why, when in all honesty it's been sitting here this whole time. I'm fully confident that the team have everything they need in the OP to come to a firm decision already, provided they don't overthink it or try to please everyone.

I can respect where you're coming from here. I mean, we're clearly not going to be able to please everyone. And like, who ever can in any endeavour, right? And I also do agree that the OP does contain acceptable/adequate material. Like, I personally don't really care so much if he ends up with "Commander/General". I've thought about that more since my last commentary on it, and yeah, he never gets the title of General formally appointed to him in the story... but neither do the other Generals (maybe Spiriel does? But I'm not sure). And it would at least be consistent with the naming convention set forth by all the other odd-weapon characters. So like, fine, Commander/General or even Striker/Commando, whatever. But Ranger has got to go. And fundamentally, I don't care if it gets replaced with one of my suggestions or something else. Again, I think freedom's Bastion suggestion is an extremely good fit. I almost don't care what Ranger gets replaced with, so long as it's a good fit and doesn't compromise anything, just so long as it gets replaced. Bastion>Commander>General? Bastion>Striker>Commando? Okay. Fine by me. But he can't be a Ranger because he only has two legs, no bows, and no horse butt. lol.

Hattari wrote:I feel like we've spent entirely too much energy on this as it is, so all I can do to contribute at this time is to not continue feeding the flames. To the team: please disregard my last couple of suggestions of psiloi and partisan. I don't think they're necessary, and I don't want to make your jobs harder than they have to be.

You're probably right. This has certainly been very exhausting. Although I still think Partisan was a cool suggestion, and it could work, even if it is a slight stretch. I mean like, horse archers being called "Rangers" has been a slight stretch in and of itself from the very beginning. A slight stretch is okay, I think. As long as it's only slight.
Creator of Shining Force III: 16-bit (WIP).
Tjelladallak våriiikeõdõtsyk jeissõ'eilamnikinõhõn. Ii'tuntoimjähädälläjät, niin miietsy iimpa'tyõhõnja.
Creator of Shining Force III: 16-bit (WIP).
Tjelladallak våriiikeõdõtsyk jeissõ'eilamnikinõhõn. Ii'tuntoimjähädälläjät, niin miietsy iimpa'tyõhõnja.
Tor_Heyerdal

User avatar
Shining Member
Shining Member
 
Posts: 353
Joined: Fri Jan 11 2013 4:18am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: David's Class Options

Postby legalize freedom » Sun May 05 2019 11:51pm

Tor_Heyerdal wrote:He's not Muslim, so Dervish definitely doesn't work.


You mean in this universe where Islam doesn't exist?



I agree we can't be accused of not doing our due diligence. But I was happy before a couple of good suggestions came along, so it's not really hurting anything to let this marinade a bit.


Update:
I'm seriously considering removing Warden from the Commando line. I don't think it competes very well with Elven Ranger for that line.
legalize freedom

User avatar
Shining Legend
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 1936
Joined: Sat Apr 29 2006 4:09am
Location: Texas, USA

Re: David's Class Options

Postby Rune » Tue May 07 2019 5:14pm

legalize freedom wrote:Update:
I'm seriously considering removing Warden from the Commando line. I don't think it competes very well with Elven Ranger for that line.


I agree, but you probably guessed that.
Bury me with my money.
Bury me with my money.
Rune

User avatar
Shut the feck up fatty.
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 7424
Joined: Thu Sep 16 2004 9:33pm

Re: David's Class Options

Postby Salibu » Sun Jun 09 2019 6:05am

Rune wrote:That summarizes my main issue, actually.

If you are just an apostle, then you fall under the Christian apostles. But the three heroes are not apostles of Jesus, they are apostles of the light.

Also, I will point out that some Christians also take issue with such things. I believe it was a certain Salibu that stated he found the usage of "God" in shining force games to be disrespectful. Some Christians do not care for imitation, so please do not make this out to be something about my "personal prejudice against Christianity". And for one last point, yes, shining force 3 has many Judeo-Christian themes, but that's because they are standard story telling themes.


I honestly do not remember ever saying anything of the sort...
I dont like Gids name taken in vain but make believe gods in games dont bother me. Hence greek mythos being one of my favorite things.
Annual User ID Battle Creator:
2011 User ID Champion - Stordarth
2011 ToC Winner - Moogie > Stordarth
2012 User ID Champion - Rusty
2012 ToC Winner - Stordarth > Moogie > Rusty
2012 Tag Team Winner - Kaihaku / Noma
2012 Villain Contest - Galm
2013 User ID Champion - MXC
2013 ToC Winner - Stordarth > Moogie > MXC> Rusty
Annual User ID Battle Creator:
2011 User ID Champion - Stordarth
2011 ToC Winner - Moogie > Stordarth
2012 User ID Champion - Rusty
2012 ToC Winner - Stordarth > Moogie > Rusty
2012 Tag Team Winner - Kaihaku / Noma
2012 Villain Contest - Galm
2013 User ID Champion - MXC
2013 ToC Winner - Stordarth > Moogie > MXC> Rusty
Salibu

User avatar
Fighting Logic with Confusion
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 8977
Joined: Wed Jun 25 2008 3:43pm
Location: Plymouth Minnesota

Re: David's Class Options

Postby Rune » Sun Jun 09 2019 8:59am

Well it would have been 10 years ago or more.

Maybe you were just talking out your ass at the time or maybe it was another one of the board evangelicals.
Bury me with my money.
Bury me with my money.
Rune

User avatar
Shut the feck up fatty.
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 7424
Joined: Thu Sep 16 2004 9:33pm

Re: David's Class Options

Postby legalize freedom » Sun Jun 09 2019 6:21pm

Salibu wrote:I dont like Gids name taken in vain but make believe gods in games dont bother me. Hence greek mythos being one of my favorite things.


The Greek gods weren't/aren't make believe. They were/are worshipped as any other god(s) would be. Although it is understandable that they are seen that way as much as the mythology has been played out in games and other popular culture.
legalize freedom

User avatar
Shining Legend
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 1936
Joined: Sat Apr 29 2006 4:09am
Location: Texas, USA

Re: David's Class Options

Postby knight0fdragon » Mon Jun 10 2019 1:57pm

Technically all Gods are make believe, but if you want to have a theological discussion on this, I suggest it get moved to a different board.
knight0fdragon

User avatar
Shining Hero
Shining Hero
 
Posts: 1204
Joined: Fri Nov 05 2004 5:36am
Location: Good ol(Not Really) Pennsylvania USA

Re: David's Class Options

Postby legalize freedom » Mon Jun 10 2019 6:24pm

knight0fdragon wrote:Technically all Gods are make believe, but if you want to have a theological discussion on this, I suggest it get moved to a different board.


Yeah, not interested in that discussion, but there is a distinction to be made.
Elbesem is a fictional god (created by writers of a video game and not seriously worshipped by anyone (I hope)).
Zeus is an actual god (worshipped by a whole lot of people however long ago... and I'm sure you can still find some today)

I will be preparing the polls this week for all the fun decisions, so stay tuned.
legalize freedom

User avatar
Shining Legend
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 1936
Joined: Sat Apr 29 2006 4:09am
Location: Texas, USA

Re: David's Class Options

Postby knight0fdragon » Tue Jun 11 2019 1:19am

guess you never heard of scientology then
knight0fdragon

User avatar
Shining Hero
Shining Hero
 
Posts: 1204
Joined: Fri Nov 05 2004 5:36am
Location: Good ol(Not Really) Pennsylvania USA

Previous

Return to SFIII Translation Project

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest