Augestein

Which is insane. People have already offed themselves in the area because they believe lies like this. It's fine time we stopped this madness.

You know what's fun? Having someone like Effie become a Master of Arms. Armored Blow + Life or Death is super fun on player phase. You get +10 damage at no cost! I like doing weird things like that. But I do agree that Master of Arms with E rank just kinda sucks. Should have been D or C rank IMO. The issue is that people that are the best with the class are people that are either 1) Prepromotes like Xander 2) Cavaliers.

Loaded questions. 1) I frown upon it yes. Whether it's presence has a cultural double standard is irrelevant. It still has a social stigma. Casual sex? Perhaps not. Where you're doing it in what people would dub as excessive yes? For instance, do you honestly think that a person that teaches abstinence only would only target the woman for having sex and not the man? No. They would be angry with both. 2) Still irrelevant. I have not said that people don't do it more against women than me. However, that in and of itself isn't enough clause to refer to me as sexist, nor is it even remotely close to sufficient to deny that this has been cast as an insult towards men as well. I would agree with this. And it's changed enough in my area, men call men sluts all the damn time if they sleep around with no real standards. The area I live it, "slut" has been hurled at both. While it's anecdotal for everyone, I think it's completely unfair to have personal experiences somehow dictate a universal statement. Especially when one is using it to refer to someone else as a label such as "sexist."

No. It really isn't. They are all people that sleep around too much. It just so happens that all of those characters have other things going for them. Notice how you're putting words in my mouth to even try to have an argument? Yeah. Because I didn't realize that I had to say "man slut" instead of just "slut" when "slut" includes both. This is the worst attempt at calling someone sexist that I've ever seen. There's a reason I didn't include any genders in that. Because it actually includes both. You're the only one that has been including sexes in this. Not me. This is a rather vapid argument. As you cannot say what I meant. You should have asked for a clarification. That's how deeply ingrained it is for you. Not me. As I'm not the one that thinks that men are somehow exempt from this rule. Nor do I think that there somehow aren't people in society that think that it's a frowned upon act for both sexes. I'm not even going to continue talking about this on here, because this has nothing to do with anything. If you want to keep talking, PM me. Otherwise it's over.

I should really get back to playing this again.

"Manwhore" is one that definitely comes to mind. I didn't realize that I literally have to name all of them. REALLY. Also, yes: Slut is generally a term for a woman or girl who is considered to have loose sexual morals or who is sexually promiscuous.[1][2] It is usually used as an insult, sexual slur or offensive term of disparagement (slut shaming).[2][3] It originally meant "a dirty, slovenly woman",[2] and is rarely used to refer to men, generally requiring clarification by use of the terms male slut or man whore.[4][5] If anything, your complaint should be yourself since you apparently seem to believe that only women can be called sluts. Men definitely can nowadays. Some people use "male slut" or "manwhore," but quite a few people don't even bother by putting the "male" in front. It's sort of like how people say "male dominatrix" instead of just saying "dom" or "master" or any other word to mean the same thing.

1) Uh... No. It really isn't. I don't know where people get this foolhardy notion from. You'll still be called the same thing. Ladies honestly don't respect guys for doing it either. So no. None of this makes any sense. 2) No. It doesn't at all. Like there's no logical transitivity there. And you're the one that's throwing sexism around. So no. Try again. 3) Uh no. It applies to both. Try again. It's especially ridiculous because men can sleep with men, and they'd *still* get these labels. And the more I think about it, "rape culture" and "easy" as in short to be "easy to sleep with" is NOT rape culture. It specifically means that the person is easy to bed. That's it. Like damn. I feel like I know more on this subject than some people based on their responses alone.

I'm really not dancing around the issue. SPOILER RETORT: I know. All of these would be true. And the cost risk benefit, is that you have to consider if the risk of having sex is worth the risk. In many cases, it's not worth it. I quite literally said here: Because I most certainly don't, because apparently that wasn't clear. Which is exactly why I'm saying I never implied that only one should be taught. I think you'd honestly have a lot to consider in a life if a lack of casual sex takes a toll on your life enjoyment. People are acting like telling someone "yeah, here's how you stay safe, but really, it's probably best to not do it with every other Tom, Dick, and Harry or Jill, Jane and Mary," is somehow saying "no sex ever. And if you do, you're going to hell." The stigma of having premarital sex is not a "you're a poor moral character." The stigma ends up being "they're a slut/easy." If the possibility of that happening doesn't bother you, then fine. Whatever, your choice. But don't go acting like people that DO have that opinion are somehow wrong for it. Social stigma isn't just religious.

Look pal, what does that have to do with what I said. And that has to do with what I said? Which still doesn't address what the hell I just said.

Sure. I think that both should be taught together honestly. Safe-sex practices with the mindset that only abstinence is a guarantee. It's probably the best balance to satisfy both parties IMO.

I don't see how that really addresses anything that I said. STDs aren't an absolute guarantee to be blocked by using a condom. Even if you attempt to keep your sex life private, that's still something that can happen as a result. If people find out, that's not their problem: it's yours. And it's entirely avoidable. Fair enough. It should still be taught, but I think one of the biggest things that need to be said is that some people seem to think that safe sex is some magical cure all to avoiding problems with frivolous sex.

I don't actually consider it an alternative. Nor do I believe that most people do, bu rather, it removes the 99.99% condom statistic. Teaching people how to have safe sex is important, but simply avoiding sex in the first place is without a doubt, the best way to avoid having a child. Because let's be honest, putting a condom on isn't exactly hard. And even when being taught about sex education, I thought the whole "how to put a condom on" part was absurd. It's akin teaching someone how to eat with their hands. Well to be honest, it's just a terrible idea to go around having sex so much anyways. You have to assume your partner is honest with you, and being sexually active requires more frequent trips to the doctor to ensure you didn't catch anything from potentially lying partners. If you're too active, it can also add a social stigma too.

I'd rather there be too many period than none!

May have been like Marcus where she can actually die in the final battle? That's my guess.

"Literally the only female that can use axes is Echidna who has male con." So yeah, it's exactly the problem in a nutshell. Basically the only one that can use it is an exception rather than the norm. And that's the issue. There's no strategy or thinking involved when "this person is so bad with this weapon that it'll never be used." It's why dark magic was generally considered trash. Too heavy, too inaccurate, and when it could be good, like Nosferatu, it weighs you down so much that it's generally not worth it. Weight and con is a bad system. Weapon weight in and of itself isn't terrible ie, Gaiden saying a steel lance weighs EVERYONE down the same amount. Because with con, it becomes a threshold thing. Low con units are stuck using inferior weapons to make up for their lack of con. It lowers their evade, it lowers their attacking potential, and rarely does it pose anything interesting. Fates/Gaiden had the idea of weapon penalties right. Con and weight did not. And heck, Strength = Con is a system that takes a dump on mages overall. Yeah. Because it is. Females that aren't mounted units have *zero* bonus for having low con. They can't pick people up. Sure, they can be picked up easier, but that doesn't excuse having -2 or 3+ con. Let's use an example. A GBA Pally versus a GBA hero. Pallies generally have better con than heroes. So naturally, the hero can't ever use a weapon better than the paladin. The hero's boon over a paladin is that it isn't weak to horseslaying weapons. That's hardly good balance. And females versus males are pretty much the same thing. Under no circumstance do you want a female unit in the GBA Fire Emblem under normal circumstances. Let's use an example: Heath and Florina. Heath has 9 Con. Not great, but not terrible. His aid is... 16. Let's use Florina, her Con is 4. Which is garbage. Her aid? 16. So even in practice, it's not that great. A Florina that uses a Javelin loses 7 AS. A Heath that uses a Javelin loses 2. Even with Florina's level lead, speed growth lead, and base speed lead, a level 16 Florina throws a Javelin with about the same level of competence as a a level 7 Heath. She's slightly faster, but in order to match the strength, she needs to be around 16. That's nuts. Even worse? That's normal mode Heath. Not hard mode where he has 13 strength and 9 speed. This isn't even a "male vs female" discussion, but why Con wasn't that great of a system.

Yep, and that's the issue with the weight system numbers in a nutshell. To be honest, it wouldn't have been so bad if they used some sort of weapon rank and skill requirements to determine if a person was also capable of suing them, or if a character could choose to wield them 2-handed versus one handed for less of a penalty to using the weapon, but in the end of the day, you just end up with a system that often times just punished certain units for existing.

It's pretty important to be honest, as it is by far the easiest way to not have a child too early or out of wedlock. Sex also saves a lot of grief for not getting nasty diseases and the like. I wish it was practiced a bit more.

Just default. The way we get teased with red head Severa too. Horrible that you can't get it. That said, there are other characters. Say'ri and Basillio. Technically they aren't Gen 1 but they ARE possible and not Spotpass stuff.

It brings up less than you think. In the GBA Fire Emblem games, female and "use axe" was something you pretty much never did. Axes have such stupid amounts of weight that even when you can use them, you're pretty much only using the lightest of axes. The only reason for a female to use an axe really (in the con ones where strength doesn't equal con) is because she can't use javelins.

He was just caught up in the heat of the moment. He clearly just started throwing axes without a care in the world. Another great one is that Garcia has a support with Dolza and they try to shoot arrows and suck. The problem? Garcia could possible have an S rank in bows at that point.

Sure. However, it's not convoluted. It's actually really simple. Don't let Alm die. Let him get some experience as a commander and and a warrior. Hide him from Duma, and have him fight when he's old enough. The biggest issue here is quite literally that Alm can die. It's not complicated, it's just not foolproof. The plan had already gone of the hinges when Celica had to be moved because of this. So at this point, you can basically say that this plan that was devised is a contingency plan. A bad one, but considering that the first one flopped, it's easy to see how it flew off rails. What you've said are reason that the plan isn't a great one. It's not hard to follow though. Rudolf's plan is much less bad than Azura's. For starters, Azura has no plan at the start of the game. And both of her plans require that she does exactly what the villain wants around 2/3 of the time. Conquest is especially bad because she takes Corrin to Valla and doesn't try to explain what exactly this is, and her plan is basically to pray that Corrin has enough influence to convince his/her siblings that Garon and evil, and that Garon doesn't just raze the entire castle, and thus the throne to the floor. The worst part is that she has the ability to be clear, by doing things like showing EVERYONE the crystal ball, but just doesn't. She gives it to Leo in Birthright, and shows it to Corrin in Conquest. That's why I'd say hers is the worst, because there's no reason that she doesn't have any of the Hoshidan siblings knowing this BEFORE the start of the game. Requires 1) Ashnard doesn't destroy Crimea completely. 2) Somehow gets Gallia involved despite the fact that they apparently won't even though they are supposedly allies with Crimea, and had Elincia died, the plan to get them involved dies too. 3) Kilvas and Phoenicis don't get along too well, but they don't actually fight much either. 4) Daein has no reason to fight Begnion. 5) Goldoa WON'T fight. If Manfroy's is complicated for "get proper bloodlines to mingle" is more complicated than the above, I don't know what to say. Robin knowing future events isn't that bad. Lucina told him/her. People are confusing "unlikely to succeed" with "convoluted."

The only way that Rudolf's plan can actually fail is if Alm dies really. Considering that's the only real plan to defeat Duma, it isn't convoluted. Because there aren't multiple people that can just pick up the Falchion and use it. The war that happens is already fueled by people anyways. Using it to ensure that Alm develops the skills and is hidden away from the Duma assassins until he's old enough to defend himself is actually smart. As they needed a hero as soon as Alm was old enough to fight. Any sooner and he could be killed. 000 In the case of Azura's plan, they *don't* work out well because they result in: 1) 2 Siblings dying when you choose any route that isn't Revelations 2) They don't actually defeat Anankos 3) No one else is aware of Anankos so they can't actually do much about him. 4) All of her plans that aren't Rev result in the other side being more or less dismantled which helps Anankos' plan. 5) It's needlessly secretive when there's no advantage to being secretive. Especially when she can drag people to Valla like she does in Rev.

This. It's a weird plan, but it's not convoluted in the least. The plan literally hinges on "don't die Alm." That's hardly convoluted. He planted the seeds to have Alm grow up as a farm hand, and Mycen to ensure that Alm had the skills to be above and beyond a standard person. That's not convoluted at all. It worked exactly as he planed. Azura's aren't really convoluted in my eyes, just really stupid and/or naive. To the point that I'd say her character is horrible IMO. But... Sephiran gets the cake, because he goes way out of his way to ensure that his plan is needlessly more difficult than it has any right to be. Raising people to be counterproductive to his own plans because....?

This. And this is pretty much why I say his plan wins as the dumbest way to go about accomplishing that.

Because this requires the entire continent needing to be in on the war. If such is a case, then he *doesn't* need to do anything. There is no plan. It's convoluted to go through all of what he did to achieve that result if it's almost inevitable.