Oli!

Is there any particular character-change that you want to have happen as a result of this (such as using a specific method or influencing her personality in some way), or is it more of an open thing?

For what it's worth, World of Warcraft had the only healing class that I ever enjoyed in any game, ever. Resto Druid Master Race.

I think we've already established that age is not the issue, considering that "modern" swear words have been around just as long as most of the rest of the language. Personal Flavoring may be an issue, but age is not. That is incredibly debatable as there is a marked difference between when a word was first used and when it can be said to have entered common parlance with a relatively consistent definition. It is one thing to say that "fuck" was first used in the 14th century, and another thing entirely to say that its usage could be considered as a common swear in the same time period. "Fuck", to use it as an example, was commonly used to inappropriately refer to fornication from its inception. Its status as a "swear"--as an insulting word or adjective meant to offend or as an extreme expression--wasn't common until the mid-nineteenth century, so it can certainly be called anachronistic from certain points of view. But I digress. To briefly reiterate on the topic, whether or not people use such swears is up to them, but I personally will never see appropriate reason or circumstance for myself to use language that feels markedly out of place. The sources that I have presented seem to suggest a different viewpoint from the idea that you have presented. If you have opposing citations, I think it would be in the interest of everyone here to take a look, since it's relevant to the topic. Yes, the word "Fuck" was normally used to refer to various aspects of sex, which is identical to its usage today, save for its use as an interjection, exclamation, and intensifier. As a result, I have presented evidence that points to its use in such contexts from very early on; even its other usage, that of an Intensifier, was used as it is today in the 1500s as I presented somewhere else in this thread. Additionally, its use in the phrase "I don't give a fuck" took place in the 18th century, as did the its use to mean "damaged beyond repair." Considering its demeaning use in 1310, its various derivatives within Slang and Its Analogues, and its use as an intensifier, it seems safe to say that this was indeed a swear-word, or at least not high-brow language. From what we have gathered, therefore, it seems quite clear that the word was used in many of its modern contexts early on in history; regardless of whether or not you consider it to be a Swear, within the context of History, it is indeed appropriate for use. Whether or not it qualifies as a swearword is an entirely different and perhaps more complex argument, but is nonetheless irrelevant regarding its various historical usages, and their correlation to the rough time-period in which we would consider Final Fantasy to be set. In short, regardless of whether or not you consider the word Fuck to be a swear word in the offered historical contexts, the age of those quotes still give the word viable historical pretext to be used in Roleplay, given the age of the word and most of its usages. We may therefore conclude that the use of the word in these contexts has historical backing, which renders an objection on the grounds of the word and its meanings being "Modern" improper.

I think we've already established that age is not the issue, considering that "modern" swear words have been around just as long as most of the rest of the language. Personal Flavoring may be an issue, but age is not.

It's worth noting that the reason why Coerthas has snow is because when Dalamud dropped, all the aether in the air dicked-up the climes and made it cold. In other words, it's Magic Snow. Outside of Coerthas in places that should be roughly the same longitude, it isn't even snowing (Dravania, for instance). So if we know that climates are influenced by aether (honestly, what isn't in this setting?) then we can't really use geographical position to get a good hold on what it would be like. There's some concept art, though. EDIT: Regarding belly-windows, Ishgard wasn't always the frozen hell it now is, so it might have been a little more sensical to have a belly window once upon a time. If there's any reason to object to having a belly window, it's because you're fighting dragons and they can stab you.

fantasy mexico confirmed

Not making a statement on the content of the post itself, but isn't it a bit of a judgement to say that the judgements people are making are necessarily malicious?

Hah haaaaaaa I remember when this was a thing. This and the arguments over waypoints were enough to give a person Roleplayer PTSD.

They probably want to go with a "realistic" rendering style, which is good and all for weird-looking characters and static objects, but the creation of photo-realistic 3D people that don't hit the Uncanny Valley for a large chunk of your audience is still something that's being hammered out.

o shit ive been had!!!

I'm not expecting much fantastic story from the retelling, but the fight scenes will probably be nice. Racial choices regarding what people go to see at the box office is a well-documented thing that I can't argue against, but it is still nonetheless reflective of the larger issue of cultural supplanting (I really hate the term "whitewashing" so I'm not going to use it), and is in fact something that feeds into it. The twisting of other cultures for the sake of the Caucasian moviegoing public is seen by many as a problem all its own. I can't fight the unfortunate reality that we live in, but I still maintain that narratively and culturally speaking, unless the movie stops at some point and the characters go "hey, we're white people in Egypt, I wonder what this means for us and our outlook," then nothing is added to the film by their casting. It therefore seems that there really isn't any reason for the casting to be visually accurate to the people that would have lived there. At the end of the day, there are two arguments that I want to get across. The first is that this is not accurate. As stupid as it may seem, there are many, many people out there that believe that the racial makeup in this film is an accurate portrayal of Ancient Egypt, and teach other people that this is so to this day. Casting of this caliber and cultural supplanting is even present in documentaries, as I said earlier, and believe it or not, museum exhibits. Unlike movies, these are things that are supposed to be presented as historical fact, and still manage to cast their reenactment portions and deliver their explanations in a similar manner to this movie. The second argument that I want to get across is that this casting isn't done for any sort of narrative or artistic favor. It's done for the sake of pulling an audience. Unless the movie stops to reflect on or reference its casting choice in at least a subtle way, then it's not making any sort of artistic statement, and as a result, there's no reason to use the "it's a work of fiction / art" excuse for the casting, unless the point is to show that white people look pretty superimposed on Ancient Egyptian Greenscreens.

The 1997 film with Armand Assante. It's very good and apparently the go-to film for substitute teacher days 8-). Also I went back and added onto my original post because I don't like to multi post when it's just tiny additions. The short of it is, you can change the cast and the film would still be awful. Become a producer and give us the historically-accurate film we deserve. It doesn't even have to be historically accurate, I just want people that are billed to be from a place / culture to look like they are from that place and / or belong to that culture. I don't really care about the actual history, and I think the aesthetic actually looks great. It's just that the cast they chose does a disservice by perpetuating a widely believed and damaging inaccuracy about this culture. Also, it's more than just the aesthetic and the names used; Set vs. Horus for the Throne of Everything is an actual Egyptian myth, complete with eye-gouging. This movie is comparable to a retelling of the Odyssey, in fact.

...Were not from Denmark or Scotland, and also looked nothing like the people in this movie from the art we have, historically. They actually hated the guts of those groups and thought they were a bunch of savages. Not to mention that as I said, these people have little to no connection to the mythology of the film; even if it were set during the rule of the first group or the occupation of the second, it must be noted that these people would not have been present in such large numbers as to entirely supplant the existing population to the point where there are no colored people. So I can't buy this as an explanation. And that's all without touching the fact that these people are playing the gods of this culture. A culture of colored people. The best I'll get is a cast of people that are of the approximate race, visually (they don't even have to be, just at least make them look like it), that existed in that region at that time. What they looked like is not some sort of mystery, as there is plenty of sculpture and artwork that gives us a good idea; they were people of all skin-tones. There's also like a billion adaptations of the Odyssey so I have no idea which one you mean (though I also haven't seen any, so I guess it doesn't matter). I'd also argue that Greece and its culture doesn't have nearly as much of a problem with cultural supplanting as Egypt does.

It's not that tricky to debate, because we're actually doing it right now. Are people reading into it too much? That depends on who you ask. However, it's worth noting that the so-called "whitewashing" in Egypt is something that has been going on for decades, and is so effective that people think that this is what people in Egypt actually looked like. In fact, when my mother and her generation were growing up in the 50s and the 60s, they were literally being taught that Egypt was technically part of Europe because it bordered the Mediterranean. So Egypt in particular has a very long history of being forcefully tied to Caucasian Civilization. The more that this is perpetuated, the more people are going to believe it, and the longer that they're going to believe it. So believe it or not, it actually is a serious issue to a great deal of people, especially those that have an ethnic tie to that civilization, or who study it profusely. To put it into perspective, people are being told that the greatest culture in their ethnicity (save for perhaps Mali, though no one really learns about that empire anyway) isn't even theirs. It would be like someone saying for decades that "oh, that Roman empire? Naaaah man, that wasn't a European empire, that was us Native Americans! We built that, dude. Now go home and drink some Ovaltine, bud." To my knowledge, there is no other instance of the repeated erasure of a civilization in such a way, which is why this is an important issue. In fact, it could even be argued that the fact that you saw less of a problem with the "racial replacement" of one culture in a movie than with Egypt in the same circumstance is a testament to exactly how effective this is been (but it may also be confused for a personal attack, so I won't make it). This is something that's not only been done in movies, but in historical documentaries, textbooks, comics, and many, many other things. It's a problem. And it's certainly not "watering down." I personally challenge you to find an example of a game, book, or movie putting a creative spin on existing mythology or historical matters that takes extensive liberty with the replacing of a race by another that is not Caucasian. Single-person examples don't count; I want at least half a cast. As an afterthought, it's also worth noting that more and more movies these days make most of their bank from the International box office, so I'm not sure how much credence the idea of "pandering to a wide audience" really has.

So a movie about Norsemen and Vikings punching their way through Valhalla and fighting with Valkyries and riding Hresvelgr with a cast of nothing but black people with Bostonian accents wouldn't be weird to you then. Because that's what this is. Would I find that weird? Sure. That's a bit more extreme than what's going on in the trailer for the movie though. Not really? I don't see how one is more extreme than the other, they're perfectly parallel examples. People with little to no ethnic connection to the culture and location used as the backdrop for the film are cast in the entirety of its important roles and most others, to the point where the actual races that have a tie to that location and mythology have virtually no presence, while speaking with out-of-place accents. That's both this film and the theoretical Black Norsemen film I have presented, to the letter.

More like Jamie Lameister!!!!!

So a movie about Norsemen and Vikings punching their way through Valhalla and fighting with Valkyries and riding Hresvelgr with a cast of nothing but black people with Bostonian accents wouldn't be weird to you then. Because that's what this is.

Tell us about the white people

Interesting funfact: Everything is better when animated.

Half my family is from Trinidad and Tobago, so I grew up on curry. It is the One True Food.

_0VDveYwbuU Not this shit again.

This is very true. However, I was responding specifically to what was stated about: Which is both an etymology and inaccurate. However, the rest of this is a very fun thing that people have been playing with before. I once heard of several people using the term "Mhigan Victory" instead of "Pyrrhic Victory," for instance, since Eorzea has no General Pyrrhus. The problems that arise for things like that though is expecting everyone to agree on the phrase, as well as understand the reference in the first place.

This is a false etymology, apparently. It's especially noticeable if we go by dates. The papers regarding "Roger Fuckebythenavele" are from 1310, and his "last name" is clearly a sexual reference. It's therefore not unlikely that in the year 1310, you were able to say that you were going to "fuck someone," or "I'm going to fuck you," in the literal sense that you are going to have sexual intercourse with someone. The Battle of Agincourt, meanwhile, was in 1415, more than a hundred years after the word Fuck has been in use. This isn't quite the insulting form of "Fuck You," but if the phrase was still in practice under another meaning (or potentially even the same meaning, considering that the idea of domination through sex is a concept that's basically older than the English Language itself), it's highly unlikely that it came from something that was phonetically similar.

I haven't come up with anything on "I'll have to pass" or "bugger off," but the angry usage of "piss off," and "pissed off," seems to have come about in US army regiments during World War II, according to multiple sources. "Pissed" meaning "drunk" came about in 1929, according to this, while "pissed" meaning "angry" was an abbreviation of "pissed-off" that came about in 1971. EDIT: This book actually has an entry on Bugger Off. The date it gives is 1922. Bugger itself is cited as appearing in 1555, though under a very different usage than what we mean today. "Bugger" is not cited to refer to an undesireable or lowly person until 1719, and is not cited to be used as an expletive until 1923. This is seemly corroborated by Slang and Its Analogues Volume 1, which as of its publishing in 1890, has no expletive definition for Bugger. SECOND EDIT: This book also cites the earliest usage of Fuck to mean "damaged beyond repair" (i.e. "You fucked it up!") as being 1775, in the UK. Another interesting curiosity.