David's Class Options

PostPosted: Fri Apr 19 2019 4:31pm
by legalize freedom
I'm going to keep this first post up to date with all the strengths and weaknesses of the two considered class lines and their individual classes. If I started a poll today, these would be the options.


Guardian / Warden / Elven Ranger
Commander
General



Strengths of General line:
-Commander is the literal translation of his second class in the original Japanese release which he shares with all the other generals in Sc3.
-Recognizes his leadership role within the Medion army, which happens quickly as he becomes a battalion leader for the final battle.
-As with all the other general characters, he has a unique assortment of weapon skills. Notice how there is roughly a pattern of a weapon type being assigned to two of them. I'm certain if Rogan would have been finished as a playable character, he would have continued this pattern. (Halberd, Sword and Blade or Axe as a guess)

Edmund
Knife
Mace
Rapier

Produn
Tomahawk
Spear
Sword

Spiriel
Halberd
Mace
Rapier

David
Knife
Spear
Tomahawk


Weaknesses of General line:
-Original classes focus on combat abilities vs leadership
-There is nothing explicit in game that dictates he is officially promoted within the Imperial army beyond being an leading member of the Medion army, but it is reasonable that he would be



Elven Ranger*
Striker
Commando



Strengths of Commando line:
-Is closest to literal translations
-Focuses on combat abilities


Weaknesses of Commando line:
-Doesn't reflect his leadership role in Stump or in the Medion army
-Striker is a bit generic
-Commando is a little too modern military



Guardian / Elven Ranger
Commander
Sentinel



Strengths of Sentinel line:
-Infers a unique combination of leadership and combat ability
-Has a spiritual connotation that suits David well (first and final classes)
-Describes his role at each stage of the game well

He starts as someone who protects others (Stump then Gracia when he has a higher calling)
Transitioning into his unique leadership role in the Medion army, becoming a Commander well before Gracia leaves and leading up to the Juggernaut battle.
Sentinel has a bit of "holy" to it while describing him as standing tall and taking on all comers to defeat Bulzome.


Weaknesses of Sentinel line:
-Can be perceived as describing a tank type character (David has good defense, but only after promotion and even then not exactly a tank)
-Commander doesn't exactly have the same feel as the other two classes, but it is his given second class and works well when considering his role in the story
-Guardian and especially Sentinel imply a stationary unit while David is fleet of foot


Strengths of Elven Ranger:
-Keeps generally the same original starting class. Just adding a prefix to differentiate from the established Ranger class
-Is a good descriptor of what he is and what his skill set is
-Works in General, Commando and Sentinel lines

Weaknesses of Elven Ranger:
-Piggybacks off of the established Ranger class
-Is similar to the enemy Hunter Elf, but with the enemy identifier being Elf and David's being Ranger (not race)


Strengths of Warden:
-Recognizes his leadership role in Stump village without naming him chieftain
-Describes both leadership and combat abilities (if also considered an enforcer)
-Thus could work in either General or Commando line
-Works well with his role of guardian/defender of both Stump and the forest

Weaknesses of Warden:
-From a strict reality standpoint, is more of a guardian and doesn't infer combat ability
-Some initial reactions may be that of a prison warden or other law enforcement position
-Weaker version of Guardian

Chieftain since removed from contention
Strengths of Chieftain:
-David is the acting Stump village chief
-Recognizes his importance as a leader

Weaknesses of Chieftain:
-David is not thought to carry the title of Village Chief officially
-Emphasizes leadership over combat abilities

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Fri Apr 19 2019 6:34pm
by Rune
I feel that that we need to get rid of striker, if we're to make progress on this.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Sat Apr 20 2019 8:39am
by Tor_Heyerdal
I'm inclined to agree with Rune.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Sat Apr 20 2019 12:53pm
by legalize freedom
That's why we're here.

So are you suggesting that you are partial to the Commando line, but want Striker replaced or that Striker makes the Commando line the weaker option?

I don't believe Elf Ranger or Warden work as a second class. But come to think of it Elf Ranger does work with the General line.

The only real replacement for Striker that has been suggested is Strider and I don't think that works. It suggests a traveler of sorts and David is a homeboy.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Sat Apr 20 2019 1:58pm
by Rune
legalize freedom wrote:So are you suggesting that you are partial to the Commando line, but want Striker replaced or that Striker makes the Commando line the weaker option?


Both, actually. I am partial to the Commando line and want to replace Striker because it makes the line weaker.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Sat Apr 20 2019 4:17pm
by knight0fdragon
legalize freedom wrote:That's why we're here.

So are you suggesting that you are partial to the Commando line, but want Striker replaced or that Striker makes the Commando line the weaker option?

I don't believe Elf Ranger or Warden work as a second class. But come to think of it Elf Ranger does work with the General line.

The only real replacement for Striker that has been suggested is Strider and I don't think that works. It suggests a traveler of sorts and David is a homeboy.



I don’t see Elf Ranger working with General, it would end up being Elf General, then we would have to assume all Elf Rangers can promote to Elf General

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Sat Apr 20 2019 8:53pm
by Tor_Heyerdal
legalize freedom wrote:So are you suggesting that you are partial to the Commando line, but want Striker replaced or that Striker makes the Commando line the weaker option?

Yeah, pretty much. I'm partial to the Commando line, but would like to see Striker replaced. I'm sure we can come up with something.

knightOfdragon wrote:I don’t see Elf Ranger working with General, it would end up being Elf General, then we would have to assume all Elf Rangers can promote to Elf General

Agreed.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Sat Apr 20 2019 9:31pm
by legalize freedom
David certainly comes from a different background than the other generals, but that really only affects his starting class. There's nothing that says he needs to have a different second or final class.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Sun Apr 21 2019 3:06am
by Hattari
This... is a lot to consider. I'm still thinking on it, but for now I'm leaning towards commander and general for the 2nd and 3rd classes.

It's much tougher settling on what's most appropriate for the starting class. Warden describes most of his duties well enough, but for the casual English-speaking player (and there are new folks trying this game out all the time), I'd imagine it would be hard to shake the common connotation of a warden having something to do with prisoners. Generally speaking, it just feels "off" somehow.

Elf ranger also has its issues - namely in redundancy. But, it is a fair compromise and necessary distinction, with Waltz' class changing to ranger. Since the enemies are called hunter elves, perhaps it could be written out as "ranger elf" instead (similar to how Waltz was previously called "archer knight"). It's a minor thing, but still.

One advantage of giving him the same 2nd+3rd classes as the other commanders is it could potentially set up in prospective players' minds the fact that there is something these seemingly different characters all have in common... which may make it easier for the average person to discover without a walkthrough their unique weapon sets. Thematically, they also reference his leadership role, both within and without Medion's army.

I'll get back to you on the 1st class. There are fair pros and cons on all sides...

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Sun Apr 21 2019 3:37am
by knight0fdragon
“Knight” is not a race. Elf is. Race normally precedes class. I think the only exception is the penguins. “Archer Knight” is a case of dual classes. In this case, the first class is his primary class, and the second class is the secondary class.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Sun Apr 21 2019 4:06am
by legalize freedom
Hattari wrote:This... is a lot to consider. I'm still thinking on it, but for now I'm leaning towards commander and general for the 2nd and 3rd classes.

It's much tougher settling on what's most appropriate for the starting class. Warden describes most of his duties well enough, but for the casual English-speaking player (and there are new folks trying this game out all the time), I'd imagine it would be hard to shake the common connotation of a warden having something to do with prisoners. Generally speaking, it just feels "off" somehow.

Elf ranger also has its issues - namely in redundancy. But, it is a fair compromise and necessary distinction, with Waltz' class changing to ranger. Since the enemies are called hunter elves, perhaps it could be written out as "ranger elf" instead (similar to how Waltz was previously called "archer knight"). It's a minor thing, but still.


If selected, I believe Warden will be a bit odd at first, but will grow on you quickly.

The reasoning behind Elf Ranger can be explained by looking at the enemy Hunter Elf. Hunter being the descriptor and Elf being what the focus is. A generic Elf that is a hunter. With David, the focus would be on Ranger with a descriptor of Elf. So a Ranger that is an Elf. It makes it more personal for him. The idea is to make it different and more meaningful than the enemy name/class. Which btw, is how you can think of enemy names as their class.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Sun Apr 21 2019 6:05pm
by Hattari
When you put it like that, Elf Ranger does make more sense than Ranger Elf. :thumbsup:

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Sun Apr 21 2019 8:02pm
by Tor_Heyerdal
Hattari wrote:Warden describes most of his duties well enough, but for the casual English-speaking player (and there are new folks trying this game out all the time), I'd imagine it would be hard to shake the common connotation of a warden having something to do with prisoners.

I dunno'. I mean, casual English-speaking players don't have that problem regarding the term "warden" in World of Warcraft and Warcraft III. I think your average person deserves a little bit more credit than that.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Mon Apr 22 2019 2:13pm
by knight0fdragon
Bad example, in warcraft, wardens are special police force, including overseeing the jails

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Mon Apr 22 2019 6:34pm
by Rune
Prison warden will always been the first thing I think of for warden. Still, I feel it is a viable option.

Also, why is Elf Ranger preferable to Elven Ranger?

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Mon Apr 22 2019 11:07pm
by legalize freedom
Rune wrote:Also, why is Elf Ranger preferable to Elven Ranger?


Primarily length, but it would work. It means the same thing in two less letters.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Tue Apr 23 2019 1:57am
by knight0fdragon
Is there any text from the villagers that would make it seem like David would not run the village like a prison? As in he keeps things strict and orderly, no room for nonsense.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Tue Apr 23 2019 2:18pm
by Tor_Heyerdal
knightOfdragon wrote:Is there any text from the villagers that would make it seem like David would not run the village like a prison? As in he keeps things strict and orderly, no room for nonsense.

Warden just means someone who's in charge of maintaining an area. Someone who's in charge of maintaining a jail area is just one potential kind of warden. The fact that some people might not know that doesn't actually do anything to diminish that fact or its legitimacy. We do not need any text from villagers that would make it seem like David would or would not run the village like a prison, because no such detail is required to legitimize or delegitimize his status as their warden.

knightOfdragon wrote:Bad example, in warcraft, wardens are special police force, including overseeing the jails

I never actually realized that wardens in WoW were jailers (though I did know they were essentially Night Elven police), and I looked it up to make sure, and you're quite right, but I never thought to question the label of "warden" even without that knowledge because I understand that one need not be a jailer to be a warden. And I'm not arrogant enough to assume that I'm the only one, so there must be plenty of other people out there who also didn't know that detail and also never got confused without it.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Tue Apr 23 2019 6:32pm
by legalize freedom
Tor_Heyerdal wrote:Warden just means someone who's in charge of maintaining an area. Someone who's in charge of maintaining a jail area is just one potential kind of warden. The fact that some people might not know that doesn't actually do anything to diminish that fact or its legitimacy. We do not need any text from villagers that would make it seem like David would or would not run the village like a prison, because no such detail is required to legitimize or delegitimize his status as their warden.


Yes, perception is a concern. It is a big part of the translation's work to be in line with the English speaking culture(s).

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Tue Apr 23 2019 7:43pm
by knight0fdragon
Tor_Heyerdal wrote:
knightOfdragon wrote:Is there any text from the villagers that would make it seem like David would not run the village like a prison? As in he keeps things strict and orderly, no room for nonsense.

Warden just means someone who's in charge of maintaining an area. Someone who's in charge of maintaining a jail area is just one potential kind of warden. The fact that some people might not know that doesn't actually do anything to diminish that fact or its legitimacy. We do not need any text from villagers that would make it seem like David would or would not run the village like a prison, because no such detail is required to legitimize or delegitimize his status as their warden.

knightOfdragon wrote:Bad example, in warcraft, wardens are special police force, including overseeing the jails

I never actually realized that wardens in WoW were jailers (though I did know they were essentially Night Elven police), and I looked it up to make sure, and you're quite right, but I never thought to question the label of "warden" even without that knowledge because I understand that one need not be a jailer to be a warden. And I'm not arrogant enough to assume that I'm the only one, so there must be plenty of other people out there who also didn't know that detail and also never got confused without it.



The reason why I asked is because the title could be symbolic, so that people who see “Warden” as somebody who runs a prison could make the connection easier. He is already given the symbolic title of Chief, so it is not like it would hurt.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Tue Apr 23 2019 8:21pm
by Rune
legalize freedom wrote:
Rune wrote:Also, why is Elf Ranger preferable to Elven Ranger?


Primarily length, but it would work. It means the same thing in two less letters.


I prefer "Elven" because in modern English it is primarily used an adjective, whereas "Elf" is primarily a noun. To me, "Elf Ranger" sounds like what you get with a strict character limit.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Tue Apr 23 2019 8:44pm
by MXC
100% Agree with Rune's assessment. It fits spatially so I see no issue with it. Also, not sure if it was mentioned at some point in any of the now 3 topics but since David uses all ranged weapons, it's at least somewhat of a connective tissue concerning other SF games using the term "Ranger". Rangers could almost be seen as a ranged weapon user stepping outside of typical race/class combos (Centaurs generally are Knights but get the Ranger treatment when they use bows.) Maybe a bit of a stretch but at least there is something there.

I don't like the first suggestion set at all, so I won't focus on that and instead return to using Guerrilla as a replacement for Striker and finishing off with Commando. Guerrillas are more on the untrained side but Commandos are elite units. David kind of earns this with what he does on the battlefield.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Tue Apr 23 2019 11:50pm
by knight0fdragon
My issue with Commando is David clearly is seen in a leadership role through out scenario 2. Commandos are more soldiers, not leaders. The entire team taking on the tank are all Commandos, I feel he really needs a distinction that tells the players this guy is not a super soldier, this guy is a mutha truckin leader.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Wed Apr 24 2019 12:25pm
by legalize freedom
MXC wrote:100% Agree with Rune's assessment. It fits spatially so I see no issue with it.

I don't like the first suggestion set at all, so I won't focus on that and instead return to using Guerrilla as a replacement for Striker and finishing off with Commando. Guerrillas are more on the untrained side but Commandos are elite units. David kind of earns this with what he does on the battlefield.


I agree Elven is more grammatically correct, so that's a possible change. I need to check other locations first. I believe Elfin is used as descriptor for Masqurin and Syntesis in the bookcase entries, so we would probably want to make that grammar match. I'm actually a little partial to Elfin because it's different, but it doesn't work as well as a class descriptor. Another maybe lessor known reason I'm stingy with the characters is because of the ghosting text issue on the status screen, but in this case we will be gaining several characters with the change to Waltz's class.

Don't count on Guerrilla being an option. It would pair well with Commando for a military type character, but I don't think it works in this game or for this character. Truth be told, if we were doing this from scratch, Commando wouldn't be an option either. But in this case it is the legacy option. I always like to provide an option with the least amount of change because a lot of people prefer that. That being said, Striker is in at least one option for that same reason. If no suitable replacement is suggested, it will be the option for the Commando line.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Wed Apr 24 2019 5:18pm
by Rune
I'd be fine with dropping Striker completely and going straight to commando.

Something like Elven Ranger -> Commando -> Marshal.


Wasn't Commando originally his second class anyway? I think we really just go sidetracked by the whole ranger issue. The real problem is Striker. Also, for those wondering. Personally, I would still prefer to just use Ranger. However, I've realized that isn't going to happen, so I have compromised with Elven Ranger.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Wed Apr 24 2019 6:45pm
by legalize freedom
Rune wrote:I'd be fine with dropping Striker completely and going straight to commando.

Something like Elven Ranger -> Commando -> Marshal.


Wasn't Commando originally his second class anyway? I think we really just go sidetracked by the whole ranger issue. The real problem is Striker. Also, for those wondering. Personally, I would still prefer to just use Ranger. However, I've realized that isn't going to happen, so I have compromised with Elven Ranger.


Marshal doesn't fit this line as well as it would the General line as it is focused on leadership. It wouldn't be a good replacement for Striker no matter which class you wanted to use it for.

The reason for this whole thing in the start was that I thought the Commando and Striker classes needed to switch places. That is, Striker be the second class and Commando, being the more impressive class, would be his final class.

Commando was always a compromise. As we've discussed, the original second class is Commander, but since we didn't want to repeat that class, Commando was the result. If there is a class name that is more impressive than Commando and would fit in the final promotion slot, I haven't heard it. I think in general this has revealed the Commando line to have weaker options than the General line.

I don't suppose I've shared the evidence that I found in the Sc1 files, since I thought everyone was on board with changing Ranger for David, but... In the English Sc1 game files on the line that would be Justin's starting class, you'll find Ranger. That is solid evidence if you weren't yet convinced.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Wed Apr 24 2019 8:37pm
by Tor_Heyerdal
legalize freedom wrote:Marshal doesn't fit this line as well as it would the General line as it is focused on leadership. It wouldn't be a good replacement for Striker no matter which class you wanted to use it for.

Why the double standard? Why does "Marshal" not fit due to focusing on leadership, but "General" does fit despite being focused on leadership? Furthermore, as knightOfdragon has pointed out many times, David is in a leadership position. He's probably outranked only by Medion and possibly Campbell. And while that detail could probably be debated, he's clearly one of the higher-ups, either way. However, that said, I'm not sure Marshal is really the best fit, anyway. But not for the reason that it focuses on leadership. That's silly. Marshal can mean either "an officer of the highest rank in the armed forces of some countries", or "a federal or municipal law officer", neither of which are particularly accurate descriptions of David, to the best of my understanding. They're nearly accurate, though. It's not exactly a huge stretch, and it would be a very cool-sounding class name.

legalize freedom wrote:Yes, perception is a concern. It is a big part of the translation's work to be in line with the English speaking culture(s).

Well, in English speaking cultures, the word "warden" just means someone who's responsible for the supervision of a place or thing. And if you shouldn't use a word just because some people might not know what it means, as you seem to be implying, then you really shouldn't use any words because there will always be at least some people who might not know what any given word means. This holds true for pretty much everything, including every other option we've discussed, and including his legacy classes.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Wed Apr 24 2019 9:45pm
by Rune
legalize freedom wrote:I don't suppose I've shared the evidence that I found in the Sc1 files, since I thought everyone was on board with changing Ranger for David, but... In the English Sc1 game files on the line that would be Justin's starting class, you'll find Ranger. That is solid evidence if you weren't yet convinced.


Solid evidence of what? A class title being used for two different types in the same shining force game, or a bad translation?

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Wed Apr 24 2019 11:12pm
by DiegoMM
warden is strange
I vote for Elven Ranger.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Thu Apr 25 2019 12:11am
by Tor_Heyerdal
DiegoMM wrote:warden is strange

Why is Warden strange? Substantiate your claim. Give some sort of actual reason. Preferably one that makes sense. Warden means "a person responsible for the supervision of a place or thing." David is a person who's responsible for the supervision of Stump Village, which is a place and a thing. If Warden is strange, there must be something about that which is somehow incorrect or inappropriate. Which part of that is incorrect or inappropriate and thereby strange?

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Thu Apr 25 2019 1:03am
by legalize freedom
Rune wrote:
legalize freedom wrote:I don't suppose I've shared the evidence that I found in the Sc1 files, since I thought everyone was on board with changing Ranger for David, but... In the English Sc1 game files on the line that would be Justin's starting class, you'll find Ranger. That is solid evidence if you weren't yet convinced.


Solid evidence of what? A class title being used for two different types in the same shining force game, or a bad translation?


I apologize, I should have been clearer about the implications.

The devs gave Justin the starting class of Ranger, even though the player never sees this because he comes promoted. Justin (Sc1) and Waltz (Sc2) are unquestionably the same class. So it can be assumed pretty confidently that the "wrong" class was given to Waltz and David in Sc2, which is the conclusion many of us came to before even knowing about the game file reveal.

@Tor
Please read my response. I said Marshal didn't fit with the Commando line as well as it would with the General line.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Thu Apr 25 2019 2:02am
by Tor_Heyerdal
legalize freedom wrote:The devs gave Justin the starting class of Ranger, even though the player never sees this because he comes promoted. Justin (Sc1) and Waltz (Sc2) are unquestionably the same class. So it can be assumed pretty confidently that the "wrong" class was given to Waltz and David in Sc2, which is the conclusion many of us came to before even knowing about the game file reveal.

Or, at the very least, whether or not Waltz and/or David's classes were considered "wrong", it's pretty good evidence that the localization team thought it appropriate to maintain the established "Ranger" tradition of the previous localized SF games and, had they proceeded to localize SC2, Waltz would have very likely had Ranger as her class (just like Justin despite the fact that the player couldn't see that) while David would've very likely been changed to something else.

legalize freedom wrote:Please read my response. I said Marshal didn't fit with the Commando line as well as it would with the General line.

My bad. I seem to have misunderstood. I thought you were saying that Marshal doesn't fit as well as General does, and using that to discredit the suggestion of Marshal. I see now what you meant, and in hindsight, I definitely misunderstood. Sorry about that.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Thu Apr 25 2019 3:56am
by knight0fdragon
Warden -> Commandant -> Marshall is sounding a lot better LOL

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Thu Apr 25 2019 12:08pm
by legalize freedom
Tor_Heyerdal wrote:Well, in English speaking cultures, the word "warden" just means someone who's responsible for the supervision of a place or thing. And if you shouldn't use a word just because some people might not know what it means, as you seem to be implying, then you really shouldn't use any words because there will always be at least some people who might not know what any given word means. This holds true for pretty much everything, including every other option we've discussed, and including his legacy classes.


It's actually a good thing when, in general, people don't know what a word means. You have a word that is a good fit and people learn something in the process. That is not the case here.

The problem is when the perceived meaning of the word is different than what you intend to use it for. It's not that they don't know it, it's that it means something different where they live. While we focus on the US and UK cultures, this patch essentially covers half the world, where words can mean slightly different things in different regions.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Thu Apr 25 2019 3:33pm
by Tor_Heyerdal
knight0fdragon wrote:Warden -> Commandant -> Marshall is sounding a lot better LOL

Yeah, actually, I'm inclined to agree.

legalize freedom wrote:The problem is when the perceived meaning of the word is different than what you intend to use it for.

You make it sound like it would just be universally misinterpreted, which is ridiculous. Some people would misinterpret it, but some people would misinterpret anything.

legalize freedom wrote:It's not that they don't know it, it's that it means something different where they live. While we focus on the US and UK cultures, this patch essentially covers half the world, where words can mean slightly different things in different regions.

Again, this is true of pretty much any given word. Literally every single option that we've discussed will be misinterpreted by some people somewhere. Even the "hunter" option would be misinterpreted by people who only know English from video games and will think it means "archer" due to MMO bias. If Warden is a bad decision because some people don't know what it means or would misinterpret it, then there's no such thing as a good option, because no matter what we pick, some people will not know what it means or misinterpret it, even if it seems obvious to us.
And you can't just say "we focus on the US and UK cultures" but then immediately throw that under the bus by saying "but this patch essentially covers half the world." Either it focuses on US and UK cultures or it doesn't. If it's going to be tailored for half the world, then it doesn't, and even then, you can't please everyone in half the world. If it focuses on US and UK cultures (which is appropriate, as this is an English localization that half the world will just so happen to also enjoy), then other cultures will just have to deal with the fact that this is an English game, and not pandering to English-as-a-second-language speakers who don't have the best grasp on the English language. Just like any other English localization, they'll just have to improve their English a bit if they want to engage with this. If you want to pander to the non-English part of the world that's going to be playing this, then just make the game in Spanish or something. It's not the English language's fault that people in other countries don't always have a perfect grasp of it. And no, as long as we're talking about US and UK cultures, the word "warden" doesn't mean anything different anywhere. It might mean something different in some foreign countries that only speak English as a lingua franca and/or secondarily, but there's no such thing as a natively English speaking country or region where "warden" just has a totally different meaning. And even if there was, who cares? That doesn't delegitimize its viability. And there might be some people who are ignorant of the fact that warden has a broader meaning outside of a jailcell, but again, that doesn't deligitimize its viability, and that doesn't mean that their region has a totally different meaning for warden. It just means that those individuals are ignorant of the broader meaning of the word.

legalize freedom wrote:It's actually a good thing when, in general, people don't know what a word means. You have a word that is a good fit and people learn something in the process. That is not the case here.

How is that not the case here? Someone playing this sees the "Warden" class. They don't know what it means or they have an incorrect perception that it only means jailer. They think "What's up with that?" They look it up to find out what's up with that. They discover that it means something broader than what they thought, where the "jailer" submeaning is just one variety of a person who's responsible for a place. Biggitty bam. They've learned something. Or are you saying, rather than that people can't learn something in this process, that Warden is simply not a good fit to begin with despite already saying in the other thread that it was an excellent and fitting suggestion?

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Thu Apr 25 2019 5:22pm
by Rune
I'd like to see what a poll says for Warden versus Elven/Elfin/Elf Ranger for a starting class.

There's the concern that Warden sounds weird/wrong to people. I am of the opinion it doesn't matter why they think it sounds off, just that people don't like it. I would like to know if a minority or majority of people take issue with Warden. I gave up on Ranger because about half of people voted against it.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Thu Apr 25 2019 6:34pm
by legalize freedom
I would be happy with the five options we have now for the poll.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Thu Apr 25 2019 7:04pm
by Rune
I feel less is more, but including Chieftain in the poll makes sense. Specifically I mean I want a poll that shows what people don't want as a starting class, so we can then improve the viable options.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Thu Apr 25 2019 8:45pm
by Tor_Heyerdal
legalize freedom wrote:I would be happy with the five options we have now for the poll.

I think you should add knightOfdragon's Warden>Commandant>Marshall suggestion to the poll in addition to the five options we have now.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Fri Apr 26 2019 2:04am
by legalize freedom
Commandant seems like a weaker version of Commander and Marshal seems more like an option for starting class and a weaker version of Warden. Same strengths and weaknesses. I also have come to see the weaknesses of Chieftain being too much. Not sure if it is strong enough to remain an option.

What about Guardian as a starting class option? He starts out as a guardian of Stump, Hedva, Gracia and Elbesem. He is promoted long before Gracia splits (when it would become odd). It fits both leadership and battle skills. A weakness if taken literal or fantasy-wise would be that he doesn't have that great of a defense, but I see the description more as a duty or role than a physical trait.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Fri Apr 26 2019 3:16am
by knight0fdragon
legalize freedom wrote:Commandant seems like a weaker version of Commander and Marshall seems more like an option for starting class and a weaker version of Warden. Same strengths and weaknesses. I also have come to see the weaknesses of Chieftain being too much. Not sure if it is strong enough to remain an option.

What about Guardian as a starting class option? He starts out as a guardian of Stump, Hedva, Gracia and Elbesem. He is promoted long before Gracia splits (when it would become odd). It fits both leadership and battle skills. A weakness if taken literal or fantasy-wise would be that he doesn't have that great of a defense, but I see the description more as a duty or role than a physical trait.


.... what world are you living in..... that is exactly the opposite of what you just said.


Marshalls are equal rank or sometimes even greater than generals, And Commandants are equal to or greater than Commanders lol. This list is one of the few that actually combines peacetime titles with war time titles, making it decent for David since everybody here is having a hard time distinguishing the two.

Guardian sounds like a person who has high defense.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Fri Apr 26 2019 7:24am
by Rune
Yeah, Marshal is like as high as it gets.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Fri Apr 26 2019 12:36pm
by legalize freedom
I want to make sure we are talking about the same thing. A repeat of my previous quick research reveals the same results.
Speaking strictly in US terms, Marshal can describe a position at virtually any level of society. Local, federal, military, civilian law enforcement, parade... (in fact, parades get GRAND Marshals :D )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshal

Marshall with two L's is a name.

Commandant is similar in that it can be used in many settings, but is described as someone in charge of a military academy. Strictly speaking of the US marine corps, it would be the highest rank, but that is a narrow view of the overall word. Commandant the rank globally is a mid-level military or police rank.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commandant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commandant_of_the_Marine_Corps
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commandant_(rank)


Commander is also used generically like the others, but is in line with David's situation. He commands an armed forces unit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander

So what am I missing?


My extended thoughts on Guardian: It would seem to be more flexible than I initially considered. I think it could work in his first or final class. Many of the final classes are "holy". Apostle, Paladin, Holy Dragon, etc. and Guardian has a bit of that and it works thematically as a lead up to the final battle. It wouldn't work in the second class because of what is happening in game. This could solve our Striker problem.

Elven Ranger/Warden
Commander
Guardian

Guardian
Commander
General

Thoughts?

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Fri Apr 26 2019 12:37pm
by DiegoMM
trivia: in brazilian portuguese, the offical translation of Lord of the Rings translates Ranger as "Guardião", that of course means Guardian.
We dont have a good word for ranger that dont sound like a scoutboy.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Fri Apr 26 2019 3:48pm
by knight0fdragon
legalize freedom wrote:I want to make sure we are talking about the same thing. A repeat of my previous quick research reveals the same results.
Speaking strictly in US terms, Marshal can describe a position at virtually any level of society. Local, federal, military, civilian law enforcement, parade... (in fact, parades get GRAND Marshals :D )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshal

Marshall with two L's is a name.

Commandant is similar in that it can be used in many settings, but is described as someone in charge of a military academy. Strictly speaking of the US marine corps, it would be the highest rank, but that is a narrow view of the overall word. Commandant the rank globally is a mid-level military or police rank.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commandant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commandant_of_the_Marine_Corps
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commandant_(rank)


Commander is also used generically like the others, but is in line with David's situation. He commands an armed forces unit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander

So what am I missing?


.... the fact you said the titles are weaker, when even your lists show they aren’t? This is a military game, so it makes sense that the military definitions take priority. A ranger is also used to classify a chef, but I would never ask Justin to make me dinner.

We already have a “Commander” title used for another purpose. Changing that title is the same reason why we are changing Ranger. If we are going to keep Commander, we need to keep General, and use whatever the first promotion name is across the board to stay consistent. This is why I offered Commandant, it is an alternative to Commander, it is a promotion seen after Warden in every definition of the word, and it kind of shows the team he takes to the tank, a band of military in training and monsters that needs a good leader to control the situation.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Fri Apr 26 2019 6:31pm
by Rune
legalize freedom wrote:I want to make sure we are talking about the same thing. A repeat of my previous quick research reveals the same results.
Speaking strictly in US terms, Marshal can describe a position at virtually any level of society. Local, federal, military, civilian law enforcement, parade... (in fact, parades get GRAND Marshals :D )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshal


Consider your counterexample. The grand marshal of a parade is the very top guy at the parade.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Fri Apr 26 2019 6:31pm
by legalize freedom
knight0fdragon wrote:.... the fact you said the titles are weaker, when even your lists show they aren’t? This is a military game, so it makes sense that the military definitions take priority. A ranger is also used to classify a chef, but I would never ask Justin to make me dinner.

We already have a “Commander” title used for another purpose. Changing that title is the same reason why we are changing Ranger. If we are going to keep Commander, we need to keep General, and use whatever the first promotion name is across the board to stay consistent. This is why I offered Commandant, it is an alternative to Commander, it is a promotion seen after Warden in every definition of the word, and it kind of shows the team he takes to the tank, a band of military in training and monsters that needs a good leader to control the situation.


I'm not sure what lists you're referring to (I don't have those two class names on the list for the reasons stated above), but I agree we can use any sense of the word that's appropriate. They are all titles with multiple meanings that can be used generically or specifically.

I'm not concerned with re-using Commander for David. I think that would be fine. Using with the General line would be the familiar progression, excepting starting class. If the other line were chosen in conjunction with something other than Commando as the final class, I still think it's reasonable that he would earn a title of Commander on his way to something more personal than General. David is going to be unique in one way or another.


Rune wrote:Consider your counterexample. The grand marshal of a parade is the very top guy at the parade.


But where does that leave the regular Marshal? :)

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Fri Apr 26 2019 6:34pm
by Rune
legalize freedom wrote:
Rune wrote:Consider your counterexample. The grand marshal of a parade is the very top guy at the parade.


But where does that leave the regular Marshal? :)


It leaves the regular Marshal being the top, or near top, guy wherever he is.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Fri Apr 26 2019 7:25pm
by Tor_Heyerdal
knightOfdragon wrote:Marshalls are equal rank or sometimes even greater than generals, And Commandants are equal to or greater than Commanders lol. This list is one of the few that actually combines peacetime titles with war time titles, making it decent for David since everybody here is having a hard time distinguishing the two.

Rune wrote:Yeah, Marshal is like as high as it gets.

Right. This is accurate. This is why I said that I don't think that Marshal quite fits the bill for David, as he's not actually the highest ranking, even if he is near the top. However, because he is near the top, I see it as a fair enough compromise. Plus, it sounds cool, and it also sounds like a thematically appropriate progression from Warden.

knightOfdragon wrote:Guardian sounds like a person who has high defense.

Here we go again with the bias. Being unbiased about it, I don't think that guardian sounds like someone who necessarily has to have high defense. It just sounds like someone who guards and defends something. He guards and defends Stump Village, while also watching over Medion's forces. It's equally as accurate as Warden.

legalize freedom wrote:but that is a narrow view of the overall word.

So what? You're allowed to use a word narrowly. If you weren't, then words wouldn't have narrow meanings among their potential interpretations.

legalize freedom wrote:My extended thoughts on Guardian: It would seem to be more flexible than I initially considered. I think it could work in his first or final class. Many of the final classes are "holy". Apostle, Paladin, Holy Dragon, etc. and Guardian has a bit of that and it works thematically as a lead up to the final battle. It wouldn't work in the second class because of what is happening in game. This could solve our Striker problem.

I agree. I also really rather like the idea of Guardian. It also solves the problem of General being not strictly cannon. And it works as a first or final class in the progression. I think this is one of the better suggestions made so far.

knightOfdragon wrote:This is a military game, so it makes sense that the military definitions take priority. A ranger is also used to classify a chef, but I would never ask Justin to make me dinner.

A very sensible argument. Military definitions should take priority when the context in which it's being used is clearly a military context. That just stands to reason.

knightOfdragon wrote:If we are going to keep Commander, we need to keep General, and use whatever the first promotion name is across the board to stay consistent.

If it wasn't for Irene, I would agree with you. But Irene sets the precedent that inconsistency in this regard isn't strictly "against the rules", so to speak. Hera and Khan have a class line of Monk>Master Monk>Saint, but Irene has an inconsistent class progression of Monk>Master Monk>High Monk (or "Fist Master" (xD), depending on which translation you're going with). However, to play devil's advocate with myself, one could very rightly make the argument that they do have the same first AND second class, and not just the same second class. So perhaps this point doesn't really hold up. We might not need to keep General, but we would need to keep whatever the first class is, I suppose. But then... there are no first class Commanders are there? They all start at class 2, I believe, yes? So... I don't know. However, that said, if we DO want to be consistent about it (which, frankly, I'm all for), then Commandant is a decent way of keeping it separate from Commander.

Maybe this is just me, but I like the idea of emphasizing his role as a defender (in the lore, not in his stats, which is perfectly fine--not everyone's class is determined by their stats; some of them are determined by their lore, like Isabella, and that's okay). Both "Warden" and "Guardian" (my two favourite suggestions thus far) have connotations of defending something. Maybe we can come up with another class title that's in line with that? That is, if the rest of you also feel it's a fitting idea. A quick thesaurus search for "guardian" brings up several possibilities: attendant, champion (I know this one is on Penn already, and some people have some unreasonable biases against this one, but nevertheless), conservator, custodian (I imagine several people in here are likely to have biases against this one too, erroneously thinking that it only means janitor), defender, overseer, sentinel. Personally, I like those last two.

Warden > Sentinel > Guardian
or
Warden > Overseer > Guardian (<- this one probably works best out of these suggestions)
or
Guardian > Overseer > Sentinel

^ These could work pretty well, I think. They completely avoid the problem of compromising cannon (General), they completely avoid the problem of class inconsistency (Commander and Ranger), they completely avoid the problem of ambiguity (Striker), they completely avoid the problem of speculative/debatable cannon (Chieftain and Hunter), and they completely avoid the problem of "close, but not quite" (Marshal)... Well, okay, maybe "Sentinel" is still somewhat falling into that last category. But "Overseer" seems very appropriate for the events of late-game Scenario 2. And all four of these suggestions (Warden, Overseer, Sentinel, and Guardian) fully apply to his social role in his home of Stump Village, where they will likely still apply upon his return after the events of the game(s).

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Fri Apr 26 2019 7:57pm
by knight0fdragon
Tor_Heyerdal wrote:
knightOfdragon wrote:Guardian sounds like a person who has high defense.

Here we go again with the bias. Being unbiased about it, I don't think that guardian sounds like someone who necessarily has to have high defense. It just sounds like someone who guards and defends something. He guards and defends Stump Village, while also watching over Medion's forces. It's equally as accurate as Warden.


.... seriously? You want to design the 16 bit version of the game, and you do not understand game mechanics? If you have a character whose job is to defend or guard...... you give them a high defense.


@legalizefreedom

How much work would it be for us to get a list of all the classes and any English counter parts that are available with them (basically already assuming all 3rd promotions are japanese only)

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Fri Apr 26 2019 9:18pm
by Tor_Heyerdal
knightOfdragon wrote:.... seriously? You want to design the 16 bit version of the game, and you do not understand game mechanics? If you have a character whose job is to defend or guard...... you give them a high defense.

It's not a question of game mechanics, it's a question of semantics and lore. Not everyone's class is determined by their stats; some of them are determined by their lore, like Isabella, and that's okay. Other such examples could include Cyclops, Rollie, or Thousand, or even characters from other SF games like Bleu, Zynk, or Kiwi. Nothing about the stats of any of these characters (among others) is dictated by their class label. Many characters are classed for their lore qualities rather than their mechanics or stat qualities.

And you know full well that Guardian is not being proposed for the reason that his job (ie, combat role) is supposedly to defend or guard during in-game battle on the part of the player. This is a disingenuous strawman, because nobody's proposing that. The proposition is being made because guardianship is his central duty in his life as a person and as a character; as the warden of Stump Village and co-commander/sub-commander of Medion's army. Both for his people back at home as well as Medion's forces. Just because he's not a tank during in-game combat doesn't mean that he doesn't have protective duties as a character in the bigger picture of the story.

And semantically speaking, even if a scrawny boy armed with nothing other than a stick in his hand and a pot on his head decides to take it upon himself to guard his village against potential threats, he's a guardian, regardless of his defensive capabilities, or lack thereof. Maybe not the best guardian his village could hope for and hopefully not its only guardian, but a guardian nonetheless.

You're essentially saying "Guardian can't work because this particular context that it's not actually being used in doesn't apply." If you won't be satisfied until we come up with something that works in every single possible context that the chosen word can possibly be used in, even when we're only using the chosen word with the intent of a single, specific context, then we're gonna' be here a long time, because language just doesn't work like that. There's no such thing as universally applicable context. We have to choose a context to use any given choice in, and it can't possibly incorporate all other potential contexts, and we have to trust the players to not be so stupid that they can't figure that out.

However, all of that said, I can at least compromise with the admission that "Guardian" might work better as a first class than as a third class for the reason which you're objecting.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Fri Apr 26 2019 10:22pm
by knight0fdragon
You have it backwards, Stats are determined by class, not the other way around. "Class" has more meaning to what a player can do, as opposed to what the story dictates (but it does play a tiny role to keep things simple for players,) which is why it is important in game mechanics. Isabella is your stereotypical pricess, and her stats reflect that way, same goes for all of the races classes you mentioned. "Class" really has absolutely nothing to do with the actual story in shining force. Promotions do not change the story, I do not even know if they change NPC text. The importance of class is mostly for deciding how to lay out your army. That is why I keep reiterating we should not be focussing on the story element when it comes to David's class. We need a word that can help use sort of identify what David really is in battle, which is why I made the comment that if I was going to play a Guardian, I would assume the Guardian would be a character with a high defence. Same as if I was playing a Ranger, I would expect somebody who can attack at a distance, and not somebody who can cook up a meal for the battalion.

Basically, we should be able to use "class" to play our battles without any story, ala a board game or DND, that is how I have always seen how we should be treating it.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Fri Apr 26 2019 10:59pm
by Rune
knight0fdragon wrote:You have it backwards, Stats are determined by class, not the other way around.


This is false. Look at the stat growth charts from Shining Force 2. Stats are done at a character level, with some correlation by class. In particular, I bet that if we went through all of the examples, we could find cases where the average stat of a character 1 from class A is higher than that of a character 2 from class B and average stat of character 3 from class A is lower than that of character 4 from class B.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Fri Apr 26 2019 11:27pm
by Tor_Heyerdal
knightOfdragon wrote:You have it backwards, Stats are determined by class, not the other way around.

Again, another strawman, because I never claimed that class is determined by stats (ie, "the other way around"). I never said that class was strictly determined by anything. I said that SOME characters have classes that reflect their lore, while other characters have classes that reflect their stats. I said that not all characters' classes are determined by their stats. This, of course, implies that not all characters' stats are determined by their class. And no, stats are not always determined by class. There is nothing about "Dragonman", for example, that determines very much of anything regarding how much stats Cyclops should have. There is nothing about "Tortoise" that suggests anything about what stats kiwi should have except for defense. There is nothing about "Robot" that suggests anything about what stats Zynk should have. So you're just flat-out wrong when you say that stats are determined by class. It's fair enough to say that stats are OFTEN determined by class, but as a blanket statement, this doesn't hold up.

knightOfdragon wrote:"Class" has more meaning to what a player can do, as opposed to what the story dictates (but it does play a tiny role to keep things simple for players).

Sometimes, yes. But not universally. "Princess" has zero meaning regarding what the player can do with Isabella. "Dragonman" has almost zero meaning regarding what the player can do with Cyclops. "Robot" has zero meaning regarding what the player can do with Zynk.

knightOfdragon wrote:Isabella is your stereotypical pricess, and her stats reflect that way, same goes for all of the races classes you mentioned.

In what way? How much agility is dictated by Robot? How much luck is dictated by Dragonman? How much Attack is dictated by Unicorn? How much MP is dictated by Princess? None. Robots can be fast or slow. Dragonmen can (in theory) be lucky or unlucky. Unicorns can (in theory) be aggressive and strong or docile and meek. Princesses don't even necessarily have to have magic at all, let alone any amount of MP. Their stats are not determined by their classes, their stats are determined by their characters.

knightOfdragon wrote:"Class" really has absolutely nothing to do with the actual story in shining force.

Again, not universally, no. It's true that it usually doesn't. But that doesn't mean it never does. You would honestly stand there and tell me with a straight face that Isabella being princess of the Empire has NOTHING to do with the story? That is literally a plot/setting/lore/story element. By even having anything to do with the Empire at all, it has to do with the story.

However, this is yet another strawman as you're taking the argument I made and replacing it with a weaker one. I didn't actually say that classes have to do with "the story of Shining Force", I said that SOME classes have more to do with THEIR LORE. As in the lore for that respective character. Isabella is, of course, the most obvious example of this, as her central lore point is that she's the Princess of the Empire. If classes never had anything to do with the lore whatsoever, and instead had everything to do with in-game combat capacity, they would've called her a Priest/Cleric because that's the capacity she serves in combat in-game.

knightOfdragon wrote:Promotions do not change the story, I do not even know if they change NPC text.

Never said, suggested, or implied that they did.

knightOfdragon wrote:The importance of class is mostly for deciding how to lay out your army.

That's AN importance of class. But there are many classes, such as the ones I've named above (Princess, Dragonman, Robot, Monster, etc.) that do not say jack squat about their combat potential in and of themselves. You just have to use those characters to get to know how they operate and figure out through experience how they're going to fit into your army or not. Sometimes, a character just doesn't fit nicely into a broadly familiar archetype. Although as far as combat potential goes, David fits closest into the Commander/General archetype. So if your only metric is combat potential, then you really ought to be arguing in favour of that. But up until now, you've been quite adamantly against it, so you're now arguing against your own position that you've maintained up until this point. And I mean, if you've changed your mind about Commandant and have come to the conclusion that shoehorning him into the closest predefined archetype is what's best, then that's fair enough, I suppose.

knightOfdragon wrote:That is why I keep reiterating we should not be focussing on the story element when it comes to David's class.

The only "story element" that we're really putting focus on here is the tank battle. The rest of the focus behind title suggestions like Warden, Guardian, or even Commandant are focused on lore rather than story. But I'm beginning to get the idea that you're conflating these into the same concept. Which, alright, we can do that for the sake of simplicity, I suppose. I would reiterate that there are several classes that focus on "story" elements (although I do think "lore" is technically more accurate): Princess, Robot, Monster, Dragonman, or perhaps (keyword: perhaps) the best example of all: "Hero". It doesn't get much more "story element" than that. While "Hero" has established certain conventions regarding combat potential in the Shining Force franchise, they are entirely arbitrary, being based in practicality rather than any logic inherent to the semantic value of the word. There's nothing inherent to the label of "hero" that should determine any stats in and of itself.

knightOfdragon wrote:We need a word that can help use sort of identify what David really is in battle

That would only be true if there were no examples to the contrary to be found throughout the franchise or at least this particular line of the franchise. What does a Princess do in battle? Princesses don't participate in battles, so nothing. There is nothing inherent to the word "princess" that would help you to identify what Isabella does in battle. What does a Dragonman do in battle? Well, dragonmen don't exist, but presumably, they'd be able to do anything that a normal man can do in battle. That's so vague that he might as well not even HAVE a class label at all. There is nothing inherent to the word "dragonman" that would help you to identify what Cyclops does in battle. Now, if his class were "Dragon Whisperer" or something like that, then THAT would give you a pretty good idea as to what he does in battle. What does a Monster do in battle? Well, monsters don't exist, but presumably, they would eat your face and tear you to shreds at humanly impossible speeds. Yet, despite this, Kiwi has arguably (keyword: arguably) the lowest damage output in all of SF2. There is nothing inherent to the word "monster" that would help you identify what Kiwi does in battle. The fact that these counterexamples (and no doubt more) can be raised at all is indicative of the fact that not all class labels have to be direct tellings of what the characters labeled by those classes do in combat. "Princess" helps you identify Isabella's role in society (lore). "Dragonman" helps you identify Cyclops' race (lore). "Monster" helps you vaguely identify Kiwi's taxonomy (lore).

knightOfdragon wrote:which is why I made the comment that if I was going to play a Guardian, I would assume the Guardian would be a character with a high defence.

Yeah, and if I was going to play a Monster, I would "assume" that the Monster would have some insanely high attack stat. But guess what. Kiwi still has tremendously shoddy damage output despite my assumptions. But I'm a big boy and learned to accept the situation for what it is, and to accept that my assumptions don't actually have any real bearing on anything. And I'm sure that someone here could probably make a compelling argument for why my assumption that Kiwi (as a "Monster") should have a high attack stat is equally as subjective. You're essentially assuming that "Guardian" has to be used in ONE SPECIFIC CONTEXT that it's NOT being used in when there are OTHER perfectly valid contexts that it can also be used in instead. You're arguing that "context A" is wrong because we're not using "context B". And again, if you're going to declare that the usage of a word is wrong because there is some conceivable context other than the context in which it's being used that would make that usage wrong were we to be using that context, then you'll have to argue against basically everything, as almost every word in the English language has multiple contexts in which it can be used, and we can't use all of those contexts for any given choice all at once. I mean, by this logic, even "Magician" is wrong because one context of that word is someone without any magical powers who just does parlour tricks. So because that context would be wrong if it was the intended context, the context in which it's actually intended must be wrong.

knightOfdragon wrote:Same as if I was playing a Ranger, I would expect somebody who can attack at a distance, and not somebody who can cook up a meal for the battalion.

Yeah, because the chef connotation of the word "ranger" has zero relevance or contextual bearing on anything to do with Justin at all, be it combat potential or character lore. "Guardian", on the other hand, has very significant relevance and contextual bearing on David's character lore.

Rune wrote:This is false. Look at the stat growth charts from Shining Force 2. Stats are done at a character level, with some correlation by class. In particular, I bet that if we went through all of the examples, we could find cases where the average stat of a character 1 from class A is higher than that of a character 2 from class B and average stat of character 3 from class A is lower than that of character 4 from class B.

Right.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Sat Apr 27 2019 1:49am
by legalize freedom
I don't know if or when I'll make it through all of that, but Sentinel is epic.

Guardian
Commander / whatever
Sentinel


All Classes
http://sf3transftp.shiningforcecentral.com/Translation%20Task%20Files/CharactersSc3.doc

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Sat Apr 27 2019 4:37am
by knight0fdragon
Rune wrote:
knight0fdragon wrote:You have it backwards, Stats are determined by class, not the other way around.


This is false. Look at the stat growth charts from Shining Force 2. Stats are done at a character level, with some correlation by class. In particular, I bet that if we went through all of the examples, we could find cases where the average stat of a character 1 from class A is higher than that of a character 2 from class B and average stat of character 3 from class A is lower than that of character 4 from class B.



We are not talking about stat growth, that is a different concept that has multiple factors to deal with.


Again, another strawman, because I never claimed that class is determined by stats (ie, "the other way around"). I never said that class was strictly determined by anything. I said that SOME characters have classes that reflect their lore, while other characters have classes that reflect their stats. I said that not all characters' classes are determined by their stats. This, of course, implies that not all characters' stats are determined by their class. And no, stats are not always determined by class. There is nothing about "Dragonman", for example, that determines very much of anything regarding how much stats Cyclops should have. There is nothing about "Tortoise" that suggests anything about what stats kiwi should have except for defense. There is nothing about "Robot" that suggests anything about what stats Zynk should have. So you're just flat-out wrong when you say that stats are determined by class. It's fair enough to say that stats are OFTEN determined by class, but as a blanket statement, this doesn't hold up.



You said "not everyones class is determined by their stats"... you have this backwards. Class is used as a determination for stats, it does not imply "not everybodies stats are determined by their class", because you can have everybodies class determine stats but not have stats determine class. Knights having a speed of 7 does not mean everybody with a speed of 7 is a Knight.

There are definetly things that a "Dragonman" determines. I would not expect a dragon man to grant wishes or be a clerical mage. We have a general understanding of what a "dragon" is as well as a "man", so the stats behind it would reflect around that. I would expect a dragonman to be resistent to fire, and have the stats be between a human and dragon. "Tortoise" tells us this is a "high defense character" like you just claimed. Even "Robot" has a unique stat. Robot A does not have high defense, and Robot B have low defense. This is a strategy game after all, so consistency is important.

Again, not universally, no. It's true that it usually doesn't. But that doesn't mean it never does. You would honestly stand there and tell me with a straight face that Isabella being princess of the Empire has NOTHING to do with the story? That is literally a plot/setting/lore/story element. By even having anything to do with the Empire at all, it has to do with the story.

However, this is yet another strawman as you're taking the argument I made and replacing it with a weaker one. I didn't actually say that classes have to do with "the story of Shining Force", I said that SOME classes have more to do with THEIR LORE. As in the lore for that respective character. Isabella is, of course, the most obvious example of this, as her central lore point is that she's the Princess of the Empire. If classes never had anything to do with the lore whatsoever, and instead had everything to do with in-game combat capacity, they would've called her a Priest/Cleric because that's the capacity she serves in combat in-game.



Please stop using "strawman", you are not using it in the correct way. A strawman argument is when you apply an invalid argument to make your case. Like "David is not a commander because the son of an elf in this village do not believe in commanders."

I am making the case that a characters class plays no role in the story/lore/whatever other synonym you want to throw in here so you stop confusing yourself.

This is a 1 directional argument I am making, Class ->"Lore" If we erased all characters classes from game memory, and turned this game into a story only type game, nobody would know "class" even exists, because "class" is never used in the game.


"Class" is used by us, the players only, as a quick way to associate what characters stats/abilities may be. It is a tool for us.

Lore plays a little bit on the class.

This is also a 1 directional argument

This goes to my argument as to why some Classes may attach their story/lore to the title. The healer class name is different in all 3 scenarios, because it may not make sense for a team like Julian's to have a devout religious figure since it is such a diverse band, so they decided to change the class to something more appealing. The class still falls into some kind of standard convention, like a "Princess" does not have the most powerful attack, because we as the player would not associate a "princess" in that way.

How much agility is dictated by Robot?
How much luck is dictated by Dragonman?
How much Attack is dictated by Unicorn?
How much MP is dictated by Princess? None. Robots can be fast or slow. Dragonmen can (in theory) be lucky or unlucky. Unicorns can (in theory) be aggressive and strong or docile and meek. Princesses don't even necessarily have to have magic at all, let alone any amount of MP. Their stats are not determined by their classes, their stats are determined by their characters.


These are all terrible arguments, because you are picking an individual stat and asking for a specific number.
"Agility" is not something we would make as a deciding factor when selecting a "Robot". The Robot class would make us have to look at the stats to determine what type of fighter he is because it is too generic.

A "Dragonman" does not tell us anything about luck, If he was called a "Luck Dragon", we would know that class is based on luck. But a dragonman would tell us we are expecting a man with the power of a dragon, so we are expecting a fighter.

The stereotypical "Princess" is the white virgin woman, so you would associate that with white magic

A "Guardian" tells us this character is designed to guard, and as such, we should expect the character to have a high defense.

Yeah, and if I was going to play a Monster, I would "assume" that the Monster would have some insanely high attack stat. But guess what. Kiwi still has tremendously shoddy damage output despite my assumptions. But I'm a big boy and learned to accept the situation for what it is, and to accept that my assumptions don't actually have any real bearing on anything. And I'm sure that someone here could probably make a compelling argument for why my assumption that Kiwi (as a "Monster") should have a high attack stat is equally as subjective. You're essentially assuming that "Guardian" has to be used in ONE SPECIFIC CONTEXT that it's NOT being used in when there are OTHER perfectly valid contexts that it can also be used in instead. You're arguing that "context A" is wrong because we're not using "context B". And again, if you're going to declare that the usage of a word is wrong because there is some conceivable context other than the context in which it's being used that would make that usage wrong were we to be using that context, then you'll have to argue against basically everything, as almost every word in the English language has multiple contexts in which it can be used, and we can't use all of those contexts for any given choice all at once. I mean, by this logic, even "Magician" is wrong because one context of that word is someone without any magical powers who just does parlour tricks. So because that context would be wrong if it was the intended context, the context in which it's actually intended must be wrong.


No, a "Monster" does not tell us it has high attack, nothing in the name of "Monster" says they are strong. Nothing in the definition says they are strong. This means we have to take it a step further to determine what they can do.
"Magician" tells us they use Magic by name. We do not need to go any deeper so it would be wrong to think that they are strong attackers
"Princess" tells us nothing by name, nothing by definition, so we need to further go down the ladder to determine what she can do. Oh shes your typical white virgin pricess, probably white magic.
"Guardian" tells us they Guard by name, so it would be wrong to think that they are designed for anything other than defence.
"Ranger" tells us they attack at a range by name, so it would be wrong for us to assumption.
"Knight" tells us nothing by name, so we take it by definition to see they mean a Calvary type character because the definition matches the characteristincs
"Battler" tells us they battle by name, so we would expect higher attack stats

"Commander" tells us they Command by name, so we would assume that they run an army (which is why I feel that Davids class should stay a variant of this, because it is what he does). Of course this runs into a problem with the 4 Commanders/Generals, because they do not command any armies, so I would argue that we would need to look further because this game does not allow additional commanding units outside of David. This is an exception class of course, because the Commanders are special exception units in this game. They still have a commanding presense on the battle field, and are not weak stated at all. On a personal level I always felt the class should be called Ex-Commander. The other issue with Scenario 3 is that it was rushed, so who knows what the classes for them could have been and why we are debating David all together. There is also my other argument that each character actually commands a bunch of units. But either way, nothing about "Commander" is counter intuitive to the character.










That's AN importance of class. But there are many classes, such as the ones I've named above (Princess, Dragonman, Robot, Monster, etc.) that do not say jack squat about their combat potential in and of themselves.


This is not true, see my reason above. "I do not know what this characters class tells me" is also an important factor when you are deciding your troops, because you aren't lead on false assumptions. If you need a person with a high defense, the "Guardian" class is going to throw you off because it is counter intuitive.


Yeah, because the chef connotation of the word "ranger" has zero relevance or contextual bearing on anything to do with Justin at all, be it combat potential or character lore. "Guardian", on the other hand, has very significant relevance and contextual bearing on David's character lore.


No it doesn't, because David is not the "Guardian" of Stump Village, he is the unofficial leader of it. He may protect it, he may "guard" it, but he is not the "Guardian" of it class wise, this is lore we are adding. As far as Stump villiage is concerned, he has no class. If he was the "Guardian", he would not leave it defenseless to go off with Medion's army. He would "pass" that title onto another elf, and "they" would be the guardian, or there would be no guardian to defend it. Either way, the title would not transfer to Medion's battalian lore wise.

But anyway, if you are speed runner, you wouldnt even know that David is the "Guardian" of stump village, so when the speed runner goes to use him, they will get thrown off by his class.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Sun Apr 28 2019 10:45am
by Rune
knight0fdragon wrote:Please stop using "strawman", you are not using it in the correct way. A strawman argument is when you apply an invalid argument to make your case. Like "David is not a commander because the son of an elf in this village do not believe in commanders."


???

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Sun Apr 28 2019 2:14pm
by legalize freedom
A couple of points about David being a Guardian.

Not speaking from the player's or devs perspective, but just in game lore...

David may not have high defense compared to a heavily armed fighter, but he most certainly has the highest defense in Stump village.

The focus of his guardianship shifts when he leaves. Stump is relatively safe whereas Gracia is the one who needs guarding now, so I think it works fine.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Sun Apr 28 2019 3:57pm
by knight0fdragon
Rune wrote:
knight0fdragon wrote:Please stop using "strawman", you are not using it in the correct way. A strawman argument is when you apply an invalid argument to make your case. Like "David is not a commander because the son of an elf in this village do not believe in commanders."


???



That was for Tor_Heyerdal


A couple of points about David being a Guardian.

Not speaking from the player's or devs perspective, but just in game lore...

David may not have high defense compared to a heavily armed fighter, but he most certainly has the highest defense in Stump village.

The focus of his guardianship shifts when he leaves. Stump is relatively safe whereas Gracia is the one who needs guarding now, so I think it works fine.


Except David is not the Guardian of Gracia, because David does not leave with Julian and Gracia in chapter 4.

I am going to double down that class plays no aspect in the lore, so lore should not be a strong deciding factor, and we should definitely not use a title that will end up being confusing unless you actually focus on the lore.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Sun Apr 28 2019 4:25pm
by legalize freedom
knight0fdragon wrote:Except David is not the Guardian of Gracia, because David does not leave with Julian and Gracia in chapter 4.

I am going to double down that class plays no aspect in the lore, so lore should not be a strong deciding factor, and we should definitely not use a title that will end up being confusing unless you actually focus on the lore.


Right, but as I mentioned, David is long promoted by the time Gracia leaves. And in the case that second promotion is Commander, would establish his focus on the Medion army well before that happens.

Fair enough if you would choose not to consider the lore or story when deciding classes (even if you did in this case). But we clearly need to ensure the class name works with whatever is going on in the game. Some class names are generic and are decoupled from the storyline, some are not. I think Guardian is plenty generic as to not depend on the storyline.

The classes in SF, while giving the player some indication of who the character is or what they can do, are primarily flavor. No real bearing beyond sounding cool. Most everything is controlled per individual character and in the case of stats, some randomness.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Sun Apr 28 2019 6:02pm
by Rune
knight0fdragon wrote:
Rune wrote:
knight0fdragon wrote:Please stop using "strawman", you are not using it in the correct way. A strawman argument is when you apply an invalid argument to make your case. Like "David is not a commander because the son of an elf in this village do not believe in commanders."


???



That was for Tor_Heyerdal


The ??? was because you are completely wrong about what the definition of straw man argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I think this topic has thoroughly established that we all suck when it comes to words.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Sun Apr 28 2019 6:32pm
by knight0fdragon
Promotions play no major pivotal part of the story (with the exception of Gracia and all that jazz with being able to promote, but the underlying class still has no role.)

No, I never said lore has no deciding factor for class, I said it can’t be a major factor. David’s Commander title has nothing to do with the story, it has to do with him commanding an army to take on a tank, not sending a band of people to open a dam

Classes are not just for flavor, they have a purpose. It is a tool to help you decide what type of abilities your character has. If it was just meant to sound “cool”, then they would have used more unique sounding names.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Sun Apr 28 2019 7:23pm
by knight0fdragon
Rune wrote:
The ??? was because you are completely wrong about what the definition of straw man argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I think this topic has thoroughly established that we all suck when it comes to words.


... how is that wrong? You apply an invalid argument (aka the straw man) to make the person attack the new argument (aka the straw man). In my example we would end up arguing about the son of an elf not believe in commanders.


My argument is currently about what does “Class” mean and how does it apply in the game, so that we can properly give David a class. The accused strawman arguments do not deflect from trying to define it.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Sun Apr 28 2019 8:19pm
by Tor_Heyerdal
knightOfdragon wrote:We are not talking about stat growth, that is a different concept that has multiple factors to deal with.

Don't be ridiculous. Of course we are. If growth had nothing to do with what we're talking about, you would have specified exactly what level of character we're talking about. And if you wanted to double back and retroactively say we're talking about max level, well then that's simply the ultimate product of stat growth doing its thing. Unless you define a specific level along the way that we're talking about, frozen in isolation, then you can't separate stat growth from stat lines. Hell, the argument could even be made that unless you're talking about strictly level 1, then stat growth will always be inseparable from stat lines because the stat line of any given character at any given level is going to be a direct result of their stat growth. Stat growth is what makes the stat line of any given character or branch of characters what they are.

knightOfdragon wrote:You said "not everyones class is determined by their stats"... you have this backwards. Class is used as a determination for stats, it does not imply "not everybodies stats are determined by their class", because you can have everybodies class determine stats but not have stats determine class. Knights having a speed of 7 does not mean everybody with a speed of 7 is a Knight.

Speed is not the only stat. I never said "not everyone's class is determined by a stat." Making the statement "This character is X class because they have A attack, B defense, C agility, D luck, E movement, F dodge rate, G crit rate, and H resists" (where each of those variables can be a range, of course) is the same thing as saying "this character has A attack, B defense, C agility, D luck, E movement, F dodge rate, G crit rate, and H resists because they are X class." If you strawman my argument by changing it to a single stat, then yeah. You'd have a point. But that wasn't my argument. No, of course not everyone with a speed of 7 is a Knight. But everyone with a speed of 7, pretty good attack, excellent defense, decent but not incredible agility, 5 luck, 7 movement, average dodge rate, average crit rate, and mostly underwhelming magic resistances is PROBABLY a Knight. Some classes are pretty decently determined by stats, and some stats are pretty decently determined by class. It's the same thing when you consider the entire collection of stats instead of just cherrypicking one stat.

knightOfdragon wrote:There are definetly things that a "Dragonman" determines. I would not expect a dragon man to grant wishes or be a clerical mage. We have a general understanding of what a "dragon" is as well as a "man", so the stats behind it would reflect around that. I would expect a dragonman to be resistent to fire, and have the stats be between a human and dragon. "Tortoise" tells us this is a "high defense character" like you just claimed.

Granting wishes or being a clerical mage are not stats. Dragons do not have a universally generalizable stat line to the best of my knowledge. Men certainly don't. Fire resistance is a stat, of course, but your assumption doesn't actually hold up, and "Dragonman" tells you nothing as Cyclops does not have exceptional fire resist. Only 5% before and after promotion. That is tied for his highest resist, but that's pretty abysmal for a class 3 character. Most promoted characters have at least one resistance that's at least 10. His fire resist is nothing to write home about. Yes, Tortoise suggests a high defense, but it does not suggest anything else. There is no inherent attack range implied by "Tortoise." There is no inherent agility range implied by "Tortoise". There is no inherent luck range implied by "Tortoise". There is no inherent movement range implied by "Tortoise". We can assume that Tortoise will have the same dodge rate as every other non-flying character, but that's only due to the mechanics of Shining Force giving all non-flying characters the same dodge rate, and has nothing to do with any implication inherent to "Tortoise". There is no inherent crit range implied by "Tortoise". There are no inherent magic resist values inherent to "Tortoise". Again, you can't just cherry pick one stat and then declare "Oh, look, stats are determined by class."

knightOfdragon wrote:Even "Robot" has a unique stat. Robot A does not have high defense, and Robot B have low defense. This is a strategy game after all, so consistency is important.

Robot does not have a "unique" stat. There is no stat that Robot gets which no other classes get. All of the stats are universal across every character and enemy in the game. Everyone gets attack, everyone gets defense, everyone gets agility, everyone gets luck, everyone gets movement, everyone gets dodge and crit, and everyone gets magic attack and magic defense. There is no stat that is unique to Robot.

However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that perhaps you actually meant to say "even Robot has a unique stat LINE." First of all, yes, some classes do have general stat tendencies (like Knight, as discussed above). But even then, they're not universal. Zynk has a medium to high HP. high attack. and medium to high defense. Adam, on the other hand, has a medium to high HP. medium Attack. and medium Defense. So yeah, actually, Zynk (Robot A) has higher defense than Adam (Robot B). Secondly, and more importantly, This is another strawman because the argument you're trying to refute is not an argument that I made. I never said that the Robot class in Shining Force doesn't have general stat tendencies. I said that there's nothing inherent about the word "robot" that would dictate what any of the stats must be for a robot character, in and of itself. Yes, the developers made their arbitrary decisions about what those stat generalizations would be, and they do exist. But that does not mean that the label of "Robot" dictated them in any way. There is no reason why a robot (note the small R) should have high or low defense. Some robots are very tough, while other robots are extremely easy to damage. Some robots are extremely lethal, other robots couldn't hurt anyone even if it somehow wanted to. Some robots are alarmingly fast, while other robots literally aren't even mobile. In-game, the nature of each individual Robot's character and circumstances surrounding their lore ("is this robot built to be able to fight?", for example, which of course, they both are, or "what kind of materials are they made from?", or "how easy are they to dismantle?") will set the course for their individual stat lines. The answers to many such lore-related questions pertaining to those characters may even be vague and nebulous, but nevertheless, the fact remains that the label of "robot" being used for their class name does not INHERENTLY IMPLY a single thing about what those characters' stat lines should be, IN AND OF ITSELF.

knightOfdragon wrote:Please stop using "strawman", you are not using it in the correct way. A strawman argument is when you apply an invalid argument to make your case. Like "David is not a commander because the son of an elf in this village do not believe in commanders."

Yes, I am using it in a correct way. And no, a strawman is not quite applying an invalid argument to make your case. That's almost right, though. A strawman is when person A presents an argument against person B that seeks to refute a point that person B never actually made. In a strawman, the presented argument is invalid specifically because it's not addressing the argument it's supposed to be refuting. It's removing the original argument and replacing it with an invented one (ie, a straw man) which is weaker than the original argument it's replacing (ie, a STRAW man), which seeks to remove the strength of your target's argument, making it far easier to refute than the argument they actually presented. This is the opposite of a steelman which replaces the original argument with a stronger one in order to give the target of your refutation the strongest position they could possibly have.

knightOfdragon wrote:I am making the case that a characters class plays no role in the story/lore/whatever other synonym you want to throw in here so you stop confusing yourself.

No, you're not. Or, at the very least, that's not the case that you've actually presented (more on that two paragraphs down). Maybe it's the case that you meant to present, but it's not what's actually come off your fingertips. I would agree with this argument. I never claimed that character classes play a role in the story/lore/whatever, and I would agree that they don't. So again, you're arguing against a strawman.

What I've been saying is that the lore (though not so much the story) has some degree of influence on class labels, not that class labels play a role in the story. Again, I refer back to Isabella. Her lore as being the princess of the Empire has an influence on her class label being Princess. Her class label being Princess doesn't play a role in the story, the lore plays a role in her class label. Or with the protagonist "Hero" class. The lore of these characters being heroes (note the small H) has an influence on their class label. This class label does not play a role in the story, but this lore plays a role in the class label.

The argument that you've actually presented is that there is always something inherent about the words themselves that are chosen for class labels that automatically imply what any given character's stat line should look like. And as this is the argument you've actually presented, this is the argument that I seek to refute. Although not entirely, because in many cases, your argument is certainly correct. Sometimes, a class label can, indeed, inherently imply what some or even most of a given character's stat line should look like. Like with Knight, for example (with the understanding that Knights in SF are always centaurs. Otherwise, it would inherently imply nothing about their agility unless we knew they were still otherwise mounted).

knightOfdragon wrote:This is a 1 directional argument I am making, Class ->"Lore"

I'm terribly sorry, but I don't know how "Class ->"Lore"" is intended to be read. "Class to lore"? "Lore from class"? "Class and then lore"? I don't really know what this means. I'm going to once more give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that this doesn't mean "class to lore", because that would mean you're arguing against your own point, because that would mean that class does play a role in the lore, which I don't imagine you're trying to say. But given that, I have no idea what this means.

knightOfdragon wrote:If we erased all characters classes from game memory, and turned this game into a story only type game, nobody would know "class" even exists, because "class" is never used in the game.

Right. Exactly. In other words, class labels don't necessarily inherently dictate things like stat lines in and of themselves because they're determined more by lore than they are by things like in-game combat potential. "Class" is never used in the game. In other words, you COULD have a Robot with higher defense than another Robot. Or you COULD have a Mage with lower agility than another mage. Or you COULD have a Knight that doesn't have 0 MP. Or you COULD have a Monster with low damage output. Or you COULD have a centaur with low agility. And, in fact, literally all of those things are manifest throughout the series. And you COULD have a Guardian who doesn't have exceptional defense. And on that note, I think I should point out that David's defense isn't actually all that low. In fact, his defense is actually pretty decent. His defense is fairly comparable to Knights, actually. I mean like, a quick look in my Save Editor, and I'm seeing Campbell, level 17, class 2: Defense 47. Dantares, level 15, class 2: Defense 41. David, level 17, class 2: Defense 49 (with no unfair defense boosting items). So even if a Guardian class DOES somehow HAVE to have high defense, which is the entire premise of this argument, it is moot because David DOES actually have high defense.

knightOfdragon wrote:"Class" is used by us, the players only, as a quick way to associate what characters stats/abilities may be. It is a tool for us.

Yeah, but we don't KNOW just from the class label (at least not necessarily) what the stat line of a character is going to look like or how that character will perform in battle. We can make ASSUMPTIONS based on class label, but we can't KNOW until we actually investigate their stats and use them in battle, as evidenced by your incorrect assumptions regarding Cyclops above. Yes, high fire resist is a perfectly reasonable assumption to make for a so-called Dragonman, but the assumption was still wrong. The Dragonman label DID NOT actually dictate a high fire resist. Should it have? I don't think it's unfair to say it should have. But nevertheless, it didn't. His class is "Dragonman" because he is, in fact, a dragon man (note the small D and two words). That is lore. Story is what HAPPENS in a fictional world, but lore is what IS in a fictional world, and Cyclops IS a dragon man. You might also assume a character labeled with "Dragonman" to have exceptional agility. But guess what? His agility stat kind of blows. But you might even disagree and might NOT assume a Dragonman to have high agility. The assumptions we make about the implications of a class label are subjective. And that's okay. There's nothing inherently wrong with such subjective assumptions. So I'm not knocking that. But to try to pass off those subjective assumptions as somehow being objective--to suggest that all class labels necessarily have objective implications regarding what a stat line should look like--or suggesting that the game treats them as universally objective, is ridiculous.

knightOfdragon wrote:This goes to my argument as to why some Classes may attach their story/lore to the title. The healer class name is different in all 3 scenarios, because it may not make sense for a team like Julian's to have a devout religious figure since it is such a diverse band, so they decided to change the class to something more appealing.

Well, not all three. They're the same in Scenarios 1 and 2, but that's not important. Your point here is absolutely correct. In other words, as you just admitted, lore is the more important factor when it comes to class labels.

knightOfdragon wrote:The class still falls into some kind of standard convention...

It certainly does. I never said that it doesn't. There are arbitrary conventions established within the game environment. This is true. What's not true is the claim that those conventions are somehow inherently determined by the class label, as I'll further elaborate in the next quote response below.

knightOfdragon wrote:... like a "Princess" does not have the most powerful attack, because we as the player would not associate a "princess" in that way.

We, as the player, would also not associate a "princess" with healing magic. Not inherently, anyway. Some of us might make that assumption, but there is nothing inherent about the "princess" label that just screams out or inherently dictates, "Oh. She must have priest spells." There is a convention, but it's not an objective or inherent one.

knightOfdragon wrote:These are all terrible arguments, because you are picking an individual stat and asking for a specific number.

Actually, I'm taking an individual stat and asking for a VAGUE number, like "high," "low", "exceptional", "average", or other such things. And I'm doing so because that's the standard that you've established in your argument. YOU'RE the one who's making the argument that class titles have INHERENT AND OBJECTIVE implications that dictate what ANY character's stats must look like. If this were true, then you would be perfectly capable of answering any of these questions. I'm treating your argument by its own standards. And, of course, in the cases where this IS true, we can answer the questions quote comfortably. How much defense is dictated by Knight? A lot. How much attack is dictated by Swordsman? At least good, but possibly up to exceptional. How much attack is dictated by Mage? Exceptionally low. But the reason you can't answer the questions I presented in your quote is because those questions are exemplifying the fact that class labels DO NOT ALWAYS have inherent implications that must necessarily dictate stat values IN AND OF THEMSELVES.

knightOfdragon wrote:"Agility" is not something we would make as a deciding factor when selecting a "Robot". The Robot class would make us have to look at the stats to determine what type of fighter he is because it is too generic.

EEEEEEEEEEEXACTLY! Thank you for proving my point. Class labels, do not, in fact, necessarily determine what stats must look like in and of themselves; you cannot always know what stats will look like from the word(s) that constitute(s) their class label.

knightOfdragon wrote:A "Dragonman" does not tell us anything about luck, If he was called a "Luck Dragon", we would know that class is based on luck.

Exactly. Thank you for furthering my point. This is exactly what my question was drawing attention to as evidence that class labels do not always have inherent implications about stat lines.

knightOfdragon wrote:But a dragonman would tell us we are expecting a man with the power of a dragon, so we are expecting a fighter.

Maybe YOU'RE expecting a fighter. But again, that's just your subject assumption. There's nothing objectively inherent in the word "dragonman" that must entail "fighter". It also doesn't inherently imply "the power of a dragon". In fact, I would (and this is my own subjective assumption here) NOT expect a dragonman to have the power of a dragon, because he's limited by being a man. I might expect him to have a power greater than that of a typical man, but not reaching the point of a full-on dragon. And regarding the "fighter" assumption, one could be equally likely to expect a fighter, a rogue, a monk, a wizard, or even a priest from that label. And even if one's assumption in that regard happens to be correct, it's not going to be because that assumption was somehow inherent to the word "dragonman". If it were, then there would only be room for ONE assumption.

knightOfdragon wrote:The stereotypical "Princess" is the white virgin woman, so you would associate that with white magic

If you choose to associate it with magic AT ALL, which is another personal and subjective assumption. And even if you DO choose to associate it with magic, there's nothing inherent about the word "princess" that dictates that it can't be an evil princess who practices black magic. But the point is that it's not inherent. You cannot just take the word "princess" and then just be like, "oh, well, princess MUST mean that she casts holy magic" unless princesses casting holy magic was just somehow normal and an inseparable part of the definition of the word "princess". But if you look across all the princesses from history and from fantasy combined, I'm preeeeetty darn sure that the vast majority of them will not cast magic AT ALL, let alone holy magic. And of the ones that DO cast magic, they won't all be utilizing holy magic. Some of them will be utilizing dark magic, or perhaps even some sort of nature magic. And probably others, too. And if you look up the word "princess" in any dictionary, it's absolutely and definitely not going to say "holy magic user" anywhere. And EVEN if we limit our contextual usage of the word "princess" to the Shining Force franchise (which is a perfectly fair thing to do), Princess Anri is a mage, and Princess Ellis does not cast any magic AT ALL. The only way that the label of "Princess" can INHERENTLY imply "holy magic user" is if it were normal and expected according to either the dictionary definition of the word, or AT LEAST the lore of the fictional universe in which it is being used. Neither of which holds up.

knightOfdragon wrote:A "Guardian" tells us this character is designed to guard, and as such, we should expect the character to have a high defense.

No it doesn't, and no we shouldn't. It tells us that the character INTENDS to guard or has the OBLIGATION OR DUTY of guarding. But it doesn't tell us that they're good at their job, or that they're exceptional at it. Poco from Arc the Lad, for instance, even says himself that he's a shitty member of the Drummer Corps, but he's still a drummer. And again, we should expect that a Monster will have high attack, or at least I would personally expect a Monster to have high attack, but we don't see that either. When you're young, your mother is your guardian. Does she have high defense? And I know you're going to say that this is a different context, but that just helps to further my point. Words have multiple different potential contexts that they can be used in. Just because a word is being used in a context other than the context that you would like it to be used in doesn't make it wrong. But none of that even matters, because David does have high defense!

knightOfdragon wrote:No, a "Monster" does not tell us it has high attack, nothing in the name of "Monster" says they are strong. Nothing in the definition says they are strong. This means we have to take it a step further to determine what they can do.

AHAH! YOU'VE ACTIVATED MY TRAP CARD! :0 You just forfeited your entire argument and agreed with me. There is nothing inherent about the word Monster that dictates that it must necessarily have high attack. I would personally ASSUME that a character with that label would have a high attack, which is completely subjective (and I actually even admitted in the very body of text that you quoted that that was just my personal assumption), but you're absolutely right. There is nothing inherent to that word that suggests that it somehow must. So we have to take it a step further to determine what they can do. Like investigating their stats and using them in battle yourself to find out what they can do. You can't just KNOW from the automatic implications of the label, which runs completely contrary to your argument. This shows me that you don't care about what's true, you just want to win the argument. Because you just threw away the integrity of your own argument and took up my argument which you supposedly don't even believe just to discredit me when it suited you.

knightOfdragon wrote:"Magician" tells us they use Magic by name. We do not need to go any deeper so it would be wrong to think that they are strong attackers

I never said that we should think that they are strong attackers. Again, another strawman. Quite the contrary. This is one of the examples where a class name DOES make some implications about stats, where a low attack stat is inherently implied, and an example to the contrary would be the exception to the rule. And no. You're the one who said that class names tell you inherently what a character's stat line will look like, so we DO have to go deeper in order to verify the truth (or lack thereof) of that claim. And when we do that, we find that your claim doesn't hold up. "Magician" makes SOME implications about their stat line, but not the whole thing. And unless we can extrapolate their entire stat line from their class label, then class labels do not dictate stats. They might dictate SOME stats SOME of the time. But even then, there's room for exceptions in basically all cases. "Magician" makes an implication about low attack, and it makes an implication of at least the existence of MP, and it makes an implication of low defense, but it makes no inherent implication about agility (although the SF franchise does have the arbitrary established convention of Mages having pretty good agility, that is not inherent to the word), and it makes no implications about crit, specific magic attacks (although it does imply that least some magic attacks will be at least good), or magic resists. So your claim that class labels inherently dictate stat lines does not hold up.

knightOfdragon wrote:"Princess" tells us nothing by name, nothing by definition, so we need to further go down the ladder to determine what she can do.

EXACTLY! Case closed. Why do I even need to respond at all when you're just arguing against yourself for me? lol

knightOfdragon wrote:Oh shes your typical white virgin pricess, probably white magic.

Yeah. "PROBABLY." As in, not inherent to the word. And even then, it's an assumption that she would cast magic at all. Assumptions are not inherent.

knightOfdragon wrote:"Guardian" tells us they Guard by name, so it would be wrong to think that they are designed for anything other than defence.

Poppycock. There's no reason why a character labelled as "Guardian" should be unable to produce decent damage output. And it doesn't NECESSARILY mean that they guard in combat (which is what I have to assume that you mean, otherwise you wouldn't be saying anything about defense as a stat, because stats only pertain to combat). OTHER CONTEXTS FOR THAT WORD EXIST AND ARE A THING. He could be guarding something outside of combat too, in a context that has nothing to do with his stats. Isabella doesn't "princess" in combat. If the class label had to define how they fight in battle, then the Princess class label would not be a thing because the Princess-labelled character does not engage in a single princess-related activity during combat. Neither would Robot be a thing, or Golem, or Birdman, or Beastman, or Hero, or Unicorn, or doubtless several others. Hell, even Gladiator wouldn't be a thing. Unlike Champion, which you tried to suggest requires some kind of arena to be applicable, Gladiator actually requires some kind of arena to be applicable. But nobody cares. We just accept it for what it is and move on.

knightOfdragon wrote:"Ranger" tells us they attack at a range by name, so it would be wrong for us to assumption.

First of all, that is not a sentence. Secondly, attacking by range is not a stat line. It IS something that they do in combat (which is something you mentioned before), so you have a point there. But the fact that there are SOME class labels that make inherent implications about what they do in combat does not negate the fact that there other classes that don't. And as long as there's even a SINGLE class that doesn't, that means that it's not against the rules of the franchise for a class name to not inherently say anything about what a character does in combat or anything about their stat line.

knightOfdragon wrote:"Knight" tells us nothing by name, so we take it by definition to see they mean a Calvary type character because the definition matches the characteristincs

Bull. Knight tells us high defense above anything else. Knight tells us at least decent attack. But I've already gone over this earlier in this post.

knightOfdragon wrote:"Battler" tells us they battle by name, so we would expect higher attack stats

Yeah. But again, just because there are some classes that make some implications about stats doesn't mean that ALL classes make implications about stats, and it doesn't mean that they make implications about the entire stat line, and it doesn't mean that they necessarily make implications about what they do in battle. Especially when there are BLATANT EXAMPLES of classes that don't make inherent implications about stats (entire stat line or otherwise), and don't make inherent implications about what they do in combat.

knightOfdragon wrote:"Commander" tells us they Command by name, so we would assume that they run an army

But this is both lore and story. I thought that lore and story didn't play a role in class titles, according to you. Here you are discarding your own argument when it suits you again. I mean, he certainly doesn't fight in this capacity during in-game combat. Never at any point do you use any kind of skills or such with David that tells the rest of the army what to do. So this has NOTHING to do with in-game battle, which you seem to insist is an absolute requirement.

knightOfdragon wrote:(which is why I feel that Davids class should stay a variant of this, because it is what he does).

That's fair enough. I can totally understand wanting to maintain a class label due to lore reasons. Perfectly reasonable. Though kind of strange when you've been arguing against both the existence and the merit of lore-based classes this whole time.

Also, my "Overseer" suggestion is a variant of this. It also solves your perceived wacky problem two quotes below this paragraph.

knightOfdragon wrote:Of course this runs into a problem with the 4 Commanders/Generals, because they do not command any armies,

As far as I'm aware, they do, in fact, command armies. They're just different armies. That is a little odd, I suppose, but again, we just accept that for what it is and move on.

knightOfdragon wrote:so I would argue that we would need to look further because this game does not allow additional commanding units outside of David.

Wat?

knightOfdragon wrote:This is an exception class of course, because the Commanders are special exception units in this game.

Not saying you're wrong, but aside from their unique weapon variants, what exactly do you mean?

knightOfdragon wrote:On a personal level I always felt the class should be called Ex-Commander.

Why? Also, that would be really lame. lol.

knightOfdragon wrote:The other issue with Scenario 3 is that it was rushed, so who knows what the classes for them could have been and why we are debating David all together. There is also my other argument that each character actually commands a bunch of units. But either way, nothing about "Commander" is counter intuitive to the character.

I absolutely and completely agree.

knightOfdragon wrote:This is not true, see my reason above. "I do not know what this characters class tells me" is also an important factor when you are deciding your troops, because you aren't lead on false assumptions. If you need a person with a high defense, the "Guardian" class is going to throw you off because it is counter intuitive.

Only if you have a complete and total pragmatics fail and can't put into consideration that the word is being used in a different context. It's not our fault if somebody totally sucks at pragmatics and refuses to accept that words can be used in different contexts than the context they would like them to be used in. And besides, David DOES have a high defense.

knightOfdragon wrote:David is not the "Guardian" of Stump Village

knightofDragon wrote:He may protect it, he may "guard" it, but he is not the "Guardian" of it class wise

Wat? "He may flip burgers at McDonald's, but he's nto a McDonald's burger flipper." Uhhh.... Well, okay then. I didn't realize we'd actually taken a hard left into Crazy Town.

knightOfdragon wrote:As far as Stump villiage is concerned, he has no class. If he was the "Guardian", he would not leave it defenseless to go off with Medion's army. He would "pass" that title onto another elf, and "they" would be the guardian, or there would be no guardian to defend it. Either way, the title would not transfer to Medion's battalian lore wise.

You know that being a guardian doesn't mean you have to have a title, right? You can be a guardian of something without having any sort of title whatsoever to stick in your ear, let alone pass on to someone. Again, even a scrawny boy with a stick in his hand and a pot on his head (or even without a pot on his head or any kind of armour whatsoever) who decides to guard his village, in any capacity, for any length of time, is a guardian. He doesn't need to be told to do it. It doesn't have to be his occupation. He doesn't need a title. He's still a guardian. Just because David isn't their official, decorated guardian with some sort of honoured title doesn't mean that he isn't a guardian of Stump Village. It's not like a political title like "Chieftain" where you need the actual title in order to be that thing. Maybe he's not THE guardian of Stump Village, I can give you that. But he's undeniably A guardian of it. And when he inevitably returns to Stump Village after the events of the game, you can bet your bottom asshole that he will be resuming those duties, and in a far more experienced capacity. It's not like the people of Stump Village are gonna' be all like "Smeg you, David. Johnny's our guardian now. There's only room for ONE guardian 'round these parts."

knightOfdragon wrote:But anyway, if you are speed runner, you wouldnt even know that David is the "Guardian" of stump village, so when the speed runner goes to use him, they will get thrown off by his class.

Who cares?

knightOfdragon wrote:Except David is not the Guardian of Gracia, because David does not leave with Julian and Gracia in chapter 4.

Everyone in Medion's army is a guardian of Gracia. When you're part of an army (especially a medieval army), you're the guardian of whatever the hell you're told you're the guardian of. lol

knightOfdragon wrote:I am going to double down that class plays no aspect in the lore, so lore should not be a strong deciding factor

Class plays no aspect in the lore, so the lore shouldn't play an aspect in class? That's ridiculous. And extra ridiculous when considering that there are already many examples of the lore playing an aspect in class.

knightOfdragon wrote:and we should definitely not use a title that will end up being confusing unless you actually focus on the lore.

"Unless you actually focus on the lore." Right. Exactly. Just like the game itself does, and just like the game expects the player to do.

legalize freedom wrote:Fair enough if you would choose not to consider the lore or story when deciding classes. But we clearly need to ensure the class name works with whatever is going on in the game. Some class names are generic and are decoupled from the storyline, some are not.

^ This. Exactly.

legalize freedom wrote:The classes in SF, while giving the player some indication of who the character is or what they can do, are primarily flavor. No real bearing beyond sounding cool. Most everything is controlled per individual character and in the case of stats, some randomness.

^ This also. Exactly. Well said. Very succinct. I know I'm not very succinct. lol. I take a bajillion words to get my point across. It always impresses me when someone can make such a good point in so few words.

knightOfdragon wrote:No, I never said lore has no deciding factor for class, I said it can’t be a major factor. David’s Commander title has nothing to do with the story, it has to do with him commanding an army to take on a tank, not sending a band of people to open a dam

Why can't it be a major factor? It's a major factor for several other characters. Also, commanding an army to take on a tank EXPLICITLY pertains to the story. lol.

knightOfdragon wrote:Classes are not just for flavor, they have a purpose. It is a tool to help you decide what type of abilities your character has. If it was just meant to sound “cool”, then they would have used more unique sounding names.

He said "primarily" flavour. He did not say "just" for flavour.

knightOfdragon wrote:... how is that wrong? You apply an invalid argument (aka the straw man) to make the person attack the new argument (aka the straw man). In my example we would end up arguing about the son of an elf not believe in commanders.

Firstly, no. You don't apply an invalid argument to make the person attack the new argument. You apply an invalid argument (ie, a strawman) to the OTHER PERSON and then YOU attack that argument that you just applied to the other person. You don't make the other person attack your strawman. You attack the strawman yourself, having applied it to the other person by treating it as though it's the argument that they made when, in fact, they did not. You're talking about a red herring, not a strawman.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Sun Apr 28 2019 8:23pm
by Rune
knight0fdragon wrote:
Rune wrote:
The ??? was because you are completely wrong about what the definition of straw man argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I think this topic has thoroughly established that we all suck when it comes to words.


... how is that wrong? You apply an invalid argument (aka the straw man) to make the person attack the new argument (aka the straw man). In my example we would end up arguing about the son of an elf not believe in commanders.


That's simply not the definition of a straw man argument, I don't know what else to tell you. You can read the definition and examples yourself. Whether you insist on misusing the term or not is up to you.

Now, I am not claiming you were using a straw man argument, but I am saying Tor correctly (whether justly or not) used the term and you have not.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Sun Apr 28 2019 8:31pm
by Tor_Heyerdal
I'm going to remention this because I edited this point into my previous post while you were posting that, Rune. You say "I don't know what else to tell you", but what else there is to be told is that knightOfdragon is confusing a strawman with a red herring.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Sun Apr 28 2019 8:38pm
by Rune
I once overheard a fight where a husband told his wife he wouldn't be her red herring. I'm still not sure what he meant by that.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Sun Apr 28 2019 11:50pm
by knight0fdragon
Tor_Heyerdal wrote:
knightOfdragon wrote:We are not talking about stat growth, that is a different concept that has multiple factors to deal with.

Don't be ridiculous. Of course we are. If growth had nothing to do with what we're talking about, you would have specified exactly what level of character we're talking about. And if you wanted to double back and retroactively say we're talking about max level, well then that's simply the ultimate product of stat growth doing its thing. Unless you define a specific level along the way that we're talking about, frozen in isolation, then you can't separate stat growth from stat lines. Hell, the argument could even be made that unless you're talking about strictly level 1, then stat growth will always be inseparable from stat lines because the stat line of any given character at any given level is going to be a direct result of their stat growth. Stat growth is what makes the stat line of any given character or branch of characters what they are.


No, growth is something different, and no I would not, because at no point have I ever discussed specifics in numbers. You can have a character who had high agility not have it high anymore because you had terrible RNG every level up (Garosh bug anyone lol) Same goes with a tank character being pumped with stat boosters to give them high agility.

We are only talking about expectation of stats based on class, that is it.



Tor_Heyerdal wrote:
knightOfdragon wrote:You said "not everyones class is determined by their stats"... you have this backwards. Class is used as a determination for stats, it does not imply "not everybodies stats are determined by their class", because you can have everybodies class determine stats but not have stats determine class. Knights having a speed of 7 does not mean everybody with a speed of 7 is a Knight.

Speed is not the only stat. I never said "not everyone's class is determined by a stat." Making the statement "This character is X class because they have A attack, B defense, C agility, D luck, E movement, F dodge rate, G crit rate, and H resists" (where each of those variables can be a range, of course) is the same thing as saying "this character has A attack, B defense, C agility, D luck, E movement, F dodge rate, G crit rate, and H resists because they are X class." If you strawman my argument by changing it to a single stat, then yeah. You'd have a point. But that wasn't my argument. No, of course not everyone with a speed of 7 is a Knight. But everyone with a speed of 7, pretty good attack, excellent defense, decent but not incredible agility, 5 luck, 7 movement, average dodge rate, average crit rate, and mostly underwhelming magic resistances is PROBABLY a Knight. Some classes are pretty decently determined by stats, and some stats are pretty decently determined by class. It's the same thing when you consider the entire collection of stats instead of just cherrypicking one stat.


This is called an example, I am already wasting my time having to over explain myself with every little detail because you constantly are adding more then what is being said.

Again, Stop using “strawman”. That is not what a strawman is, you referring to it as a strawman is the strawman, because I have to attack how wrong it is.. You are the one who said it was inferred, I was simply explaining why your statement can’t be implied and hownit was 1 direction.

You really need to understand game mechanics. We are not going to remember the stats of 60 characters, but we will remember Knights have high speed, Monks can heal, Archers can shoot at a range etc.

knightOfdragon wrote:There are definetly things that a "Dragonman" determines. I would not expect a dragon man to grant wishes or be a clerical mage. We have a general understanding of what a "dragon" is as well as a "man", so the stats behind it would reflect around that. I would expect a dragonman to be resistent to fire, and have the stats be between a human and dragon. "Tortoise" tells us this is a "high defense character" like you just claimed.


Tor_Heyerdal wrote:Granting wishes or being a clerical mage are not stats. Dragons do not have a universally generalizable stat line to the best of my knowledge. Men certainly don't. Fire resistance is a stat, of course, but your assumption doesn't actually hold up, and "Dragonman" tells you nothing as Cyclops does not have exceptional fire resist. Only 5% before and after promotion. That is tied for his highest resist, but that's pretty abysmal for a class 3 character. Most promoted characters have at least one resistance that's at least 10. His fire resist is nothing to write home about. Yes, Tortoise suggests a high defense, but it does not suggest anything else. There is no inherent attack range implied by "Tortoise." There is no inherent agility range implied by "Tortoise". There is no inherent luck range implied by "Tortoise". There is no inherent movement range implied by "Tortoise". We can assume that Tortoise will have the same dodge rate as every other non-flying character, but that's only due to the mechanics of Shining Force giving all non-flying characters the same dodge rate, and has nothing to do with any implication inherent to "Tortoise". There is no inherent crit range implied by "Tortoise". There are no inherent magic resist values inherent to "Tortoise". Again, you can't just cherry pick one stat and then declare "Oh, look, stats are determined by class."


DFG you need to let go with this obsessive need of very fine detail and being so articulate. Unlike you, I hate having to write a damn essay every time we talk, so I am not going to say “stats and abilities” every time it is needed. Yes there are generalizations we can make about man and dragon, not sure what world you are living in. I also said we expect a fire resistance, not a high fire resistance, stop trying to add words. Also at no point did I say class determines all stats, stop trying to over analyze shit. I am not cherry picking, you are just being damn anal retentive about it. The “tortoise” is a high defense character, the title suggests that is his purpose. I would expect him to have high def and low agility, everything else I would have to expand on. If I need a punching bag in my army, I instantly know a tortoise can be a punching bag.



Tor_Heyerdal wrote:
knightOfdragon wrote:Even "Robot" has a unique stat. Robot A does not have high defense, and Robot B have low defense. This is a strategy game after all, so consistency is important.

Robot does not have a "unique" stat. There is no stat that Robot gets which no other classes get. All of the stats are universal across every character and enemy in the game. Everyone gets attack, everyone gets defense, everyone gets agility, everyone gets luck, everyone gets movement, everyone gets dodge and crit, and everyone gets magic attack and magic defense. There is no stat that is unique to Robot.

However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that perhaps you actually meant to say "even Robot has a unique stat LINE." First of all, yes, some classes do have general stat tendencies (like Knight, as discussed above). But even then, they're not universal. Zynk has a medium to high HP. high attack. and medium to high defense. Adam, on the other hand, has a medium to high HP. medium Attack. and medium Defense. So yeah, actually, Zynk (Robot A) has higher defense than Adam (Robot B). Secondly, and more importantly, This is another strawman because the argument you're trying to refute is not an argument that I made. I never said that the Robot class in Shining Force doesn't have general stat tendencies. I said that there's nothing inherent about the word "robot" that would dictate what any of the stats must be for a robot character, in and of itself. Yes, the developers made their arbitrary decisions about what those stat generalizations would be, and they do exist. But that does not mean that the label of "Robot" dictated them in any way. There is no reason why a robot (note the small R) should have high or low defense. Some robots are very tough, while other robots are extremely easy to damage. Some robots are extremely lethal, other robots couldn't hurt anyone even if it somehow wanted to. Some robots are alarmingly fast, while other robots literally aren't even mobile. In-game, the nature of each individual Robot's character and circumstances surrounding their lore ("is this robot built to be able to fight?", for example, which of course, they both are, or "what kind of materials are they made from?", or "how easy are they to dismantle?") will set the course for their individual stat lines. The answers to many such lore-related questions pertaining to those characters may even be vague and nebulous, but nevertheless, the fact remains that the label of "robot" being used for their class name does not INHERENTLY IMPLY a single thing about what those characters' stat lines should be, IN AND OF ITSELF.


Tor_Heyerdal wrote:
knightOfdragon wrote:Please stop using "strawman", you are not using it in the correct way. A strawman argument is when you apply an invalid argument to make your case. Like "David is not a commander because the son of an elf in this village do not believe in commanders."

Yes, I am using it in a correct way. And no, a strawman is not quite applying an invalid argument to make your case. That's almost right, though. A strawman is when person A presents an argument against person B that seeks to refute a point that person B never actually made. In a strawman, the presented argument is invalid specifically because it's not addressing the argument it's supposed to be refuting. It's removing the original argument and replacing it with an invented one (ie, a straw man) which is weaker than the original argument it's replacing (ie, a STRAW man), which seeks to remove the strength of your target's argument, making it far easier to refute than the argument they actually presented. This is the opposite of a steelman which replaces the original argument with a stronger one in order to give the target of your refutation the strongest position they could possibly have.


No you are not using it in a correct way because I am not changing the damn argument, you simply are not understanding the argument because you keep on inferring and implying things that are not in my text, and I constantly have to clarify. Just like the definition of straw man. Yes, you apply/add/present/ whatever synonym you want here the invalid argument/argument never made/whatever other synonym you want to add here to make your case/refute the case/ whatever synonym you want to add here.




Tor_Heyerdal wrote:

knightOfdragon wrote:I am making the case that a characters class plays no role in the story/lore/whatever other synonym you want to throw in here so you stop confusing yourself.

No, you're not. Or, at the very least, that's not the case that you've actually presented (more on that two paragraphs down). Maybe it's the case that you meant to present, but it's not what's actually come off your fingertips. I would agree with this argument. I never claimed that character classes play a role in the story/lore/whatever, and I would agree that they don't. So again, you're arguing against a strawman.

What I've been saying is that the lore (though not so much the story) has some degree of influence on class labels, not that class labels play a role in the story. Again, I refer back to Isabella. Her lore as being the princess of the Empire has an influence on her class label being Princess. Her class label being Princess doesn't play a role in the story, the lore plays a role in her class label. Or with the protagonist "Hero" class. The lore of these characters being heroes (note the small H) has an influence on their class label. This class label does not play a role in the story, but this lore plays a role in the class label.

The argument that you've actually presented is that there is always something inherent about the words themselves that are chosen for class labels that automatically imply what any given character's stat line should look like. And as this is the argument you've actually presented, this is the argument that I seek to refute. Although not entirely, because in many cases, your argument is certainly correct. Sometimes, a class label can, indeed, inherently imply what some or even most of a given character's stat line should look like. Like with Knight, for example (with the understanding that Knights in SF are always centaurs. Otherwise, it would inherently imply nothing about their agility unless we knew they were still otherwise mounted).

knightOfdragon wrote:This is a 1 directional argument I am making, Class ->"Lore"

I'm terribly sorry, but I don't know how "Class ->"Lore"" is intended to be read. "Class to lore"? "Lore from class"? "Class and then lore"? I don't really know what this means. I'm going to once more give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that this doesn't mean "class to lore", because that would mean you're arguing against your own point, because that would mean that class does play a role in the lore, which I don't imagine you're trying to say. But given that, I have no idea what this means.

knightOfdragon wrote:If we erased all characters classes from game memory, and turned this game into a story only type game, nobody would know "class" even exists, because "class" is never used in the game.

Right. Exactly. In other words, class labels don't necessarily inherently dictate things like stat lines in and of themselves because they're determined more by lore than they are by things like in-game combat potential. "Class" is never used in the game. In other words, you COULD have a Robot with higher defense than another Robot. Or you COULD have a Mage with lower agility than another mage. Or you COULD have a Knight that doesn't have 0 MP. Or you COULD have a Monster with low damage output. Or you COULD have a centaur with low agility. And, in fact, literally all of those things are manifest throughout the series. And you COULD have a Guardian who doesn't have exceptional defense. And on that note, I think I should point out that David's defense isn't actually all that low. In fact, his defense is actually pretty decent. His defense is fairly comparable to Knights, actually. I mean like, a quick look in my Save Editor, and I'm seeing Campbell, level 17, class 2: Defense 47. Dantares, level 15, class 2: Defense 41. David, level 17, class 2: Defense 49 (with no unfair defense boosting items). So even if a Guardian class DOES somehow HAVE to have high defense, which is the entire premise of this argument, it is moot because David DOES actually have high defense.

knightOfdragon wrote:"Class" is used by us, the players only, as a quick way to associate what characters stats/abilities may be. It is a tool for us.

Yeah, but we don't KNOW just from the class label (at least not necessarily) what the stat line of a character is going to look like or how that character will perform in battle. We can make ASSUMPTIONS based on class label, but we can't KNOW until we actually investigate their stats and use them in battle, as evidenced by your incorrect assumptions regarding Cyclops above. Yes, high fire resist is a perfectly reasonable assumption to make for a so-called Dragonman, but the assumption was still wrong. The Dragonman label DID NOT actually dictate a high fire resist. Should it have? I don't think it's unfair to say it should have. But nevertheless, it didn't. His class is "Dragonman" because he is, in fact, a dragon man (note the small D and two words). That is lore. Story is what HAPPENS in a fictional world, but lore is what IS in a fictional world, and Cyclops IS a dragon man. You might also assume a character labeled with "Dragonman" to have exceptional agility. But guess what? His agility stat kind of blows. But you might even disagree and might NOT assume a Dragonman to have high agility. The assumptions we make about the implications of a class label are subjective. And that's okay. There's nothing inherently wrong with such subjective assumptions. So I'm not knocking that. But to try to pass off those subjective assumptions as somehow being objective--to suggest that all class labels necessarily have objective implications regarding what a stat line should look like--or suggesting that the game treats them as universally objective, is ridiculous.

knightOfdragon wrote:This goes to my argument as to why some Classes may attach their story/lore to the title. The healer class name is different in all 3 scenarios, because it may not make sense for a team like Julian's to have a devout religious figure since it is such a diverse band, so they decided to change the class to something more appealing.

Well, not all three. They're the same in Scenarios 1 and 2, but that's not important. Your point here is absolutely correct. In other words, as you just admitted, lore is the more important factor when it comes to class labels.

knightOfdragon wrote:The class still falls into some kind of standard convention...

It certainly does. I never said that it doesn't. There are arbitrary conventions established within the game environment. This is true. What's not true is the claim that those conventions are somehow inherently determined by the class label, as I'll further elaborate in the next quote response below.

knightOfdragon wrote:... like a "Princess" does not have the most powerful attack, because we as the player would not associate a "princess" in that way.

We, as the player, would also not associate a "princess" with healing magic. Not inherently, anyway. Some of us might make that assumption, but there is nothing inherent about the "princess" label that just screams out or inherently dictates, "Oh. She must have priest spells." There is a convention, but it's not an objective or inherent one.

knightOfdragon wrote:These are all terrible arguments, because you are picking an individual stat and asking for a specific number.

Actually, I'm taking an individual stat and asking for a VAGUE number, like "high," "low", "exceptional", "average", or other such things. And I'm doing so because that's the standard that you've established in your argument. YOU'RE the one who's making the argument that class titles have INHERENT AND OBJECTIVE implications that dictate what ANY character's stats must look like. If this were true, then you would be perfectly capable of answering any of these questions. I'm treating your argument by its own standards. And, of course, in the cases where this IS true, we can answer the questions quote comfortably. How much defense is dictated by Knight? A lot. How much attack is dictated by Swordsman? At least good, but possibly up to exceptional. How much attack is dictated by Mage? Exceptionally low. But the reason you can't answer the questions I presented in your quote is because those questions are exemplifying the fact that class labels DO NOT ALWAYS have inherent implications that must necessarily dictate stat values IN AND OF THEMSELVES.

knightOfdragon wrote:"Agility" is not something we would make as a deciding factor when selecting a "Robot". The Robot class would make us have to look at the stats to determine what type of fighter he is because it is too generic.

EEEEEEEEEEEXACTLY! Thank you for proving my point. Class labels, do not, in fact, necessarily determine what stats must look like in and of themselves; you cannot always know what stats will look like from the word(s) that constitute(s) their class label.

knightOfdragon wrote:A "Dragonman" does not tell us anything about luck, If he was called a "Luck Dragon", we would know that class is based on luck.

Exactly. Thank you for furthering my point. This is exactly what my question was drawing attention to as evidence that class labels do not always have inherent implications about stat lines.

knightOfdragon wrote:But a dragonman would tell us we are expecting a man with the power of a dragon, so we are expecting a fighter.

Maybe YOU'RE expecting a fighter. But again, that's just your subject assumption. There's nothing objectively inherent in the word "dragonman" that must entail "fighter". It also doesn't inherently imply "the power of a dragon". In fact, I would (and this is my own subjective assumption here) NOT expect a dragonman to have the power of a dragon, because he's limited by being a man. I might expect him to have a power greater than that of a typical man, but not reaching the point of a full-on dragon. And regarding the "fighter" assumption, one could be equally likely to expect a fighter, a rogue, a monk, a wizard, or even a priest from that label. And even if one's assumption in that regard happens to be correct, it's not going to be because that assumption was somehow inherent to the word "dragonman". If it were, then there would only be room for ONE assumption.

knightOfdragon wrote:The stereotypical "Princess" is the white virgin woman, so you would associate that with white magic

If you choose to associate it with magic AT ALL, which is another personal and subjective assumption. And even if you DO choose to associate it with magic, there's nothing inherent about the word "princess" that dictates that it can't be an evil princess who practices black magic. But the point is that it's not inherent. You cannot just take the word "princess" and then just be like, "oh, well, princess MUST mean that she casts holy magic" unless princesses casting holy magic was just somehow normal and an inseparable part of the definition of the word "princess". But if you look across all the princesses from history and from fantasy combined, I'm preeeeetty darn sure that the vast majority of them will not cast magic AT ALL, let alone holy magic. And of the ones that DO cast magic, they won't all be utilizing holy magic. Some of them will be utilizing dark magic, or perhaps even some sort of nature magic. And probably others, too. And if you look up the word "princess" in any dictionary, it's absolutely and definitely not going to say "holy magic user" anywhere. And EVEN if we limit our contextual usage of the word "princess" to the Shining Force franchise (which is a perfectly fair thing to do), Princess Anri is a mage, and Princess Ellis does not cast any magic AT ALL. The only way that the label of "Princess" can INHERENTLY imply "holy magic user" is if it were normal and expected according to either the dictionary definition of the word, or AT LEAST the lore of the fictional universe in which it is being used. Neither of which holds up.

knightOfdragon wrote:A "Guardian" tells us this character is designed to guard, and as such, we should expect the character to have a high defense.

No it doesn't, and no we shouldn't. It tells us that the character INTENDS to guard or has the OBLIGATION OR DUTY of guarding. But it doesn't tell us that they're good at their job, or that they're exceptional at it. Poco from Arc the Lad, for instance, even says himself that he's a shitty member of the Drummer Corps, but he's still a drummer. And again, we should expect that a Monster will have high attack, or at least I would personally expect a Monster to have high attack, but we don't see that either. When you're young, your mother is your guardian. Does she have high defense? And I know you're going to say that this is a different context, but that just helps to further my point. Words have multiple different potential contexts that they can be used in. Just because a word is being used in a context other than the context that you would like it to be used in doesn't make it wrong. But none of that even matters, because David does have high defense!

knightOfdragon wrote:No, a "Monster" does not tell us it has high attack, nothing in the name of "Monster" says they are strong. Nothing in the definition says they are strong. This means we have to take it a step further to determine what they can do.

AHAH! YOU'VE ACTIVATED MY TRAP CARD! :0 You just forfeited your entire argument and agreed with me. There is nothing inherent about the word Monster that dictates that it must necessarily have high attack. I would personally ASSUME that a character with that label would have a high attack, which is completely subjective (and I actually even admitted in the very body of text that you quoted that that was just my personal assumption), but you're absolutely right. There is nothing inherent to that word that suggests that it somehow must. So we have to take it a step further to determine what they can do. Like investigating their stats and using them in battle yourself to find out what they can do. You can't just KNOW from the automatic implications of the label, which runs completely contrary to your argument. This shows me that you don't care about what's true, you just want to win the argument. Because you just threw away the integrity of your own argument and took up my argument which you supposedly don't even believe just to discredit me when it suited you.

knightOfdragon wrote:"Magician" tells us they use Magic by name. We do not need to go any deeper so it would be wrong to think that they are strong attackers

I never said that we should think that they are strong attackers. Again, another strawman. Quite the contrary. This is one of the examples where a class name DOES make some implications about stats, where a low attack stat is inherently implied, and an example to the contrary would be the exception to the rule. And no. You're the one who said that class names tell you inherently what a character's stat line will look like, so we DO have to go deeper in order to verify the truth (or lack thereof) of that claim. And when we do that, we find that your claim doesn't hold up. "Magician" makes SOME implications about their stat line, but not the whole thing. And unless we can extrapolate their entire stat line from their class label, then class labels do not dictate stats. They might dictate SOME stats SOME of the time. But even then, there's room for exceptions in basically all cases. "Magician" makes an implication about low attack, and it makes an implication of at least the existence of MP, and it makes an implication of low defense, but it makes no inherent implication about agility (although the SF franchise does have the arbitrary established convention of Mages having pretty good agility, that is not inherent to the word), and it makes no implications about crit, specific magic attacks (although it does imply that least some magic attacks will be at least good), or magic resists. So your claim that class labels inherently dictate stat lines does not hold up.

knightOfdragon wrote:"Princess" tells us nothing by name, nothing by definition, so we need to further go down the ladder to determine what she can do.

EXACTLY! Case closed. Why do I even need to respond at all when you're just arguing against yourself for me? lol

knightOfdragon wrote:Oh shes your typical white virgin pricess, probably white magic.

Yeah. "PROBABLY." As in, not inherent to the word. And even then, it's an assumption that she would cast magic at all. Assumptions are not inherent.

knightOfdragon wrote:"Guardian" tells us they Guard by name, so it would be wrong to think that they are designed for anything other than defence.

Poppycock. There's no reason why a character labelled as "Guardian" should be unable to produce decent damage output. And it doesn't NECESSARILY mean that they guard in combat (which is what I have to assume that you mean, otherwise you wouldn't be saying anything about defense as a stat, because stats only pertain to combat). OTHER CONTEXTS FOR THAT WORD EXIST AND ARE A THING. He could be guarding something outside of combat too, in a context that has nothing to do with his stats. Isabella doesn't "princess" in combat. If the class label had to define how they fight in battle, then the Princess class label would not be a thing because the Princess-labelled character does not engage in a single princess-related activity during combat. Neither would Robot be a thing, or Golem, or Birdman, or Beastman, or Hero, or Unicorn, or doubtless several others. Hell, even Gladiator wouldn't be a thing. Unlike Champion, which you tried to suggest requires some kind of arena to be applicable, Gladiator actually requires some kind of arena to be applicable. But nobody cares. We just accept it for what it is and move on.

knightOfdragon wrote:"Ranger" tells us they attack at a range by name, so it would be wrong for us to assumption.

First of all, that is not a sentence. Secondly, attacking by range is not a stat line. It IS something that they do in combat (which is something you mentioned before), so you have a point there. But the fact that there are SOME class labels that make inherent implications about what they do in combat does not negate the fact that there other classes that don't. And as long as there's even a SINGLE class that doesn't, that means that it's not against the rules of the franchise for a class name to not inherently say anything about what a character does in combat or anything about their stat line.

knightOfdragon wrote:"Knight" tells us nothing by name, so we take it by definition to see they mean a Calvary type character because the definition matches the characteristincs

Bull. Knight tells us high defense above anything else. Knight tells us at least decent attack. But I've already gone over this earlier in this post.

knightOfdragon wrote:"Battler" tells us they battle by name, so we would expect higher attack stats

Yeah. But again, just because there are some classes that make some implications about stats doesn't mean that ALL classes make implications about stats, and it doesn't mean that they make implications about the entire stat line, and it doesn't mean that they necessarily make implications about what they do in battle. Especially when there are BLATANT EXAMPLES of classes that don't make inherent implications about stats (entire stat line or otherwise), and don't make inherent implications about what they do in combat.

knightOfdragon wrote:"Commander" tells us they Command by name, so we would assume that they run an army

But this is both lore and story. I thought that lore and story didn't play a role in class titles, according to you. Here you are discarding your own argument when it suits you again. I mean, he certainly doesn't fight in this capacity during in-game combat. Never at any point do you use any kind of skills or such with David that tells the rest of the army what to do. So this has NOTHING to do with in-game battle, which you seem to insist is an absolute requirement.

knightOfdragon wrote:(which is why I feel that Davids class should stay a variant of this, because it is what he does).

That's fair enough. I can totally understand wanting to maintain a class label due to lore reasons. Perfectly reasonable. Though kind of strange when you've been arguing against both the existence and the merit of lore-based classes this whole time.

Also, my "Overseer" suggestion is a variant of this. It also solves your perceived wacky problem two quotes below this paragraph.

knightOfdragon wrote:Of course this runs into a problem with the 4 Commanders/Generals, because they do not command any armies,

As far as I'm aware, they do, in fact, command armies. They're just different armies. That is a little odd, I suppose, but again, we just accept that for what it is and move on.

knightOfdragon wrote:so I would argue that we would need to look further because this game does not allow additional commanding units outside of David.

Wat?

knightOfdragon wrote:This is an exception class of course, because the Commanders are special exception units in this game.

Not saying you're wrong, but aside from their unique weapon variants, what exactly do you mean?

knightOfdragon wrote:On a personal level I always felt the class should be called Ex-Commander.

Why? Also, that would be really lame. lol.

knightOfdragon wrote:The other issue with Scenario 3 is that it was rushed, so who knows what the classes for them could have been and why we are debating David all together. There is also my other argument that each character actually commands a bunch of units. But either way, nothing about "Commander" is counter intuitive to the character.

I absolutely and completely agree.

knightOfdragon wrote:This is not true, see my reason above. "I do not know what this characters class tells me" is also an important factor when you are deciding your troops, because you aren't lead on false assumptions. If you need a person with a high defense, the "Guardian" class is going to throw you off because it is counter intuitive.

Only if you have a complete and total pragmatics fail and can't put into consideration that the word is being used in a different context. It's not our fault if somebody totally sucks at pragmatics and refuses to accept that words can be used in different contexts than the context they would like them to be used in. And besides, David DOES have a high defense.

knightOfdragon wrote:David is not the "Guardian" of Stump Village

knightofDragon wrote:He may protect it, he may "guard" it, but he is not the "Guardian" of it class wise

Wat? "He may flip burgers at McDonald's, but he's nto a McDonald's burger flipper." Uhhh.... Well, okay then. I didn't realize we'd actually taken a hard left into Crazy Town.

knightOfdragon wrote:As far as Stump villiage is concerned, he has no class. If he was the "Guardian", he would not leave it defenseless to go off with Medion's army. He would "pass" that title onto another elf, and "they" would be the guardian, or there would be no guardian to defend it. Either way, the title would not transfer to Medion's battalian lore wise.

You know that being a guardian doesn't mean you have to have a title, right? You can be a guardian of something without having any sort of title whatsoever to stick in your ear, let alone pass on to someone. Again, even a scrawny boy with a stick in his hand and a pot on his head (or even without a pot on his head or any kind of armour whatsoever) who decides to guard his village, in any capacity, for any length of time, is a guardian. He doesn't need to be told to do it. It doesn't have to be his occupation. He doesn't need a title. He's still a guardian. Just because David isn't their official, decorated guardian with some sort of honoured title doesn't mean that he isn't a guardian of Stump Village. It's not like a political title like "Chieftain" where you need the actual title in order to be that thing. Maybe he's not THE guardian of Stump Village, I can give you that. But he's undeniably A guardian of it. And when he inevitably returns to Stump Village after the events of the game, you can bet your bottom asshole that he will be resuming those duties, and in a far more experienced capacity. It's not like the people of Stump Village are gonna' be all like "Smeg you, David. Johnny's our guardian now. There's only room for ONE guardian 'round these parts."

knightOfdragon wrote:But anyway, if you are speed runner, you wouldnt even know that David is the "Guardian" of stump village, so when the speed runner goes to use him, they will get thrown off by his class.

Who cares?

knightOfdragon wrote:Except David is not the Guardian of Gracia, because David does not leave with Julian and Gracia in chapter 4.

Everyone in Medion's army is a guardian of Gracia. When you're part of an army (especially a medieval army), you're the guardian of whatever the hell you're told you're the guardian of. lol

knightOfdragon wrote:I am going to double down that class plays no aspect in the lore, so lore should not be a strong deciding factor

Class plays no aspect in the lore, so the lore shouldn't play an aspect in class? That's ridiculous. And extra ridiculous when considering that there are already many examples of the lore playing an aspect in class.

knightOfdragon wrote:and we should definitely not use a title that will end up being confusing unless you actually focus on the lore.

"Unless you actually focus on the lore." Right. Exactly. Just like the game itself does, and just like the game expects the player to do.

legalize freedom wrote:Fair enough if you would choose not to consider the lore or story when deciding classes. But we clearly need to ensure the class name works with whatever is going on in the game. Some class names are generic and are decoupled from the storyline, some are not.

^ This. Exactly.

legalize freedom wrote:The classes in SF, while giving the player some indication of who the character is or what they can do, are primarily flavor. No real bearing beyond sounding cool. Most everything is controlled per individual character and in the case of stats, some randomness.

^ This also. Exactly. Well said. Very succinct. I know I'm not very succinct. lol. I take a bajillion words to get my point across. It always impresses me when someone can make such a good point in so few words.

knightOfdragon wrote:No, I never said lore has no deciding factor for class, I said it can’t be a major factor. David’s Commander title has nothing to do with the story, it has to do with him commanding an army to take on a tank, not sending a band of people to open a dam

Why can't it be a major factor? It's a major factor for several other characters. Also, commanding an army to take on a tank EXPLICITLY pertains to the story. lol.

knightOfdragon wrote:Classes are not just for flavor, they have a purpose. It is a tool to help you decide what type of abilities your character has. If it was just meant to sound “cool”, then they would have used more unique sounding names.

He said "primarily" flavour. He did not say "just" for flavour.

knightOfdragon wrote:... how is that wrong? You apply an invalid argument (aka the straw man) to make the person attack the new argument (aka the straw man). In my example we would end up arguing about the son of an elf not believe in commanders.

Firstly, no. You don't apply an invalid argument to make the person attack the new argument. You apply an invalid argument (ie, a strawman) to the OTHER PERSON and then YOU attack that argument that you just applied to the other person. You don't make the other person attack your strawman. You attack the strawman yourself, having applied it to the other person by treating it as though it's the argument that they made when, in fact, they did not. You're talking about a red herring, not a strawman.

[/quote]

No, you both attack the straw man, Not just you, otherwise it is not an argument, it is a statement.
I am done, to much TLDR of me repeating myself and defending myself against things that are not being said. I do not care anymore

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Mon Apr 29 2019 2:18am
by legalize freedom
Sounds like a good place to get back to the task at hand.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Mon Apr 29 2019 3:33am
by Tor_Heyerdal
knightOfdragon wrote:No, growth is something different, and no I would not, because at no point have I ever discussed specifics in numbers. You can have a character who had high agility not have it high anymore because you had terrible RNG every level up (Garosh bug anyone lol) Same goes with a tank character being pumped with stat boosters to give them high agility.

We are only talking about expectation of stats based on class, that is it.

No. That's not the argument you've set forth. Your position was not that we're talking about expectations. Your position was that class determines stats. Expectations are subjective and personal. One thing determining another thing is objective and impersonal. Here, look. Here's you saying that we're talking about class determining stats. These are on page 3 of this thread:

knightOfdragon wrote:Class is used as a determination for stats

knightOfdragon wrote:There are definetly things that a "Dragonman" determines.

^ This is where this whole argument began. This was the foundational premise of your argument.

And here, you're implying it:
knightOfdragon wrote:A "Guardian" tells us this character is designed to guard, and as such, we should expect the character to have a high defense.

You don't just say that we CAN expect, you're saying that we SHOULD expect. Because of your initial premise that class is used as a determination for stats as a blanket statement. You didn't say "sometimes", or anything like that. You just said "class determines stats." Period. You didn't say "I personally infer my own expectations about stats sometimes from class labels", which would be perfectly fair enough. And, granted, you do go on to talk about your personal expectations. But you use your personal expectations as support for your argument that classes determine stats, suggesting that you're conflating your own personal expectations with actual determination. Also, stat growth is, as I said before, inseparable from stats. Even your expectations regarding stats are a direct result of your expectations regarding stat growth. Unless we're talking about level 1, a character cannot have ANY stats unless they grew to reach that point.

knightOfdragon wrote:This is called an example

A cherrypicked and therefore irrelevant example. The statement "not everyone with speed 7 is a Knight" (which was your argument at that time) is cherrypicked and irrelevant because it's deliberately neglecting the fact that if you include the other stats in that evaluation, it doesn't hold up anymore.

knightOfdragon wrote:Again, Stop using “strawman”. That is not what a strawman is, you referring to it as a strawman is the strawman, because I have to attack how wrong it is.. You are the one who said it was inferred, I was simply explaining why your statement can’t be implied and hownit was 1 direction.

Again, for the third time, you're mistaking "strawman" for "red herring". When you change the subject with a new argument to detract from the original argument and make everyone start arguing about that new subject, that's called a red herring. That's not a strawman. You are just plain wrong about what a strawman is.

knightOfdragon wrote:You really need to understand game mechanics. We are not going to remember the stats of 60 characters, but we will remember Knights have high speed, Monks can heal, Archers can shoot at a range etc.

Yeah. Like I've already said many times, there are plenty of classes that do make inherent implications to some degree or another about what their respective characters can do. All I've been saying is that this is not universally true. You cannot know what every single character's stats are going to be or what every single character can do it in combat based solely on their class label. And I'm not going to explain why all over again, as I've already explained it pretty thoroughly up to this point. And the fact that some classes do not make inherent implications about stats or combat abilities means that not every character's class has to, including the potential Guardian suggestion.

knightOfdragon wrote:DFG you need to let go with this obsessive need of very fine detail and being so articulate.

I don't know what "dfg" means, but in the rest of that statement, all I'm hearing is, "you need to let go of this need to make a good argument."

knightOfdragon wrote:Unlike you, I hate having to write a damn essay every time we talk, so I am not going to say “stats and abilities” every time it is needed.

Yet another assumption. I do not, in fact, enjoy having to write an essay every time we talk. It's actually very stressful. For several of my posts in this thread, I have waited a day before bothering with it because I can't exactly cope with the work load involved all the time and need to mentally prepare myself for the task. I'm not writing these essays because I enjoy writing these essays. I'm writing these essays because Shining Force is very important to me and I feel like I have to because the argument has to be made, and you're just giving me SO much to reply to that I can't keep it brief unless I ignore 90% of what you say. But due to the fact that I have respect for you, I cannot bring myself to ignore 90% of what you say, and due to the fact that I have tremendous respect and massive adoration for this topic (Shining Force lore, Shining Force lexical convention, Shining Force's quirky way of labeling things, and just all 'round Shining Force in general) I feel compelled to give this debate the attention to detail and the effort that it deserves. Besides, I'm more or less always like this. This is the way I talk, even in person.

In my experience, if you don't say "stats and abilities" every time it is needed, people tend to misconstrue your argument. That's why legal documents are written that way, where they repeat every little thing every time so as to be as specific and unambiguous as possible, because people will misconstrue just about anything. I'm seeking to avoid problems pertaining to pragmatics, such as the misconstrual of deixis, for example. I'm not psychic, so I can't know how well you'll be able to interpret what I'm saying if I'm not specific and pedantic about it, so I'm making the effort to try to be as clear and pragmatically unambiguous as I can. And I understand that I may not always succeed in that endeavour, but damned if I'm not going to try my best.

knightOfdragon wrote:Yes there are generalizations we can make about man and dragon, not sure what world you are living in.

Subjective generalizations, sure. But nothing (or at least very little) definitive that's determined by the words composing class labels. For me, personally, I would subjectively generalize dragons to have very high attack, very high defense, very high agility, very high luck for the purposes of status resistances, very high movement, very high dodge, very high crit, very high fire damage bonus, and very high fire resist. But I'm not going to actually expect that perceived generalization of "dragon-ness" to actually be applied to a character in-game because that would be ridiculously OP. And maybe your perceptions of generalized dragon-ness are different. Okay, that's fine. But that very difference of expectation goes to show that "dragon" doesn't actually determine much. If it did, it would be determined for us, and there wouldn't even be any room for personal expectations.

As for "man", well, men run the gamut, don't they? There are no generalizations for "man". Except for MAYBE movement being 5. But I'm not 100% certain that there no exceptions to that, so I don't want to even claim that much. But men can have attack values from dismal to amazing, defense values of dismal to amazing, agility values of dismal to amazing, counter/dodge/crit values of dismal to amazing, and magic attack and magic resist stats from anywhere to anywhere else. "Man" is probably one of the least generalizable and most nebulous terms (stat-wise) that you could possibly come up with. Not sure what kind of world you're living in, where humans are mostly just all the same. I could make some guesses, but they're rude, so I won't.

knightOfdragon wrote:I also said we expect a fire resistance, not a high fire resistance, stop trying to add words.

Actually, this is what you said:
knightOfdragon wrote:I would expect a dragonman to be resistent to fire,

You didn't say "to have a fire resistance." You didn't say "to have any sort of fire resist value at all." You didn't say "to have maybe a bit of fire resist." You said "to be resistant to fire." If you buy some clothing that boasts being resistant to fire in its advertising, are you not going to feel like you've been lied to if that clothing turns out to be only kind of, sort of, a little bit fire resistant and handles the fire okay for a few moments but then more or less burns up after that? Call me presumptuous, but I think so. People don't hear "fire resistant" or "resistant to fire" and think "oh, he must mean just a little fire resistant." No, people hear fire resistant and think you must mean at least decently fire resistant. Maybe not completely fire proof, but at least a noteworthy level of fire resistance. Otherwise, it wouldn't be worth noting. Maybe what you meant to say was "any level of fire resistance at all, as long as it's more than 0", but that's not even close to what you actually said. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that maybe that's what you actually meant to say, but if it was, then it wasn't even worth bringing up in the first place.

knightOfdragon wrote:Also at no point did I say class determines all stats, stop trying to over analyze shit.

Maybe not explicitly, but pragmatically. I said that class doesn't always determine stats. You disagreed and said I was wrong. If I was wrong about class not always determining stats, then class must always determine stats. If you thought I was correct in saying that class doesn't always determine stats, you would've just agreed with me from the start rather than arguing against that point.

knightOfdragon wrote:I am not cherry picking, you are just being damn anal retentive about it.

Yes, I'm being anal. My being anal doesn't mean you're not cherrypicking, though. You take the position that stats are always determined by class, and then you exemplify that point by using a single stat that does illustrate your point while conveniently ignoring all the other stats in the same stat line that discredit your point. That is cherrypicking by definition.

knightOfdragon wrote:The “tortoise” is a high defense character

Right. See? There you go. You literally just cherrypicked in your very next sentence, using a single stat that does illustrate your point while conveniently ignoring all the other stats in the same stat line that discredit your point. Tortoise inherently implies high defense. But it does inherently imply anything about attack, agility, movement, luck, dodge/crit/counter, or magic damage/resist.

knightOfdragon wrote:I would expect him to have high def and low agility

You might personally expect him to have low agility, and that's fair enough, but that's not inherently implied by the word "tortoise". There are plenty of tortoise species out there which are actually rather swift and speedy.

knightOfdragon wrote:everything else I would have to expand on

In other words, class doesn't always determine stats.

knightOfdragon wrote:No, you both attack the straw man, Not just you, otherwise it is not an argument, it is a statement.

Statements are used as arguments in a debate. Person A makes a statement (or series of statements), and then person B makes a counter-statement (or series of counter-statements) that are intended to serve the purpose of discrediting Person A's statement(s). That's what a debate is. An exchange of statements (and also sometimes questions) which present arguments. If I say "the sky is blue", I'm making the argument that the sky is blue. If you say "well, the sky is orange right now", you are making the counter-argument that the sky is orange right now, and implying that, at the very least, the sky isn't blue right now, or at most, that it's never blue. To say that statements are not arguments shows an egregious lack of understanding of what an argument is.

knightOfdragon wrote:I am done, to much TLDR of me repeating myself and defending myself against things that are not being said. I do not care anymore

I've been able to demonstrate with direct quotes that you have, in fact, said the things I've been arguing against. And I'm not sure what you mean by "too much TLDR of me repeating myself". How can you not read your own posts for being too long? You can't write something without simultaneously reading it.
If you don't care anymore, though, then that's your call. Not really sure what to say to that. If you're really done, then don't feel obligated to respond to this if you don't want to. I, on the other hand, will likely never stop caring, as I care about Shining Force to a degree that would probably be deemed a biased conflict of interest in court. lol.

legalize freedom wrote:Sounds like a good place to get back to the task at hand.

Wait... you mean we left the task at hand? I was to the understanding that the purpose of this entire sub-debate was to establish the credibility (or lack thereof) of "Guardian" as a potential class for David. That seems on point to me.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Mon Apr 29 2019 12:09pm
by Rune
knight0fdragon wrote:No, you both attack the straw man, Not just you, otherwise it is not an argument, it is a statement.


Quite explicitly, no, you are wrong.

"A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent."

That's the first sentence from wikipedia, but feel free to check any dictionary or other source.

If both people are attacking the straw man, then one is not giving the impression of refuting the other's argument. The idea of the phrase is that you are replacing your opponent with a straw man. Spend two minutes on wikipedia and tell me I'm wrong.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Mon Apr 29 2019 12:33pm
by legalize freedom
Tor_Heyerdal wrote:Wait... you mean we left the task at hand? I was to the understanding that the purpose of this entire sub-debate was to establish the credibility (or lack thereof) of "Guardian" as a potential class for David. That seems on point to me.


Yes, we've barely tended to the task at hand at all. This wasn't intended to be a debate. (and please don't "debate" any of this post) Again I appreciate your passion for SF, but sharing ideas is what I'm asking of you (and everyone else) here.

I requested input on class names. Share ideas and give reasons why they will work. I will parse them and ask further questions as needed. Certainly give cons of existing ideas as well, but please do that to me or in general.

There is no need to debate opinions and certainly no need to directly attack/counterattack. That's not what we do in this corner of the internet.

We have managed a few in the course of all this, but I have had to wade through a mile of waist deep crap to get them. So yes, a little focus would be much appreciated.

I will soon (over the next day or two) add the ones that have come up to the first post so we can look at them and pick the strongest entries. They have gotten more complicated than just the two lines, but I think that's a good thing.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Mon Apr 29 2019 5:47pm
by Tor_Heyerdal
legalize freedom wrote:Share ideas and give reasons why they will work. I will parse them and ask further questions as needed. Certainly give cons of existing ideas as well

^ That's literally debate, though. Make suggestions, give reasons to back up those suggestions, and discuss any cons pertaining to those suggestions (presumably, giving reasons to back up the idea that the cons are cons). That's debate. lol. You're saying this forum is for debate, simultaneously telling me not to debate. If this forum isn't for debate, then it has no reason to even exist. If there's no room for debate, then just make your executive decision for the rest of us and be done with it.

legalize freedom wrote:There is no need to debate opinions and certainly no need to directly attack/counterattack.

If there's no need to debate, then there's no need to offer suggestions and discuss their pros and cons, because that's debate. You're contradicting yourself. Perhaps more importantly, no one has attacked anyone. Debate does not constitute attack. Neither knight nor myself have made any ad hominem, character assassination, name calling, degradation, insulting, or any other such thing that can be construed as attack. All we've done is explain why we feel the other is wrong (ie, discuss the pros and cons of suggestions). Albeit, at great length. That's not attack by any stretch. By telling us that there's no need to debate, you're effectively telling us that there's no need for anyone to even post at all, as the focus of this thread is to debate the pros and cons of class suggestions. If we can't do that, then we can't really say anything.

legalize freedom wrote:We have managed a few in the course of all this, but I have had to wade through a mile of waist deep crap to get them. So yes, a little focus would be much appreciated.

That "mile of waist deep crap" was all discussing the supposed cons of Guardian, which is what you're telling us to do. So yes, that was focused. Just because it's very l o r g e does not mean it wasn't focused.

legalize freedom wrote:and please don't "debate" any of this post

Well, with that, you're effectively asking me to just sit down and accept without any objection the patently false accusation that I've been attacking people. I can't do that, as I've attacked no one. And despite how strongly I've disagreed with knight, neither has he. You can call me an asshole if you want. You might even be right. I'm certainly not very likable. And the debate surely didn't make anyone feel good. But that doesn't mean he or I have been attacking anyone.

legalize freedom wrote:I will soon (over the next day or two) add the ones that have come up to the first post so we can look at them and pick the strongest entries. They have gotten more complicated than just the two lines, but I think that's a good thing.

Right on.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Mon Apr 29 2019 6:16pm
by legalize freedom
I said please.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Mon Apr 29 2019 7:34pm
by Rune
Alright, so I wanted to see if there's really anything else to suggest. I went through wikipedia's entries for d&d alternate classes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... 5_editions) and prestige classes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prestige_classes). Afterall, nerds have put a lot of time into it.

Besides, mild variants of what we already have, there's not much. My interest were ones that sounded relevant for David, I ignored whether or not David would fit that D&D class.

There's some rather weak ones. I think all of the current starting classes suggested are better:
forest walker, forest master, wilderness protector, warmaster, fist of the forest

The only high end thing I saw that I would suggest is divine champion (for the final class). To me, this knocks out the questions about what is a champion, and it fits with the holy theme present some third promotions.



Also, can someone remind me, does David do anything in scenario 3 or does he just disappear into the background like almost everyone else?

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Tue Apr 30 2019 12:05pm
by legalize freedom
Rune wrote:Alright, so I wanted to see if there's really anything else to suggest. I went through wikipedia's entries for d&d alternate classes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... 5_editions) and prestige classes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prestige_classes). Afterall, nerds have put a lot of time into it.

Besides, mild variants of what we already have, there's not much. My interest were ones that sounded relevant for David, I ignored whether or not David would fit that D&D class.

There's some rather weak ones. I think all of the current starting classes suggested are better:
forest walker, forest master, wilderness protector, warmaster, fist of the forest

The only high end thing I saw that I would suggest is divine champion (for the final class). To me, this knocks out the questions about what is a champion, and it fits with the holy theme present some third promotions.



Also, can someone remind me, does David do anything in scenario 3 or does he just disappear into the background like almost everyone else?


Thanks for looking, Rune!

I don't believe David has any meaningful part in Sc3. He may be a party in a conversation talking strategy, but nothing too personal to him. However, I will check to be sure.


Update:
There are a few blind spots where the files don't identify the speaker in Remotest temple, so I need to rectify that before being able to say for sure. He does speak in a short conversation with Kahn at the ending about returning to Elbesem and supporting Gracia.

~9-121~ David:
The ship is well prepared.
~9-122~ David:
We have fine weather to travel by ship today. We should reach Elbesem with no problems.
~9-123~ David:
But what awaits us in the Holy Land of Elbesem... is the reconstruction of the Elbesem faith.
~9-124~ Kahn:
David, I will support Gracia, no matter what. Your help will be needed.
~9-125~ David:
Is it true Gracia... can't regain his power?
~9-126~ David:
This must be kept secret from the emperor.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Tue Apr 30 2019 6:24pm
by Rune
Thanks for checking. I asked for the reason that if he doesn't have much a story role, then I am not concerned much with his final class past it sounding cool.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Tue Apr 30 2019 6:34pm
by legalize freedom
That is true for most everyone in the first two forces. They pop in, get promoted and go to the final battle.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Wed May 01 2019 11:13am
by Hattari
For the 1st class, I second forest walker (essentially a rewording of elven ranger, if preferred). Trooper maybe? Personally, I'd recommend keeping things simple and going with elven ranger, but the point is to share the most accessible options - not my preferences.

2nd class? I think commander or commando more than suffice.

3rd class: I second considering divine champion. Or holy champion; forest champion. Champion almost sounds "too good" for David, but he is one of the few required party members, and he receives a fair amount of dialogue in the story compared to most non-heroes, so it's fitting. He's basically one of Gracia's right-hands, along with Kahn.

Alternatively... I still think General would work well, and I'm in the minority here, but I'm not completely opposed to sticking with striker - just maybe jazz it up with something like holy striker or assault striker.

These are just nominations for the team's consideration.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Wed May 01 2019 1:05pm
by legalize freedom
The first post has been updated with the latest options. Are there any we can eliminate as being weaker? Currently 7 options and that is probably too many for a poll.

My thoughts:

Warden seems like it is a weaker version of Guardian. They are interchangeable, but work better in different lines. Both would work in the General line and I'm not sure which of the three General options works best. Warden works better with the Commando line (Guardian to Striker would be odd). Guardian works better with the Sentinel line.

Chieftain removed from contention.


Thanks for your feedback Hattari, but most of those options are too long. Elven Ranger is already stretching it.


Update:
I believe this is one of David's lines from Remotest HQ
~9-115~ Line:
I've strayed from Gracia, but... he's currently serving the Julian army. He plans to train to be an Elbesem monk, and Kahn has a lot of faith in him.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Wed May 01 2019 8:19pm
by Tor_Heyerdal
From the current rendition of the OP:
legalize freedom wrote:Commander doesn't exactly have the same feel as the other two classes, but it is his given second class and works well when considering his role in the story

I still think that "Overseer" would solve the weakness of "not exactly having the same feel as the other two classes" while also still working well when considering his role in the story. But I also think that Commander's not bad, and I would still be content with it.

legalize freedom wrote:Warden works better with the Commando line (Guardian to Striker would be odd). Guardian works better with the Sentinel line.

I think Warden works just fine with the Sentinel line, but so does Guardian, so again, I'm still content with that.

legalize freedom wrote:Are there any we can eliminate as being weaker? Currently 7 options and that is probably too many for a poll.

It's actually not too many. I just checked, and you can have up to 15 poll options.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Thu May 02 2019 11:45am
by Hattari
"...most of those options are too long. Elven Ranger is already stretching it."

Whoops; I forgot to consider length. At least it adds a little less to your plate then (felt bad about that).

legalize freedom wrote:Weaknesses of General line:
-Original classes focus on combat abilities vs leadership
-There is nothing explicit in game that dictates he is officially promoted within the Imperial army beyond being an leading member of the Medion army, but it is reasonable that he would be

I don't really see that as being much of a weakness. It's all a matter of perspective; one could easily view the in-game promotion as evidence enough of his rank increase. It'd be no different than any other character in that sense, and the player would have no reason to question it given David's many narrative contributions (key to recruiting two other characters in Hera & Hedva, led the tank division, offered vital information regarding the god child, etc).

I'm going to be honest - I just can't get behind warden, guardian, or sentinel. They're cool sounding classes, but I don't think they fit this character well enough, as they don't highlight his most distinct, or noticeable traits. I think for all three, the cons to using them outweigh the pros... that's just one opinion.

After more consideration, I'd like to suggest this for a potential poll option:

Elven Ranger (or Elf Ranger for brevity)
Commando
Champion


These could serve as 2nd and 3rd class alternatives to Commander and General. As the latter emphasizes David's leadership role, the former would highlight his combat abilities and versatility.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Thu May 02 2019 11:53am
by legalize freedom
Hattari wrote:I'm going to be honest - I just can't get behind warden, guardian, or sentinel. They're cool sounding classes, but I don't think they fit this character well enough, as they don't highlight his most distinct, or noticeable traits. I think for all three, the cons to using them outweigh the pros... that's just one opinion.

After more consideration, I'd like to suggest this for a potential poll option:

Elven Ranger (or Elf Ranger for brevity)
Commando
Champion


These could serve as 2nd and 3rd class alternatives to Commander and General. As the latter emphasizes David's leadership role, the former would highlight his combat abilities and versatility.


I would be curious what you would say his most distinct traits are and what the cons are to these three options.

Champion is already in use by Penn.


While I have everyone's attention, I would also propose changing the hero final class from Light Apostle to simply Apostle. Many of the other characters final promotions require the distinction of Light being added (Light Princess, Light Fairy) since their previous class is just the final class without the Light (Princess, Fairy), but I believe Apostle stands on its own as it implies light.

I don't believe there are any Dark Apostles in the game of any sort and as a practical matter a shorter class would keep the load screen (where you select the record you want to load) from overlapping as much.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Thu May 02 2019 12:04pm
by Hattari
I keep forgetting about Penn because I haven't played the recent updates. My mistake! Elf Champion then? (I've been trying to think of synonyms for champion that aren't too over-the-top, with little success)

"I would be curious what you would say his most distinct traits are and what the cons are to these three options."

His range; access to all throwing weapons, and all primary weapon advantages as a result; his mobility; him being an elven fighter who favors close quarters weapons over arrows; his bluntness; his outspoken sense of justice; his above average magic resistance; his love of muscles and flexing them.

Cons to my suggestion? As mentioned by OP, they are reminiscent of other character classes (Waltz in the case of E. Ranger, Penn in the case of Champion, the human generals in the case of Comm-Gen). I can't see any other cons.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Thu May 02 2019 12:52pm
by legalize freedom
Hattari wrote:"I would be curious what you would say his most distinct traits are and what the cons are to these three options."

Cons to my suggestion? As mentioned by OP, they are reminiscent of other character classes (Waltz in the case of E. Ranger, Penn in the case of Champion, the human generals in the case of Comm-Gen). I can't see any other cons.


I meant cons of Warden, Guardian and Sentinel that haven't been listed as of yet.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Thu May 02 2019 5:54pm
by Rune
Maybe it's just that I'm not a Christian, but Apostle by itself sounds pretty lame and weaksauce.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Thu May 02 2019 6:26pm
by legalize freedom
Rune wrote:Maybe it's just that I'm not a Christian, but Apostle by itself sounds pretty lame and weaksauce.


I didn't realize Apostle was primarily a Christian thing in RL, but regardless adding Light seems redundant.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Thu May 02 2019 8:56pm
by Rune
I think you usually need to go many definitions down for apostle to get away from explicit mention of christianity or jesus. For example, on dictionary.com you have to click "see more" and go to definition number 8.

To instead call the three heroes Apostles would leave me feeling a bit grossed out, to be honest.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Thu May 02 2019 11:47pm
by legalize freedom
Rune wrote:To instead call the three heroes Apostles would leave me feeling a bit grossed out, to be honest.


Well don't torture yourself. There are many higher level religious terms used in the game. I don't suppose that helped...

The choice here is simple. Light Apostle (as it is now) or simply Apostle (my proposal). Is there something about the Light that makes it different?

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Fri May 03 2019 3:47am
by Tor_Heyerdal
legalize freedom wrote:While I have everyone's attention, I would also propose changing the hero final class from Light Apostle to simply Apostle. Many of the other characters final promotions require the distinction of Light being added (Light Princess, Light Fairy) since their previous class is just the final class without the Light (Princess, Fairy), but I believe Apostle stands on its own as it implies light.

I don't believe there are any Dark Apostles in the game of any sort and as a practical matter a shorter class would keep the load screen (where you select the record you want to load) from overlapping as much.

I completely agree with this idea and the reasoning. Frankly, I think that overlapping in the menu is reason enough to go ahead with it just by itself, but that aside, you're right: "Light" Apostle is completely redundant.

Rune wrote:I think you usually need to go many definitions down for apostle to get away from explicit mention of christianity or jesus. For example, on dictionary.com you have to click "see more" and go to definition number 8.

Anyone who can't tell that the word "apostle" in the context of this game has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus (except allegorically) and everything to do with Gracia, with or without any qualifier like "Light", must certainly have some kind of problems. Context is a thing, context is important, and context is everything.

legalize freedom wrote:The choice here is simple. Light Apostle (as it is now) or simply Apostle (my proposal). Is there something about the Light that makes it different?

Nope.

legalize freedom wrote:Well don't torture yourself. There are many higher level religious terms used in the game. I don't suppose that helped...

Indeed. Frankly, there are a lot of Christian themes in this game, and I don't think we should let anyone's personal prejudice against Christianity guide any decision-making. Not even considering the fact that it would be morally wrong to let our decisions be guided by hatred and prejudice, there is the more important fact that this would compromise the integrity of the game, as these Christian themes cannot be uncoupled from the original vision and core identity of what this game is, whether one likes those Christian themes or not.

Hattari wrote:I'm going to be honest - I just can't get behind warden, guardian, or sentinel. They're cool sounding classes, but I don't think they fit this character well enough, as they don't highlight his most distinct, or noticeable traits.

Hattari wrote:His range; access to all throwing weapons, and all primary weapon advantages as a result; his mobility; him being an elven fighter who favors close quarters weapons over arrows; his bluntness; his outspoken sense of justice; his above average magic resistance; his love of muscles and flexing them.

These things of which you speak are certainly among his most distinct traits, but that doesn't somehow mean that the primary traits exemplified by Warden/Guardian/Sentinel are not also among his most distinct traits. We have two pools of highly distinct traits for this character. One pool describes his primary lore traits, and the other pool describes his primary combat traits. It would seem that there are no class options that can encapsulate all of the traits from both pools (not surprising, since there's an awful lot of traits in there), and only one of those trait pools have had any real proposals. It's just like you say: "I've been trying to think of synonyms for champion that aren't too over-the-top, with little success". It seems that no one else has had any real success either. This brings us back to the debate that knightOfdragon and I were having. The Warden/Guardian/Sentinel suggestions do not particularly describe his combat abilities, this is true (though they somewhat do, to a limited extent). But there is a precedent that's already set for class names not necessarily needing to describe combat abilities and can instead describe lore qualities instead. This precedent is exemplified very well by Isabella, whose class names describe her lore rather than her combat abilities. Likewise with Synbios, Medion, and Julian's promoted classes. What we're essentially looking at here is that, on the one hand, we have acceptable and functional proposals for David's class names that effectively describe his primary lore qualities in an environment where class names that describe lore qualities are established as being acceptable. On the other hand, nobody has really made any acceptable and functional proposals for David's class names that effectively describe his primary combat qualities without simultaneously compromising cannon or clashing with other classes.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Fri May 03 2019 6:41pm
by Rune
legalize freedom wrote:
Rune wrote:To instead call the three heroes Apostles would leave me feeling a bit grossed out, to be honest.


Well don't torture yourself. There are many higher level religious terms used in the game. I don't suppose that helped...

The choice here is simple. Light Apostle (as it is now) or simply Apostle (my proposal). Is there something about the Light that makes it different?


You asked if people were on board with the change, I said absolutely not. Take that however you want.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Fri May 03 2019 7:06pm
by legalize freedom
Rune wrote:
legalize freedom wrote:
Rune wrote:To instead call the three heroes Apostles would leave me feeling a bit grossed out, to be honest.


Well don't torture yourself. There are many higher level religious terms used in the game. I don't suppose that helped...

The choice here is simple. Light Apostle (as it is now) or simply Apostle (my proposal). Is there something about the Light that makes it different?


You asked if people were on board with the change, I said absolutely not. Take that however you want.


I'm not convinced you understand the change.

You are suggesting we leave it as Light Apostle and I'm wondering why you favour that.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Fri May 03 2019 8:18pm
by DiegoMM
just Apostle seens incomplete, I think you have to represent something, so Light Apostle is better.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Fri May 03 2019 9:37pm
by Rune
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.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Fri May 03 2019 11:30pm
by legalize freedom
Understood.

Technically they are Apostles of Elbesem and I feel that is implied. There is no Jesus in the shining universe, so it can't really be considered in those terms.

When I spoke of higher level religious terms, I wasn't thinking Christian. I was more thinking about all the greek gods and mythology represented. There is a ton of that. Much more than anything else. I guess since it has been so long since they were popular it has become legend vs religion... and that's fair.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Sat May 04 2019 12:07am
by Tor_Heyerdal
Rune wrote:If you are just an apostle, then you fall under the Christian apostles.

Uh, no. Not in a world where Christianity doesn't exist. That's insane. Context is a thing. You can't be a Christian apostle in a world where Christianity does not exist. Plain and simple.

Rune wrote: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.

So? The fact that some people don't like it, Christian or otherwise, does nothing to take away from the fact that this game still has very prominent Christian allegory which cannot be uncoupled from the game without compromising its integrity and core identity. And other religious allegory besides Christianity, as legalize freedom pointed out.

DiegoMM wrote:just Apostle seens incomplete, I think you have to represent something, so Light Apostle is better.

That which they are apostles of is so contextually obvious that it doesn't need to be explicitly put in the class label. It would be like insisting that Obright's starting class can't just be "Warrior", but has to be "Dwarf Warrior". Like, it's so obvious that it doesn't need stating. That said, however, ultimately, I don't really care about it being in the class label in and of itself. Like, "Light Apostle" is fine. But if it overlaps in the save menu, then that's problematic. Still not the end of the world, though, I suppose.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Sat May 04 2019 12:59am
by legalize freedom
I personally don't see it as Christian at all. It's a religious story when you boil it down. Star Wars is/was a love story, SF3 is a religious story. I think the themes could be applied to any religion. God(s) and followers. They are basically all the same when you boil them down to the basics.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Sat May 04 2019 1:34pm
by Hattari
legalize freedom wrote:I meant cons of Warden, Guardian and Sentinel that haven't been listed as of yet.

1. all three imply a high-DF or heavy armor unit (not an absolute or required for lore of course, but problematic in this particular instance, as it concerns a character who possesses unusually low defense in their pre-promoted state. Had he at least average defense bare minimum, I think it'd be less unreasonable. As it is, I think it'd be more than a little misleading to players.)

2. guardian & sentinel sound relatively "elite" or advanced when compared to other tier-I classes in Shining Force III (especially when considering what he'd promote to.)

3. sentinel seems the most inaccurate of the options (David is less immobile sentry, and more fleet-footed combatant as befits a forest elf)

Tor_Heyerdal wrote:These things of which you speak are certainly among his most distinct traits, but that doesn't somehow mean that the primary traits exemplified by Warden/Guardian/Sentinel are not also among his most distinct traits.

Which of his distinct traits (concerning lore) are best exemplified by W/G/S? (Besides his role as a leader and representative, which rejected titles like chief/chieftan also conveyed)

I agree that job titles should take both abilities and narrative role into consideration, and need not prioritize one over the other by default. However, with a cast as unique as this, some things need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Again, I emphasize how unusual David is, in a series no stranger to the unusual. Given how variable - and potentially useful - his weapon selection is, I feel this is a case where it behooves the developers (or here, the translators) to go out of their way to indicate that to the player in some way. Combat ability doesn't have to trump lore, but for him I think it ought to hold greater weight. This is another reason I'm reluctant to assume Camelot made a mistake when making him a ranger. All things considered, it is the ideal title from both a lore and gameplay standpoint. If we can't pinpoint a replacement that covers both sides as well, I think gameplay should take priority - and again, only because David plays so differently than other fighting classes.

Tor_Heyerdal wrote:What we're essentially looking at here is that, on the one hand, we have acceptable and functional proposals for David's class names that effectively describe his primary lore qualities in an environment where class names that describe lore qualities are established as being acceptable. On the other hand, nobody has really made any acceptable and functional proposals for David's class names that effectively describe his primary combat qualities without simultaneously compromising cannon or clashing with other classes.

This is the conundrum we share. While I personally have no issue with elven or elf ranger for his 1st class, I do recognize the aversion you and others have had to it. I've really been racking my brain the past few days to find something the majority here could at least consider.

I still think the first option in the OP is the strongest line being considered. But, rather than guardian, warden or elven ranger, what do you all think about psiloi as a potential first class?

It's Grecian in origin; light-armor, mobile infantry known for using javelins and other throwing weapons. David kinda looks like a Greco-Roman statue, so that's an unintended plus. Best of all, it's not a word that's widely-circulated in fantasy or SRPGs, so few players are likely to read it with potentially-misleading preconceptions.

Partisan is a similar option, but I think psiloi is stronger. Also, as with guardian and sentinel, partisan almost sounds too elite for a first class.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Sat May 04 2019 11:07pm
by legalize freedom
Those are all great points. I'll add them when I get a chance.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Sun May 05 2019 3:14am
by Tor_Heyerdal
Hattari wrote:1. all three imply a high-DF or heavy armor unit (not an absolute or required for lore of course, but problematic in this particular instance, as it concerns a character who possesses unusually low defense in their pre-promoted state. Had he at least average defense bare minimum, I think it'd be less unreasonable. As it is, I think it'd be more than a little misleading to players.)

Warden does absolutely nothing to imply high defense at all. Guardian and Sentinel, I can at least understand. I mean, I don't think that they do automatically imply high defense, but I can understand why someone would infer that. Guardian just means one who defends something, and Sentinel just means one who stands guard. Neither of those things necessarily entail high defense. Hell, even tiny little Penn could be a guardian or a sentinel if he defended something or stood guard. You say that he has "unusually low defense in his pre-promoted state". Well, Warden (which does nothing to suggest high defense) would be his pre-promoted state, so that's all gravy. Beyond his first class, he has above average defense. Not the highest of the high, but certainly above average. He rivals Dantares and Campbell in defense. I'd say that's pretty darn decent.

Hattari wrote:2. guardian & sentinel sound relatively "elite" or advanced when compared to other tier-I classes in Shining Force III (especially when considering what he'd promote to.)

I disagree regarding Guardian, but I definitely agree regarding Sentinel. Therefore, it's a pretty good thing that no one is suggesting Sentinel as a tier 1 class. lol.

Hattari wrote:3. sentinel seems the most inaccurate of the options (David is less immobile sentry, and more fleet-footed combatant as befits a forest elf)

On this note, I agree with you. Which is why I didn't propose it as my first choice when I brought up the option of Sentinel. I actually think Warden>Overseer>Guardian would be more technically accurate. But I also don't think that Sentinel is too far of a stretch. I think that the amount of stretch that it does take is within permissible bounds. Also, it sounds tremendously cool. lol.

Hattari wrote:Which of his distinct traits (concerning lore) are best exemplified by W/G/S? (Besides his role as a leader and representative, which rejected titles like chief/chieftan also conveyed)

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, but supposing it's not, then chief/chieftain was only rejected because there's an NPC who explicitly says that Trump Village has no chieftain. But a warden is just someone in charge of looking after a place and doesn't require a formal title, a guardian is just someone who defends something and also doesn't require a formal title, and a sentinel is just someone who stands guard and, again, doesn't require a formal title. While I agree that he doesn't strictly "stand" guard--like, he doesn't have a post--and as such, I can understand the objection to Sentinel, he does defend Gracia and Medion's troops in the capacity of one of Medion's highest ranking soldiers and one of Gracia's right hand men, and he is in charge of looking after Stump Village. And he also "oversees" the tank battle. And overseeing Medion's troops in general would be a responsibility of someone with a position in their army as high as his. Those are pretty prominent traits. And this is also why I think that, despite how cool Sentinel sounds, Warden>Overseer>Guardian would be a better fit.

Hattari wrote:I agree that job titles should take both abilities and narrative role into consideration, and need not prioritize one over the other by default. However, with a cast as unique as this, some things need to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Yeah, that's what we're doing. This whole W/G/S line is us taking a case-by-case approach.

Hattari wrote:I agree that job titles should take both abilities and narrative role into consideration, and need not prioritize one over the other by default. [...] Again, I emphasize how unusual David is, in a series no stranger to the unusual. Given how variable - and potentially useful - his weapon selection is, I feel this is a case where it behooves the developers (or here, the translators) to go out of their way to indicate that to the player in some way.

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

Hattari wrote:Combat ability doesn't have to trump lore, but for him I think it ought to hold greater weight.

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.

Hattari wrote:This is another reason I'm reluctant to assume Camelot made a mistake when making him a ranger. All things considered, it is the ideal title from both a lore and gameplay standpoint.

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. He is neither a centaur nor an archer. And as legalize freedom has already pointed out, Justin's first class is actually "Ranger" in the game code despite the fact that the player never gets to see that on account of Justin starting out promoted. This is a very powerful hint that, had SC2 been officially translated, David's class would've been changed in the localization. It's probably not a "mistake" that David was given the class of Ranger for the Japanese version, but it seems very likely that an English localization would've changed that, as they'd already given that class to Justin in SC1, and probably would've given it to Waltz in SC2, carrying on the tradition of Rangers being centaur archers.

Hattari wrote:If we can't pinpoint a replacement that covers both sides as well, I think gameplay should take priority - and again, only because David plays so differently than other fighting classes.

In other words, combat ability ought to trump lore, and we should prioritize one over the other. lol. You are very flip-floppy in this post. 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.

Hattari wrote:I still think the first option in the OP is the strongest line being considered. But, rather than guardian, warden or elven ranger, what do you all think about psiloi as a potential first class?

It's Grecian in origin; light-armor, mobile infantry known for using javelins and other throwing weapons. David kinda looks like a Greco-Roman statue, so that's an unintended plus. Best of all, it's not a word that's widely-circulated in fantasy or SRPGs, so few players are likely to read it with potentially-misleading preconceptions.

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.

Hattari wrote:Partisan is a similar option, but I think psiloi is stronger. Also, as with guardian and sentinel, partisan almost sounds too elite for a first class.

This is a lot better than "Psiloi"... And I don't think it sounds too elite for a first class at all. However, since everybody seems to think that preconceptions are so important, this sounds like a class that exclusively uses polearms. You're not going to find any class name that actually describes someone who uses knives, spears, and throwing axes. It almost certainly doesn't exist. Partisan does sound cool, though. And much like Sentinel, 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. This is a fantasy world, and we can stretch semantics a little bit (not too much, but a little bit) to fit into the needs of that fantasy world. As such, I find Partisan to be an acceptable proposal, but the rest of you who are so hung up on preconceptions should reject it for the same reasons that you've rejected Warden, Guardian, Sentinel, and Champion.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Sun May 05 2019 2:50pm
by legalize freedom
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...

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Sun May 05 2019 3:01pm
by Hattari
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.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Sun May 05 2019 11:11pm
by Tor_Heyerdal
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.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Sun May 05 2019 11:51pm
by legalize freedom
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.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Tue May 07 2019 5:14pm
by Rune
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.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Sun Jun 09 2019 6:05am
by Salibu
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.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Sun Jun 09 2019 8:59am
by Rune
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.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Sun Jun 09 2019 6:21pm
by legalize freedom
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.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Mon Jun 10 2019 1:57pm
by knight0fdragon
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.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Mon Jun 10 2019 6:24pm
by legalize freedom
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.

Re: David's Class Options

PostPosted: Tue Jun 11 2019 1:19am
by knight0fdragon
guess you never heard of scientology then