[005]
WretchedDog
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Personally I think the Storm King’s act of [[YouHaveOutLivedYourUsefulness betraying Tempest]] is less as StupidEvil act and more of a SmugSnake act. Then again it could be both.
to:
Personally I think the Storm King’s act of [[YouHaveOutLivedYourUsefulness betraying Tempest]] is less of a StupidEvil act and more of a SmugSnake act. Then again it could be both.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Personally I think the Storm King qualifies less as StupidEvil and more of a SmugSnake during his betrayal of Tempest
to:
Personally I think the Storm King’s act of [[YouHaveOutLivedYourUsefulness betraying Tempest]] is less as StupidEvil act and more of a SmugSnake act. Then again it could be both.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Nobody could argue with the fact that they have a
to:
Nobody could argue with the fact that they have a cult/religious fanatic motif. If it only goes that far, no problem.
It was primarily the speculation about the devs having an agenda against Christianity *in general* and trying to \"sneak\" it into the game that made the Applicability entry an issue (plus the vagueness about what was being referenced). Changing the trope name wouldn\'t undo that.
It was primarily the speculation about the devs having an agenda against Christianity *in general* and trying to \"sneak\" it into the game that made the Applicability entry an issue (plus the vagueness about what was being referenced). Changing the trope name wouldn\'t undo that.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Nobody could argue with the fact that they have a
to:
Nobody could argue with the fact that they have a \"religious fanatic\" motif. If it only goes that far, no problem.
It was primarily the speculation about the devs having an agenda against Christianity *in general* that made the Applicability entry an issue (plus the vagueness about what was being referenced). Changing the trope name wouldn\'t undo that.
It was primarily the speculation about the devs having an agenda against Christianity *in general* that made the Applicability entry an issue (plus the vagueness about what was being referenced). Changing the trope name wouldn\'t undo that.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
It's the same issue with a different name, honestly. Nobody could argue with the fact that they have a
to:
Nobody could argue with the fact that they have a \"religious fanatic\" motif. If that\'s as far as it goes, it\'s 100% valid.
It was primarily the speculation about the devs having an agenda that made the Applicability entry an issue (plus the vagueness about what was being referenced). Rehashing the \"anti-Christian agenda\" argument under a different name does not actually solve the problem.
It was primarily the speculation about the devs having an agenda that made the Applicability entry an issue (plus the vagueness about what was being referenced). Rehashing the \"anti-Christian agenda\" argument under a different name does not actually solve the problem.
