FANDOM


  • Simply, what allusions would you next want to see in the show? Bear in mind, that anything modern (read as: anything from the past 50 years or so) would likely not be in the show at least until "the end is nigh" (something like the 20th volume if we're being optimistic). So, while choices like Marvel or DC comics, Star Wars, video games, etc. may be obvious, they're not really applicable and should be left for later discussion (preferrably, something like 5 years from now).

    Now, that being said, RT has made room in the show for dual-allusions. This is made obvious by Team SSSN. Their team allusion is Journey to the West (3 demons/gods and one monk). Sun is Sun Wukong from the same book, but Neptune is the Greek God, and Sage is Aesop (also arguably of Greek descent). It is therefore possible that a Team Allusion could be based on X-Men or Star Wars while the individuals in that team are based on older archetypes (an Avengers motif could have Frankenstein as Hulk, an archangel as Vision, Lancelot as Iron Man, etc.) so, all hope is not lost.

    This is a topic which has probably already been discussed at length time and again. But dredging a dry well can sometimes turn up some interesting treasures. Let's see what this gets us.

      Loading editor
    • "The Elfin Knight": A Scottish Fairy Tale involving two Lords who decide to hunt upon a moor that is said to contain an Elfin Knight who kidnaps any who come in, one Lord, St. Clair, decides to wear a Shamrock as a sign of the Holy Trinity to be safe while the other, Gregory, dimisses both the tale of the Knight and the idea of wearing clover for protection as old wife's tales and the two set out for the hunt. There, they see the Elfin Knight, who Gregory sees as a regular knight clad in green and riding a black horse while St. Clair truly sees him as the Elfin knight riding a bird that seemed like a mortal steed. Gregory thinks St. Clair has gone mad and proceeds to follow the Knight while St. Clair then realized that Gregory was enchanted and set out to follow and free him.

      Gregory finally catches up to the Knight in a random green circle where he surronded by dancing Goblins. One grizzeled Goblin tries to warn Gregory off from entering, but Gregory insists on entering. The Elfin Knight then offers him an emerald chalice covered with rubys, filled to the brim with heather ale. Gregory then drinks it and notices too late that the cup never empties. He then goes numb and falls unconcious.

      St. Clair then came and the grizzeled Goblin warned him about entering. St. Clair listened and asked him about Gregory and what was going on here. The Goblin told him that Gregory was about to turned into what he was and forced to serve for seven years. The Goblin then told St. Clair that to free his friend, St. Clair would need to stay where he was until the bell rang for Martins (one of the times monks tradtionally prayed) then he had to walk around the circle nine times, then go in, never open his mouth while in the circle or the monster underneath would eat him, grab the chalice, and carry it outside the circle.

      St. Clair followed those instructions to the later, throwing the chalice from him once out of the circle. Then everything disapeared except Gregory, who St. Clair went and embraced him and rubbed him so that the feeling would return to his body. They looked for where St. Clair flung the cup, and instead find a grey whinstone with a drop of dew contained in a hollow crevice.

        Loading editor
    • Though really, some Celtic Fairy Tales would be fun. The main characters are already based on well-known German Fairy Tales.

        Loading editor
    • And some of the lesser known Fairy Tales, I can post some up later.

        Loading editor
    • So the potential characters from that would be based on Saint Clair, Gregory, the Elfin Knight, and the Goblin. Good stuff.

      We do also have a slew of other previously mentioned tales that were used in the speculation phase for characters like Yang (stories like Rumplestiltzkin, Sleeping Beauty, Alice in Wonderland) and... I'm going to bed...

        Loading editor
    • If the Sleeping Beauty character was able to sing people to sleep using her semblance and wielded a dust-spewing sword and shield, that would be cool.

        Loading editor
    • What I want is some allusions to my local folklore…since that aint going to happen I’ll settle for an allusion to the main protagonist of Rumpelstiltskin who makes threads out of dust for a living…it would be a nice way to explain the waving dust into clothes aspect of the show.

        Loading editor
    • That is a really interesting story, actually. I'd love to see more types of those tales in the show (along with ones from the Scandiavian countries, Russia, Germany, maybe some Czech and middle eastern tales - really anything like that.)

      Also, I'd like some allusions to actual people, like some of the crazier Greeks and Romans from history (I'm looking at you, Nero and Caligula).

        Loading editor
    • Arancia could be the name of a genderbend for Lawrence of Arabia (in the story, he is called El Orenz, or whatever). Penny and Emerald are precedents that a character needn't have crossdressed to be a genderbend.

        Loading editor
    • @OP: Perfectly sure reaaallly modern stuff like X-Men or Star Wars is no-no to allude when it comes to RWBY. Though I do know a great deal of Gods and tales that I wouldn't mind being "alluded" in RWBY.

      Someone mentioned celtic tales. My response: Cu Chulainn, the Celtic (or more precisely, Scottish) Badass.

        Loading editor
    • I wouldn't mind seeing some native american folklore references, maybe a wendigo grimm.

      Aztec mythology is pretty interesting, lot of potential in there.

      maybe soe good old fashioned ghost stories?

        Loading editor
    • A Quetzalcoatl would be a great Grimm. A King Taijitu variant with wings.

        Loading editor
    • Lord of the Rings, Chronicles of Narnia, Robin Hood, and Hunt for the Red October that would make interesting allusion characters and still be in the right timeframe while being clasics.

      Real question is, would Doctor Who count since it started 52 years ago in 1963? ;)

        Loading editor
    • If they did Doctor Who, I'd want at least all ...thirteen? Fourteen?...of him. Just scattered around the world somewhere. We don't have to see them all at once, but one every now and then would be pretty cool (and it would be even cooler if they all kept in touch so what one knows the others know, and RWBY meets one, then meets another and gets really confused).

      They could be like an organisation for the cataloguing of wild animals and plants, and how they are surviving or spreading in Grimm infested forest, and bringing back whatever findings they could to hopefully help humanity spread across the planet.

        Loading editor
    • Doctor Who... isn't Ozpin our resident Doctor Who?

      LiveandSound wrote:
      @OP: Perfectly sure reaaallly modern stuff like X-Men or Star Wars is no-no to allude when it comes to RWBY.

      Well, Roman, Tukson, and SSSN are proof that modern influences can be utilized for at least the character design.

      We know at least a few character names that were unmistakeable from the tweet by Monty such as Cobalt, Mint, and Tempest (what color is tempest?). There have been theories about what role they might have in the show, but anyone have any idea who they could be based on?

      Not important, I guess. Just a curiosity.

      Cyrano de Bergerac, William Shakespeare, Edgar Allen Poe, HP Lovecraft as characters. Hell, maybe Cyril Ian is based on Cyrano.

        Loading editor
    • or it could be an incredibly lame pun.

        Loading editor
    • An incredibly lame pun... based on Cyrano. Retcon City.

        Loading editor
    • Mercen-X wrote:

      -Isn't Ozpin our resident Doctor Who?

      -Tempest (what color is tempest?). 

      -If his body temperature is of about 12ºC or less, has 2 working hearts, and of course, revives as a new person everytime he dies, then yes.

      -Marine Blue.

        Loading editor
    • Well, we haven't seen him NOT do those things.

        Loading editor
    • Phantomlink959 wrote:
      Well, we haven't seen him NOT do those things.

      We haven't seen his 2 hearts and extremely-cold body?

      He could however revive like the Doctor. What if his Semblance is reencarnation? And his current self just happens to be albino?

        Loading editor
    • exactly. never seen proof he ISN'T Remnants version of a Time Lord.

        Loading editor
    • He's an albino now?

        Loading editor
    • He can't be - his eyes are brown.

        Loading editor
    • Dorian gray and Vlad the Impaler(not necessarily Dracula).

        Loading editor
    • He's just drunk.


      If we accept that he's much older than he looks (a proposition I'm still a bit leery of), then the simplest explanation is just that his aura, not semblance, allows it. Considering the health benefits of a strong aura, it's not beyond possibility, and far less problematic than reincarnation or temporal manipulation or other explanations.


      As to allusions, I'd be interested in allusions to the Matter of France, the Matter of Britain, and the Matter of Rome. The Faerie Queen, perhaps. The Kalevala, since I'm currently reading it. As Live and others said, Celtic myth. The Fianna could be a historical band of Hunters.  Slavic myths and folklore (I have some half-fleshed OCs inspired by some of those). Really, just pillage Lang's Fairy Books in general. Some characters inspired by folk songs. Live and I had a discussion pertaining to the possibility of the parallels between Gilgamesh and Enkidu and humans and faunus, both fighting monstrous beasts, as an ancient tale in universe. For me, it's less particular things and more the realization that there's so much to draw from. Name anything, and I could appreciate an allusion.

        Loading editor
    • read A Redtails Dream and Stand Still. Stay Silent. the author drew heavily on the Kalevala for ARtD, and SSSS is just plain good reading.

        Loading editor
    • Phantomlink959 wrote:
      read A Redtails Dream

      It has nothing to do with that anime about the guy who turns into a red-haired twintail-haired little girl to fight otaku aliens.......right?

        Loading editor
    • not even close. it's hard for me to explain, but it can be found here

      For reference, a redtail is a redtailed fox.

        Loading editor
    • Another character I would like to see is a character based off "Hatter Madigan" from "the Looking Glass Wars" series... who himself is based off the Mad Hatter. The appeal of the "TLGW" character as opposed to the straight "Mad Hatter" is that in that series the character belongs to a group of elite warriors that specialize in weaponized hats... though he is pretty brutally efficient with almost all weapons, which is also attributed to training from that organization.

        Loading editor
    • I'm sure the main motivation for drawing from the original sources is so that the writers can make their own original twists to the archetype. So the original Mad Hatter would be better suited than any later iteration, no matter how cool they may be.

        Loading editor
    • Well, if that's the case, they've been doing a rather bad job, since none of the characters's archetypes are the same as their inspirations's. Except maybe Pyrrha and Achilles both being The Ace, although even then they are extremely different in between.

        Loading editor
    • Despite what Surana may insist, Pyrrha is definitely NOT having tons of lesbian sex. which pretty much confirms the gap betwen source and charater.

        Loading editor
    • Phantomlink959 wrote:
      Despite what Surana may insist, Pyrrha is definitely NOT having tons of lesbian sex. which pretty much confirms the gap betwen source and charater.
      • groans

      - Surana

        Loading editor
    • You brought it on yourself, being a two-trick pony.

        Loading editor
    • Lol

      Anyway, I only mean to say that they don't want fans to be able to draw links between different iterations of characters. Penny can be linked to Nu13 from BlazBlue due to her fighting style (semblance?), but I don't think Nu was ever intended to be a Pinocchio archetype so it doesn't matter.

      So then they wouldn't want to use the Hatter Madigan version of the character because it would be too recognizable as a standalone character and RT would be called out for ripping off the character. If they make a Mad Hatter character whose only resemblance to Hatter Madigan is that he uses his hat a weapon, then there would be no correlation for fans to make except for their own wish-fulfillment. Also, RT would likely avoid using Madigan's physical form for their character design because that would be too blatant. They could base his physical design on some other recent character who wears a distinguishable hat (like Jiro from Black Blood Brothers or Undertaker or Ciel from Black Butler).

        Loading editor
    • Shadow at Morning wrote:
      You brought it on yourself, being a two-trick pony.

      Holy shit, I got Surana to do an exhasperates groan. I SURANA-D SURANA!

        Loading editor
    • Mercen-X wrote:

      So then they wouldn't want to use the Hatter Madigan version of the character because it would be too recognizable as a standalone character and RT would be called out for ripping off the character. If they make a Mad Hatter character whose only resemblance to Hatter Madigan is that he uses his hat a weapon, then there would be no correlation for fans to make except for their own wish-fulfillment. Also, RT would likely avoid using Madigan's physical form for their character design because that would be too blatant. They could base his physical design on some other recent character who wears a distinguishable hat (like Jiro from Black Blood Brothers or Undertaker or Ciel from Black Butler).

      My point was that the Mad Hatter can be made into a RWBYesque character... Hatter Madigans weaponized hats and gun expertise showed uniqueness on par with RWBY... they were transformative weapons he wielded like a hunter(though I don't recall any of his hats being guns).

      In other words... it would be based on the Mad Hatter, but because of RWBY's themes it would look/function closest to the Hatter Madigan iteration

        Loading editor
    • Surely, you can forgive my confusion as you specifically stated you wanted a character who was "based off Hatter Madigan from the Looking Glass Wars."

        Loading editor
    • Phantomlink959 wrote:
      Shadow at Morning wrote:
      You brought it on yourself, being a two-trick pony.
      Holy shit, I got Surana to do an exhasperates groan. I SURANA-D SURANA!

      Congratulations, you win the grand prize of absolutely nothing.

      - Surana

        Loading editor
    • Mercen-X wrote: Surely, you can forgive my confusion as you specifically stated you wanted a character who was "based off Hatter Madigan from the Looking Glass Wars."

      I can.

        Loading editor
    • 173.58.100.7 wrote:
      Phantomlink959 wrote:
      Shadow at Morning wrote:
      You brought it on yourself, being a two-trick pony.
      Holy shit, I got Surana to do an exhasperates groan. I SURANA-D SURANA!
      Congratulations, you win the grand prize of absolutely nothing.

      - Surana

      It's everything I could have dreamed of.

        Loading editor
    • Phantomlink959 wrote:

      173.58.100.7 wrote

      Congratulations, you win the grand prize of absolutely nothing.

      - Surana

      It's everything I could have dreamed of.

      So you dreamed of the Yuri in your dreams disappearing?

        Loading editor
    • it was getting in the way of my zombie killing.

        Loading editor
    • Phantomlink959 wrote: it was getting in the way of my zombie killing.

      yeah... it is disturbing waiting for the femslash zombies to finish isn't it....

        Loading editor
    • No, it's merely difficult to snipe with my slingshot when Amelia Pond and Martha Jones are 'using' it....


      I've been watching doctor who...

        Loading editor
    • 73.Anon.52 wrote:

      Phantomlink959 wrote: it was getting in the way of my zombie killing.

      yeah... it is disturbing waiting for the femslash zombies to finish isn't it....

      That's just creepy.

      - Surana

        Loading editor
    • So then... zombies, yes?

        Loading editor
    • I've been thinking....would it be good or bad to make an Alice-based character be mentally ill?

        Loading editor
    • Depends on the illness. I would think that something that interferes with her perception of reality would be fine, since that's kind of what Wonderland is.

        Loading editor
    • Like, the extreme kind of delusions? Those tend to be present only in the big mental diseases, like Schizophrenia.

      And in more mild ones that only arguably count as mental illness, like Paranoia. But then again, paranoia is more of a symptom than a true illness.

      Personally, I'd like something like American McGee's Alice. That is, her parents died in a fire that burned down the whole house. Alice was traumatized and was sent to an asylum.

        Loading editor
    • American McGee's Alice was awesome. And then when she finally got out of the asylum, she was sent to a home where the doctor was brainwashing the kids into 'companions' for his associates.

        Loading editor
    • And she was still insane, even by the end of the second game. So....win?

        Loading editor
    • So much 'seeing magic mushrooms everywhere' win.

        Loading editor
    • If I stay up for more than twenty four hours I start seeing sparkly pink butterflies that dance around me and speak in Alix Wilton Regan's voice. They're surprisingly philosophical.

      - Surana 

        Loading editor
    • Concept: Alice is a brainwashed agent of a shady organization; the programming she has had to endure has resulted in a fractured personality.

      Not original, but I don't think it's been done with an Alice character before (except for Alice from Resident Evil, but she's not actually based on Alice despite the Red Queen/White Queen references).

        Loading editor
    • The members of Wonderland could be other agents, or her handlers. Like, the Red Queen could be the one sending her off on missions, and that's why she sees her as a controlling, bloodthirsty person.

        Loading editor
    • Mercen-X wrote:
      Concept: Alice is a brainwashed agent of a shady organization; the programming she has had to endure has resulted in a fractured personality.

      That.....is not Alice at all.

      I was thinking more of a Huntress that was sent on a mission far away from the kingdoms, and was so traumatized by the events that happened there that her view of reality got "fractured".

        Loading editor
    • That.....is not Alice at all.

      I have to believe you're being provocative with cause as you go on to suggest a version of Alice that is not significantly removed from my own. By the way, is your version assuming Alice visited some place similar to Wonderland thus driving her insane? Because the original story never gave any indication that Alice was or became mad during or due to the events in Wonderland.

      I'll remind you that the original story of Alice was called Alice's Adventures Under Ground. What better "Under Ground" allegory than some underhanded dealings? Possibly, she was kidnapped and forcibly inducted into their "agency" (hence the brainwashing). Perhaps, it's this brainwashing that leads her to believe in a (possibly nonexistent) place like Wonderland when, in fact, the characters she created in her head are really her fellows agents.

        Loading editor
    • LiveandSound wrote: That.....is not Alice at all.

      tbh... I don't recall anything truly close to the source material indicating Alice was in any way crazy... she was merely perceived as such, it might be funny to see an Alice allusion as the school psychologist... with a pet based off the Cheshire Cat and a "Red Queen" based teammate with a white rabbit.

        Loading editor
    • Mercen-X wrote: -By the way, is your version assuming Alice visited some place similar to Wonderland thus driving her insane? Because the original story never gave any indication that Alice was or became mad during or due to the events in Wonderland.

      -I'll remind you that the original story of Alice was called Alice's Adventures Under Ground.

      -Considering the very weird place that Alice ended up in both "-in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking Glass", she either is at least partially insane, the universe she lives in is insane, or she has very, very, very weird dreams. The idea is that Wonderland and that Mirrorland are so strange, that one can't tell if they actually exist (within the story) or if they are pure imagination.

      Which is why I wouldn't mind an Alice that was at least a bit mentally ill.

      My headcanon is that faaaaar away from the Kingdoms, the Grimm are no pussy animals, but more like Eldritch Abominations and as ugly as them. The idea was that Alice went on a mission to one of those places, and it went badly, leaving her scarred for life, so much, that her mind, as a defensive mechanism, basically "sends" her to Wonderland. Better to swim in happy (if weird) fantasies than drown in the horrifying reality, more or less.

      -I'll remind you that whoever told you that was spitting bullshit. The original story was the simple Alice in Wonderland, not "adventures under ground". I wouldn't be surprised if some adaptation was called as such, but the original was called Alice in Wonderland, simple as that. Followed by Alice Through The Looking Glass.

        Loading editor
    • 73.Anon.52 wrote:

      tbh... I don't recall anything truly close to the source material indicating Alice was in any way crazy... she was merely perceived as such, it might be funny to see an Alice allusion as the school psychologist... with a pet based off the Cheshire Cat and a "Red Queen" based teammate with a white rabbit.

      Because she kind of isn’t…if memory serves the source material specifically mention she got out of wonderland by being woken up by her sister from a dream...

      Alice in Wonderland is, in my opinion of course, a story about growing up narrated via an acid trip, so of course most people choose to focus on the latter while ignoring the former…honestly I love your idea of Alice so much I’m half tempted to make an oc with exactly that premise.

        Loading editor
    • -Okay.

      -By original story, I meant the first known version written by the author. On 26 November 1864 Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, aka Lewis Caroll, penned the original manuscript with handdrawn illustrations at the request of Alice Pleasance Liddell, and titled it "Alice's Adventures Under Ground" and, yes, there are printed versions possessing this same title. The original printed version of Alice was published in 1865 as "-in Wonderland" because the new version possessed additional content and very likely the new title had more appeal.

        Loading editor
    • So you were talking about the beta concept?

        Loading editor
    • Betas are usually released to gather opinion about a project so the final release can be spruced up to meet mass appeal. Dodgson had already begun finalizing the Wonderland version of his story by the time he gave Alice her copy of Under Ground. Basically, the Liddell girls wanted to hear a story, and Alice asked him to write down the story he told for her and he later decided to turn it into a publication shortly before giving Alice the original manuscript. I don't really know if it could be considered a beta.

        Loading editor
    • Mercen-X wrote:
      I don't really know if it could be considered a beta.

      Well it wasn't the final product.

        Loading editor
    • All right. Fine. "The beta version of Lewis Caroll's book was called Alice's Adventures Under Ground." Take care to realize, however, it's the same book minus the Cheshire Cat and the Mad Tea Party.

        Loading editor
    • So the same thing, just without the awesome character and without a british's favourite drink?

        Loading editor
    • Well, to be fair, wikipedia says Dodgson added "episodes about the Cheshire Cat and the Mad Tea-Party", so possibly those characters still existed in general but didn't have any portion of the book dedicated to them in particular.

        Loading editor
    • Biblical:

      Moses as another staff-wielder. Staff could become snake-like (whip-like and one end could have an actual snakebite grip-power)

      Auron (either Aaron or Ramses, preferably the latter)... could act as Moses' "voice" since the former is "not good with words."

        Loading editor
    • It's hard to use Bible-based characters. You know how people complained like hell just for Jaune and Neptune discussing about Weiss in ep9? Imagine something much easier to make them mad for even more pityful stuff.

        Loading editor
    • Err…debatable, as far as I’ve seen you can use anyone short of the J-man and Big Daddy, the last two tend to be gambles.

        Loading editor
    • All of them are gambles, those 2 just much more. Christian religions have many extremists with little tolerance. If you portray a religious character in even a slightly bad way, they can easily get mad, unless it's from the Renaissance era.

      Plus, just using Bible-based characters can make Atheists mad. Just saying "God" is enough for them to practically shoot you like John Marston.

        Loading editor
    • So I noticed.

      - Surana

        Loading editor
    • Live: Not among any atheists I know. They're literary characters, and thus exactly as offensive as Achilles or Zeus. That is, not at all, when used in a fictional context, rather than to justify real-world brutality or stupidity.

        Loading editor
    • Shadow at Morning wrote:
      Live: Not among any atheists I know. They're literary characters, and thus exactly as offensive as Achilles or Zeus. That is, not at all, when used in a fictional context, rather than to justify real-world brutality.

      You either barely know any atheists, or you're a lucky bastard. Atheists despise christianity with a passion as hot as a Seraphim. Most would nuke the pope if they could. The number of atheists that just don't believe in God and don't hate the people that do are a pretty small minority.

      Being literary characters doesn't change much. They don't care about any religion that isn't christian. Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Celtic, Norse, it's all fair game to them. But Christian religions are the ones they hate.

      They can easily hate a biblical character, yet love a greek character. It's like a double standard, just as absurd but not as controversial. Not saying they will instantly hate any biblical character that appears. But more likely. The end result obviously depends on the performance, but you would be walking a more thin line than usual.

      And of course, if it's something arguably anti-Christianity like Shin Megami Tensei (where you can even defeat God) all the better for them.

        Loading editor
    • I would thank you to not dictate to me what a group feels that I am a member of and you are not.

      You're flatly wrong, in my experience. My anecdotal evidence is not particularly useful, but I'd like citations on your statements, because I'm rather more familiar with lines of atheist thought than you are, being one of them myself. Nothing you said has any resemblance to reality that I'm aware of, and I have more than a decent understanding of atheists in general.

      What you describe is a particularly virulent strain of antitheism. Antitheism is the position that religions are harmful in the net. But even they (and I speak as one with significant sympathy for that viewpoint) are in general not so extreme as to want to purge religion by the sword. Rather, they want to minimize the influence of religion on society, and get it out of government and policy decisions. Atheists in general mostly simply want to live and let live. We support secular government, freedom of expression, and yes, freedom of religion. This is because in many places, atheists are ostracized or even killed. Therefore, enshrining these freedoms makes everyone happy. These are humanistic principles, and while atheism is not synonymous with humanism, the two often go hand in hand.

      What you propose is that most atheists are akin to Daesh. That's a high-order defamation, and you'd better have some goddamn good evidence, or I will ask you to kindly shut up and not grievously insult tens of millions of people the world over.

      Cite up or shut up.

        Loading editor
    • If that's the case then it's the same as Feminazis that call themselves Feminists when they are not. If that's the case then I apologize. Although the number of anti-theists is troubling, especially on the web.

        Loading editor
    • I agree fully with Shadow. 

      - Surana 

        Loading editor
    • It's the GIFT, as it were. People on the internet are incendiary and radical, espousing opinions which they'd never hold off-line, news at eleven.

      As to that, it's basically parallel. Though I'd contend that (using your example) they are feminists, merely radical ones who don't particularly represent the main (it's always hard to tell on the internet; see above). Especially with atheists, since there's no litmus test beyond the fundamental; we're inherently anarchic that way. There's no one to say they aren't atheists, especially since they actually are.

      But they are by far the minority. Most don't particularly care. They just want to get on with their lives, same as everyone else, and only really pay attention to religion insofar as it affects them (which, at least in the US, means fairly often, given demographics and recent strains of theocratic sociopolitical thought). Atheists' opinions and positions vary wildly, since there's nothing really resembling doctrine; the closest you can come are Enlightenment principles, and those are very open to interpretation. And so a coherent worldview might be constructed that sees putting the pope to the sword as a good thing, but most people (atheists included) would be rightly shocked and appalled.

        Loading editor
    • Shadow at Morning wrote:
      It's the GIFT, as it were. People on the internet are incendiary and radical, espousing opinions which they'd never hold off-line, news at eleven.

      I think that explains about half of 4chan's behavior.

      - Surana 

        Loading editor
    • @Shadow: Though in all honesty, all the atheists I've seen only seem to have issues, even the smallest, unimportant ones, with Christianity and it's derivated religions. Protestants, Catholics, Evangelists....whenever I see an atheist comment on their views on Religion, it's always regarding a christian religion, or more rarely a muslim one (But that is for another reason...). 

      I get it they are the most common and as such the most mentioned, but what about other religions? They don't seem to care about them, even the most radical atheists, but they do seem to care about the christian ones.

      In fact, in hindsight, I have an assumption (for lack of more precise words) about some atheists; A % of them does not "not believe in God or similar". They do believe one exists, but not the same God all-loving Goody 2shoes Christian religions believe in.

      PS: Going out, finish responding later.

        Loading editor
    • The reason we mostly see atheism in the West taking issue with Christianity and occasionally Islam is that those are the most familiar, and the most powerful. It is historically Christian and Muslim societies in which the atheists we are familiar with exist. They also have historically had the most influential theocrats, and their shortcomings are more obvious. Modern Western atheism largely defined itself in contrast to Christianity, because it was in Christian societies in which it arose, and it continues to exist in largely-Christian societies, where many atheists are deconverts from some manner of such, and are thus most preoccupied with it. Similarly, Islam has had a long history with the West, and the increasing geopolitical relevance and awareness of predominantly-Muslim regions shapes the discourse in the West. Contrariwise, large religions like Hinduism are less familiar, and have had less of an influence on atheism in the West. Presumably, if one were to peruse writings by Indian atheists in their own languages, one would find more focus on Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam, and less on Christianity. And remember what I said about not particularly caring about religion in general? That's clearly an extension of the general human trait of not giving fucks about things distant and not affecting one. More minor religions like Shintoism aren't causing trouble for atheists, or making noise about theocracy in the West, and so are relatively harmless.

      As to your last point, a Stephen Roberts quote is useful: I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. This is an imperfect quote, and I don't really want to get mired in the details of it, but the central point is informative. To atheists, all gods have basically the same level of legitimacy, since they're unproven (I speak in general terms here, and there may be people who disagree). The term God, while often used to refer to the Christian god, is a relative term, not exclusive to that particular deity. Allah literally means the god in Arabic, for instance. It's just that to us, that term is so closely linked to Christianity, that saying one disbelieves in God might allows one to have a different religion. But as you've realized, an atheist's disbelief in God also means disbelief in gods in general, merely emphasising the first on account of the above.

        Loading editor
    • -From what I gather though, most negative comments on Islam seem more fueled by the irrational hate towards the muslims thanks to 9/11 and less on the religion itself. At least on the most vocal people. Interestingly, while people acknowledge Values Dissonance with multiple cultures like the Mayans, who sacrificed people almost daily, they seem to deliberately avoid using it when it comes to Muslims. (Apparently, having multiple wives and marrying young girls, even if there is no actual sexual act involved after, is much worse than sacrificing innocent people, including kids, possibly against their will).

      -So while atheism=Gods don't exist, at least some atheists simply believe "the christian god probably doesn't exist, but some other god might"?

        Loading editor
    • Part of the first is the temporal aspect. We account for human rights abuses historically by relativism, because the world was, for a lack of a better term, less civilized. But now, though cultures have different values, those practices are causing real harm, and the global community (at least in the West) views them as abuses. There is indeed some degree of cultural imperialism here, but from a humanistic perspective, it's an obligation to ask them to stop.

      As to the second point, that's exactly the opposite of the meaning I intended; it's one of the flaws. While one can be atheistic, for lack of a better term, toward an arbitrary set of deities, the term is generally understood to mean the rejection of all gods, due to philosophy or lack of evidence. Thus, while people can be atheistic toward one god and not toward another, that's merely a property of having a non-henotheistic belief system. Atheism proper, as understood generally, means the rejection of all of them. While everyone is to some extent atheistic by that metric, they'd not be termed atheists, using the common definition of the term.

        Loading editor
    • -In China, last time I checked, some people got married forcefully to some other person because their parents already decided it against their will since they were kids or even before being born in some cases. That's not too different from what the Muslims do. Plus they used to practice and encourage incest far longer than most other nations, and some families still do these days (reason why they have such low physical variety). No one complains about neither when they are mentioned. Just saying.

      -But....doesn't that mean the number of Atheists is actually lower than most people think?

        Loading editor
    • Yes, there is some oft-significant degree of xenophobia involved, but again, it's a matter of awareness. And again, general apathy. It is also an issue of separability. Religion, while often deeply intertwined with other aspects of culture, can be more readily distinguished from other factors of culture, and can in some ways be more amenable to change, or at least a way to try is more easily seen. And at some point, what you're saying boils down to the age-old question of, "why are you worried about A when B is happening?"

      As to the second, I don't see how. Only those who disbelieve in all gods are termed atheists, and those who disbelieve in some gods but not others are not termed such; theyre numbered among the appropriate religion. 

        Loading editor
    • -What I was saying basically boils down instead to "Why are you complaining about A doing C but when B does C you don't say anything?". Not quite the same as that old question.

      -I said most people. Many call themselves atheists when they aren't really yet believe they are. They could kinda screw up the calculations. So the number of real atheists wouldn't be as high as some people think.

        Loading editor
    • Interesting debate.

      - Surana

        Loading editor
    • I'd call them separate issues, given that the approaches to solving them are quite different. So then the A/B comparison makes sense. The seeming hypocrisy of it is noted, though. Again, familiarity.

      I don't think so? Most people who call themselves atheists are in fact such. Could you explain a bit more what you mean? In the final analysis, it does have to come down to self-identification. And I'd point out that there'd also be many atheists who call themselves Christian, or identify as another religion, whether by cultural affinity or to avoid persecution.

        Loading editor
    • Very complex indeed.

      - Surana

        Loading editor
    • -Damn hypocrites...

      -That's kinda the issue. People can easily identify as X, but unless you truly know all of them, how do you know they are truly X? And even if you know they aren't, do they know they aren't actually X?

      In a group of 10 people, 8 say they are atheists. 5 are true atheists, 1 believes he's an atheist but actually isn't, and the other 2 are lying. But you don't know none of them. So how would you know which ones are the true atheists, and which ones aren't? It would screw up your calculations.

        Loading editor
    • LiveandSound wrote: -Damn hypocrites...

      -That's kinda the issue. People can easily identify as X, but unless you truly know all of them, how do you know they are truly X? And even if you know they aren't, do they know they aren't actually X?

      In a group of 10 people, 8 say they are atheists. 5 are true atheists, 1 believes he's an atheist but actually isn't, and the other 2 are lying. But you don't know none of them. So how would you know which ones are the true atheists, and which ones aren't? It would screw up your calculations.

      "In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists."

      This is not confusing at all... if you don't believe, you don't believe. You could argue belief in things like Karma or rebirth disqualifies you from being an atheist, but in general it does not.

      The problem here Live is that you have attributed outright hatred as a dogma which absolutely does not exist, because atheists have no written dogma... they aren't an organized religion so much as a term attributed to those who do not believe. I agree with Shadow 100%, atheists in general only hate religion to the extent it applies what atheists view as a fictional rules-set upon their everyday lives, the reason Christianity and Islam are often targets of their rhetoric is because those 2 religions are full of high ranking politicians who enforce laws based on those religions... you don't even need to try to find such abuses of power, which atheists themselves were often targets of, this is the reason for any perceived "sensitivity".

      However, the continued success of books with biblical allusions generally proves that most can tolerate it within fiction.

        Loading editor
    • ....Anon, I think you responded to the wrong post. Because nothing I said in that specific post had much to do with what you said.

      Hell, you missed the whole point. How do you get the exact numbers, if there are factors (people) that can throw off your calculations (lie about being atheists or are not true atheists, assuming you don't know either)?

        Loading editor
    • There's also the problem of people like me, who don't believe but don't disbelieve in any gods either. We just kind of hover in the middle, and most of us call ourselves atheists for ease of giving ourselves a label, even though we are agnostic. Sometimes people mislabel themselves, which lends to the miscalculations on the true size of such beliefs.

        Loading editor
    • Indeed. It seems mostly a recapitulation of the point I made earlier.

      As to the numbers issue, I think it comes down to self-identification. It's not like there's a reliable way of testing personal beliefs in a way useful for demographic analysis that isn't basically a survey. And this is hardly a problem unique to counting atheists. In fact, I'd call it a general problem of idealogy demographics. Let's turn the question around, for instance. Say there are eight  self-reported Christians of a particular denomination in a population of ten.  Four incontestably hold firm to the doctrine, one is actually an atheist who fears social consequence, another is doubting, and two don't particularly care enough, but grew up in it.  This scenario is not meaningfully different from yours. While it might be desirable to know how many people actually hold a belief, it's something of an open question, because such things are ultimately self-reported, and trying to say that a person is not really a group member is folly; it oversimplifies the vast and nebulous web of human idealogical positions, and establishing a litmus test like that begins to reek of Scotsman, since in most cases there's not a meaningful standard. I'm not an expert in demographics, nor in the methods used to estimate such things, but given they're such complicated things, there's a lot of room for approximation. And, at the end of the day, it does not really matter whether they actually hold that position, so long as they are sufficiently similar. 

      Spirited: Agnosticism pertains to truth value, and so combines well with an actual position on theism. For instance, I'm an agnostic atheist, which means I disbelieve in gods, but am not sure. A gnostic atheist would hold that they know for sure that there are no gods, while a gnostic theist would be unwavering in their convictions. An agnostic theist believes, but acknowledges there's room for doubt. Of course, this is only one schema, and there are others, though this is useful. Weak/Strong, Implicit/Explicit, various others, all of varying degrees of similarity and overlap, but generally arrayed around this question. Then there are apatheists, who don't care about the question.


      And it occurs to me that we might want to move discussion of this elsewhere, as we're kinda hijacking the thread.

        Loading editor
    • I thought Gnostics were the people that followed the Gnosticism religion. One with something about rejecting the material world made by the Demiurge and embracing the spiritual world.

        Loading editor
    • I dunno! I just know that I don't believe or disbelieve, and when I googled the definition of agonstic, it told me that that's what it was. I literally have no opinion either way on religion, nor do I particularly care or want an opinion.

        Loading editor
    • It seems pretty contradictory though. If you believe, you don't disbelieve. If you disbelieve, you don't believe. If you don't believe, you disbelieve. If you disbelieve, you don't believe.

      It's pretty much impossible to neither believe nor disbelieve. It's like saying "I've never opened nor closed my eyes", since if you never opened it, they were closed, and if you never closed them, they were open (get the logical fallacy?). Unless you mean "believe in X but disbelieve in Y" or something along those lines, which is pretty different and more sensical.

        Loading editor
    • I dunno. It's less belief and more apathy. I don't agree with either terms of view because I've never really been bothered about it. I grew up in a religious household, but it doesn't affect me, I don't subscribe to it, and I don't care if anyone does belive, but if it can actually be proven then I'll accept it.

      ...Does that technically make me atheist? I dunno, religion and theocratic views are hard.

        Loading editor
    • ....I think, that belief in something or lack thereof has nothing to do with caring about it or not. Some people believe in God, but don't particularly care about religion.

        Loading editor
    • Well, I don't believe, but I don't disbelieve. Disbelief to me seems to be the thought that there is no god whatsoever, and Belief is the thought that there is one, definitely. I don't really know for myself, which means I waver back and forth. Hence, agnostic.

      It's just that I really can't be bothered trying to figure it out for myself as well.

        Loading editor
    • Personally, I don't think it matters one way or another how many atheists exist and whom among them are true atheists. I also don't think anyone would care if RT put Biblical characters in RWBY because, for one, they would have to change their names to match CNR anyway. Nobody gives a rat's ass if Jesus is in a story under a different name. Does anyone recall Jordan Collier?

      @Spirit: I agree with Live that you can't have it both ways. If you don't "disbelieve," then on some level, you believe. Belief is not a rock-solid position, it's an understanding of possibility even in regards to something which cannot scientifically be proven. I am a Christian myself. I and thousands like me struggle everyday to maintain our belief that 1) there is a god, 2) there is only one god, 3) there are miracles, 4) god loves us despite being wrathful, and at least 10 other things. This in the face of adversities and scientific discoveries which collaborate daily in an almost conscious attempt to disrupt these beliefs.

      If you've ever watched The Santa Clause, then you know that "seeing isn't believing, believing is seeing." In this way, you are aware of something that at least some part of you deems true because you do not dismiss it out of hand. Even people who struggle to disprove things have to believe in it on some level otherwise why the hell would they waste their lives trying to disprove said things? Belief and doubt form a symbiotic relationship. Belief cannot exist without doubt and vice versa. If we had no doubts, we wouldn't have belief, we would have factual knowledge which is a completely different thing. We do have factual knowledge about events that have occurred within the Bible. We don't have factual proof of the miracles that have occurred because human beings are known to lie (whether in favor of or in decrying said miracles).

        Loading editor
    • TL;DR : Doubt and Disbelief are not the same thing

        Loading editor
    • @Mercen, I believe Spirited was referring to a belief that some god exists, as opposed to a specific one. The difference between those who typically can become caught up in a cult with a good front-man(or convert to another religion), and those who outright refuse to believe in anything.

        Loading editor
    • That's exactly what I was referring to, Anon. Not a specific belief in one god, but the possibility that some god exists. I just couldn't find the words myself.

        Loading editor
    • Interesting.

      - Surana

        Loading editor
    • I'm not sure what changes. Just because you don't believe in my god, doesn't mean you're not a believer... in possibility or otherwise. Apathy doesn't mean you don't care whether god or a god exists (in fact, it pretty much just means that you don't stress over it). Whether you believe in god, believe there is no god, or believe in the possibility of a god... none of that matters.

      My whole point was that, as you said you "don't disbelieve", then you are, in essence, a believer. The only question is "in what?" And you're the only person who can answer that question and you're the only person to whom that answer is owed.

        Loading editor
    • And the definition of someone who holds the same 'belief' as I do is Agnostic. That's where this whole discussion came from.

        Loading editor
    • Actually this whole discussion came from Mercen proposing Moses, the only man that has nagged God and bargained with Him just so the lazy-ass people of the world would have to pray about 3 times a day instead of 5 (it was originally like 25+, but he constantly nagged him to lower and lower it until it reached 5, at which point he nagged more and it worked).

        Loading editor
    • Lol. That's right. It just devolved into a theological discussion from there.

        Loading editor
    • I usually give very little input on topics like these.

      - Surana

        Loading editor
    • With all due respect, it was Live who threw the theological wrench into the discussion.

      I still don't think anyone would care one way or another if Biblical characters (even God, the angels, and Jesus Christ) as long as their names were changed in the show... which is a necessity for them to match CNR...

        Loading editor
    • With all due respect, your with all due respect had no respect :C

      Moses still works though. Moses already sounds surprisingly similar to Mouses. They can at worst do some "Mouses".

        Loading editor
    • After some consideration... you're right.

      What is this about mouses?

        Loading editor
    • Mosa, which is the name of one of Phantom's character, means from the river Mosa, and therefore refers to the colour of water, which is generally thoguht of as blue. It sounds very similar to Moses.

      Also, isn't Moses the one who parted the Red Sea?

        Loading editor
    • Yes. That's him. Exodus 14:21.

      - Surana

        Loading editor
    • Mosa also makes sense phonetically as Moses was originally pronounced as something like "Mosha".

        Loading editor
    • Moses, in the Qur'an as Musa, did split a sea (but i don't know which sea) by requesting to god to make him able to split seas

      and also, Al-Khwarizmi is maybe a good allusion, maybe the Bahamut fish from Alf-Layla-Wa-Layla (one thousand and one nights in the west) as a derivation for a type of grimm maybe

      miyamoto musashi and jubei yagyu could work too as minor hero allusions

      a world leader character with an allusion to soekarno is also fun

        Loading editor
    • Moses split the Red Sea in the Hebrew bible, I don't know which one it was in the Qur'an.

        Loading editor
    • maybe it was the nile? idk, maybe it was the red sea

        Loading editor
    • It was the Red Sea he split. He led the slaves out of Egypt, and split the Red Sea to escape into what we now call Saudi Arabia. Splitting the Nile wouldnt actually allow them to escape the Egyptians, as the level of water in the Nile wouldn't have been high enough to wash the Egyptians away like they were in the story, which means they would have been caught again.

        Loading editor
    • tru tru, i gotta check my qur'an again sometime, but i forgot what surah was it

        Loading editor
    • Slayer-Shinkage wrote:
      Moses, in the Qur'an as Musa, did split a sea (but i don't know which sea) by requesting to god to make him able to split seas

      Moses also had the world's first Pokemon battle against the Pharaoh, and haggled God to spare a city from destruction, as long as it had 10 good people (which failed, due to lack of people).

      He also haggled Muhammad so that they didn't have to pray so much.

        Loading editor
    • The haggling was Abraham.

        Loading editor
    • Which of the haggles?

        Loading editor
    • The sparing of Sodom and Gomorrah. Which obviously failed.

        Loading editor
    • no, if i remembered correctly, muhammad haggled himself, so that mankind will only have to do shalat 5 time a day, rather than 50 times a day

        Loading editor
    • That may be but in the Bible, Abraham haggeled for Sodem and Gomorrah to be spared if there were 10 good people in it. But there was only one, Lot, Abraham's nephew. So the angels told him to flee to the mountains with his family while the city was being destroyed and ordered not to look back. But Lot's wife disobeyed this order and was therefore turned into a pillar of salt. Lot then was alone with his two daughters in a cave. The daughters dispared of finding a husband, so they took turns laying with an overly drunk Lot and from their offspring came the Moabities and the Ammorites. 

        Loading editor
    • So I'm only one who wants Anansi alluded character to show up?

        Loading editor
    • Islam has everything during that timeframe revolve around Muhammad, if I recall. literally verything rewritten so he's the only important person.

      Then again, I know jack shit about religion in general, so that's just casual observation.

        Loading editor
    • They're talking about two different things. The in-universe time difference is several thousand years.

        Loading editor
    • Couldn't be bothered to backtrack to the begining of the topic.

        Loading editor
    • Cyrania de Bergerac wrote: The daughters dispared of finding a husband, so they took turns laying with an overly drunk Lot and from their offspring came the Moabities and the Ammorites. 

      That's creepy. Very creepy. Like, creepy-as-fuck-creepy.

      - Surana 

        Loading editor
    • Religion tends to be that way, some are worse than others.

        Loading editor
    • Pretty sure they ommitted that from the kiddie Bible. "then his wife got turned into the world's first salt shaker and he fucked his kids" is something you wouldn't want to read to your kids.

      - Surana 

        Loading editor
    • The pillar of salt part is still read to kids, you have to go looking in Genesis for the other part.

        Loading editor
    • Cyrania de Bergerac wrote:
      The pillar of salt part is still read to kids, you have to go looking in Genesis for the other part.

      Okay. Still creepy though.

      - Surana

        Loading editor
    • ok, so what's a good allusion guys?

      Hassan-I-Sabbah or Al-Khwarizmi?

        Loading editor
    • Depends, who are they?

      laymans terms

        Loading editor
    • Hassan-I-Sabbah = the guy who created the first organization of assassins, the hashashin

      Al-Khwarizmi: the guy who revolutionized (if not outright created) algebra

      i think an Al-Khwarizmi inspired character could be a teacher that uses mathematical factors of combat situations to it's fullest

      Hassan-I-Sabbah inspired character will be self explanatory i think

        Loading editor
    • Both of those sound like they could be very interesting - I don't think I would be able to do them justice, but perhaps someone else may be up to the challenge?

        Loading editor
    • still, more creative than musashi

        Loading editor
    • The word "assassin" derives from Hashishin or "users of hashish". So it technically follows the color naming rule.

        Loading editor
    • what is hashish? i haven't researched that far

        Loading editor
    • It's a canabis (marijuana) product designed for smoking.(with a pipe, bong, with tobacco) It's a plant that makes you high.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashish

        Loading editor
    • so the syi'ah hashashin actually did get high before missions

        Loading editor
    • Yes, yes they did.

        Loading editor
    • so... the Hassan-inspired guy as a pro homeless assassin that gets high just so that he can assassinate to the fullest?

        Loading editor
    • I wouldn't mind an hashishin-based character, as long as he/she's not an AssCreed rip-off.

        Loading editor
    • Or a ridiculously genre-savvy stoner huntsman with assassin style weapons.

        Loading editor
    • So a discount Naruto character.

        Loading editor
    • he can be only stoning so that he can resist pain in missions only though

      as for the Al-Khwarizmi character he can be somekind of bookworm gunner

        Loading editor
    • Phantomlink959 wrote:
      Or a ridiculously genre-savvy stoner huntsman with assassin style weapons.

      Are you saying you WOULDN'T want that as a character? That sounds amazing!

        Loading editor
    • VedranTheII wrote:

      So a discount Naruto character.

      No, because nobody in Naruto behaves like an actual ninja in combat. Actual ninja vs. ninja combat would be really really boring, since neither of them would ever see the other. It'd be like Spy vs. Spy without the violence. XD

      A good assassin is subtle, and typically unseen, avoiding open combat whenever possible (which is almost always).

        Loading editor
    • ^and i think hashashin will also use hashish so that people will have a hard time interrogating them (especially ottoman turk soldiers patroling, and yes, they were enemies i think) i mean, how can you interrogate someone that's fucking high and stoned?

        Loading editor
    • I was mostly referring to the fact over half of the cast are stoned.

        Loading editor
    • My suggestion was Arancia as a 63 of Lawrence of Arabia. I also mentioned Cyrano, Shakespeare, Poe, Lovecraft, and Moses and Aaron or Rameses.

      Cyrania mentioned LotR, Narnia, Robin Hood, Red October, Doctor Who, and The Elfin Knight. Shadow suggested France, Britain, Rome, Gilgamesh, The Faerie Queen, The Kalevala, and The Fianna.

      Rumpelstiltzkin : Vedran, Nero and Caligula : Spirit, Quetzalcoatl and Cu Chulainn : Live, Aztecs and Wendigo : Phantom, Dorian Gray and Vlad : 73, Bahamut and Hassan and Al-Khwarizmi : Shinkage, Anansi : Cipher

        Loading editor
    • I came up with Casanova the other day but keeping that one for myself.

        Loading editor
    • -_^ if you're keeping it for yourself, seems odd to mention it here.

        Loading editor
    • The story of Pretty Goldilocks  would also interesting. Also, think it would be kind of fun if they made it a secondary influence on Yang by having Mercury be a love interest for her (since the Charming Pretty Goldilocks falls for is a courtier, a messenger for the king, while Mercury was the messenger god.)

        Loading editor
    • maybe also include a character who's primarily a fire dust user and likes to play with fire a fucking lot and be inspired by Djinn? (since in the Qur'an, Djinn were made by smokeless fire afterall)

        Loading editor
    • This might be heroes bias speaking, but I’m was under the impression the fire genies are called ifrits.

        Loading editor
    • (wish granting) Genies were an American idea. Actual genies are Djinns (or Jinn-s) and are cursed fire demons. "made of a smokeless and "scorching fire".

      "The Ifrits are in a class of infernal Jinn noted for their strength and cunning."

      So... yea. That.

      -RA

        Loading editor
    • I thought it had been a European idea.

        Loading editor
    • in the Qur'an, Djinn were basically like humans, only with "superhumanity" akin to magic, but not magic, since Sulaiman/Suleiman (the Qur'anic version of Solomon) actually requested Djinn and Animals rather than controlling demons with magic

        Loading editor
    • I would like to see the Little Match Girl

        Loading editor
    • Requested?

        Loading editor
    • Somebody suggested that on tropes WMG, but their suggestion on how to go about it was a little weird for me personally.

        Loading editor
    • I see....hmm give me some time I think that I could come up with a way for it to be done

        Loading editor
    • Just to be clear, the "requested" was to Shinkage. I didn't expect the arrival of another ninja.

        Loading editor
    • Ahh

        Loading editor
    • But the WMG was about the Little Matchstick Girl you mentioned.

        Loading editor
    • okay :)

        Loading editor
    • another sugestion: Billy the Kid inspired character, rifles, dust, everything that can be used pragmatically like a pragmatic gunslinger/cowboy

        Loading editor
    • Zorro with his mute helper Bernardo, The Lone Ranger and Tonto, The Rifleman and his son, Roy Rogers and his horse Trigger

      All Westerns (California is part of the West so Zorro fits). Zorro and Lone Ranger are more clasic than Roy Rogers and Rifleman, but all are within the time frame Monty put for the characters to be inspired from.

      Also think  dectective themed teams would be fun. One would allude to Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Poirot, Father Brown, and Dupin. Then the other would allude to their sidekicks, Dr. Watson, Hastings, Flambeu, and Dupin's narrator.

        Loading editor
    • For the Rifleman and the Lone Ranger, I'd imagine they'd have to take the same route as they have with Sage Ayana, using a name that alludes to an entirely different thing than the intended character allusion.

        Loading editor
    • I've come up with a pretty good allusion name for the Lone Ranger, Argyris Reid (Argyris= Greek for silver, silver bullets; Reid= Redheaded, Ranger's last name). From there you can get a redheaded Hunter with a silver aura. Weapon-wise, at least one mode could be a pistol that has special silver bullets like Ruby has special cross clips. After that, you need something else for the remaining/complete weapon and the semblance. Clothes could go either way as well as parts of the backstory.

      The Rifleman is more of a problem. His real name's Lucas McCain. Lucas does stem from Luke which means light, so there is a color reference. If they did allude to this character, they would have to use his signature custom made rifle  at least for a main mode.

        Loading editor
    • One thing: just because his name means red headed doesn't mean he'd have red hair in the show. That's a bit too on the nose.

      Maybe the latter could be called Lucas Cyan.

        Loading editor
    • Sounds good. In regards to the red head thing, it just seemed like something that would fit, they can be pretty on the nose in regards to allusions sometimes.

        Loading editor
    • Trying to figure out how that's a custom rifle, pretty standard lever action. At most the trigger has been tied to the action so it fired\s and cycles simultaneously.

        Loading editor
    • Considering the fanbase RT has in Australia I wouldn't be suprised if we saw some characters from their histroy and folklore. Like a Ned Kelly influenced character simmilar to Roman Torchwick but more rugged and hands on in combat, and based in Vacuo (Desert).

        Loading editor
    • Bunyip grimm would be freaking awesome.

        Loading editor
    • Or do one around Steve Irwin, "Crickity, there goes a crocodile Grimm."

        Loading editor
    • Cyrania de Bergerac wrote:
      Or do one around Steve Irwin, "Crickity, there goes a crocodile Grimm."


      I can just picture a huntsman in shirt and shorts going "Right, look at this beauty. It's 30 feet long, has enough jaw strength to cut a car in half and like all Grimm, we know very little about it... I'm gonna go poke it."

        Loading editor
    • He IS a folk hero...

        Loading editor
    • Hawkeye2701 wrote:
      Cyrania de Bergerac wrote:
      Or do one around Steve Irwin, "Crickity, there goes a crocodile Grimm."

      I can just picture a huntsman in shirt and shorts going "Right, look at this beauty. It's 30 feet long, has enough jaw strength to cut a car in half and like all Grimm, we know very little about it... I'm gonna go poke it."

      Taiyang allusion confirmed

        Loading editor
    • As an Australian, I feel it is my duty to tell you that Steve Irwin says "Crikey", not "Crickity".

        Loading editor
    • I forget, what does that word mean and can I use it?

      - Surana 

        Loading editor
    • I believe it is analogous to "dude"

        Loading editor
    • I think a better word would be "dayum". Dude can be used for calling someone and referencing a person.

      Also overused in comically exaggerated stereotypes.

      -RA

        Loading editor
    • Can we agree Taiyang as Steve Irwin would be freaking AWESOME (If highly unlikely?)

        Loading editor
    • Also, no one I know says Crikey. Steve Irwin was the only person I have ever heard say it seriously, everyone else just says it when they're mucking around.

        Loading editor
    • Didn't he die?

      - Surana 

        Loading editor
    • Was he as big a deal in Australia as in the USA?

        Loading editor
    • 173.58.100.7 wrote:
      Didn't he die?

      - Surana 

      Impaled by a stingray when the cameraman spooked it.

        Loading editor
    • Phantomlink959 wrote:
      173.58.100.7 wrote:
      Didn't he die?

      - Surana 

      Impaled by a stingray when the cameraman spooked it.

      Something like that'll do anyone in.  

      - Surana 

        Loading editor
    • I can't speak for the rest of Australia, but I was never fussed on him and my fiance thinks he was a bit of an idiot.

      And really, how do you expect wild animals to react when a crowd of humans comes calling? If it wasn't the stingray, eventually something else would have gotten spooked or taken offense to him and attacked him. He was lucky, and good at getting in and out of reach of wild animals which was why he wasn't killed before, but his luck had to run out eventually.

        Loading editor
    • He was a bit of an idiot, yeah, but he was the kind of idiot who did stupid shit because it was what they loved to do.

      Also, fun to watch and a good person.

      Although I may be a bit biased because his wife is from Oregon.

        Loading editor
    • I only knew his name and that was probably about it.  

      - Surana 

        Loading editor
    • He was always fun to watch on TV, man had balls of tunsgten  and loved animals (admittedly they did not always share the sentiment.)

        Loading editor
    • Phantomlink959 wrote:
      He was a bit of an idiot, yeah, but he was the kind of idiot who did stupid shit because it was what they loved to do.

      So, Jackass.

        Loading editor
    • Jackass with a love of animals and lifes work towards helping ensure their safety and continued existance.

        Loading editor
    • So, Jackalope ass.

        Loading editor
    • Something like that.

        Loading editor
    • Jerk with a heart of gold, possibly.

      - Surana 

        Loading editor
    • No, not a jerk. Heart of gold surrounded by bad ideas and backed by tungsten carbide balls the size of church bells.

        Loading editor
    • So Stupid Good? 

      - Surana 

        Loading editor
    • Something like that. I guess a lot of australians disliked him because of how many stereotypes he reinforced? But after dying they did a face-heel turn because he was pretty cool in the end.

        Loading editor
    • Crikeydile Dumbdee.

        Loading editor
    • Phantomlink959 wrote:
      Something like that. I guess a lot of australians disliked him because of how many stereotypes he reinforced? But after dying they did a face-heel turn because he was pretty cool in the end.


      Heel-Face turn Phantom. I know Face-Heel turn is the one people are more familiar with, but in this case the former is what you're looking for.

      Long Winded Explanation for anyone who cares - When pro-wrestling was getting off the ground before they tried to turn it into a reality television thing where we were supposed to think this nonsense is real, it was all distinctly more campy and pagenty (as hard to believe as that might seem.) There were distinct good guys and villains, the good guys were referred to as Faces and the villains were called Heels (You might be familiar with typical noir jargon as 'what a heel' to refer to a low life type character) And the characters in wrestling, if they felt they were getting a bit worn or could play a new angle would switch allegiances. So if it was a good guy becoming a villain, that's a Face-Heel turn, but if a bad guy becomes a hero, that's a Heel-Face turn. Thus ends my stupid useless factoid for the day.

        Loading editor
    • I love useless factoids.

        Loading editor
    • Either term doesn't really apply to an audience anyway as they are neither good nor bad. It would be more apt to use phrases like "complete turnaround" (although that phrase is still inaccurate) or better still, "total 180". This ends my useless factoid of the hour.

        Loading editor
    • Imouto-tan wrote:
      I would like to see the Little Match Girl

      That actually has a RWBY comic in Deviantart with Yang as the Little Match Girl and a younger Team RWBY as her imagination.

        Loading editor
    • I wouldn't say we did a complete 180 on how we view him. After all, when he died there were all sorts of things on the TV about it, and I did see quite a few people who were actually upset. It is wrong of you to paint all Australians in my light, simpky because I personally wasn't fussed on him. I'm still not, but I know there are people here who are and love him a lot.

      Honestly, all Australians I know find the stereotypes funny, and we play it up for laughs (including playing up the Crikey and G'day mate stuff). So no, we weren't annoyed with him for reinforcing the stereotypes, we thought it was a big joke. No, we didn't do a 180 turn when he died because we weren't fussed on him, as he was a celebrity and was loved by many.

      Just because I and my fiance didn't particularly find him amusing doesn't mean no one else from Australia didn't. In fact, I am part of the minority.

        Loading editor
    • I apologize if I offended you. 

      - Surana

        Loading editor
    • maybe Gajah Mada and Kapitan Pattimura (google them please)?

        Loading editor
    • SpiritedDreaming wrote:
      I wouldn't say we did a complete 180 on how we view him. After all, when he died there were all sorts of things on the TV about it, and I did see quite a few people who were actually upset. It is wrong of you to paint all Australians in my light, simpky because I personally wasn't fussed on him. I'm still not, but I know there are people here who are and love him a lot.

      Honestly, all Australians I know find the stereotypes funny, and we play it up for laughs (including playing up the Crikey and G'day mate stuff). So no, we weren't annoyed with him for reinforcing the stereotypes, we thought it was a big joke. No, we didn't do a 180 turn when he died because we weren't fussed on him, as he was a celebrity and was loved by many.

      Just because I and my fiance didn't particularly find him amusing doesn't mean no one else from Australia didn't. In fact, I am part of the minority.

      Actually I got curious and did some googling about the subject, wasn't based on you but the results of about 5 minuteso n google.

        Loading editor
    • Slayer-Shinkage wrote: maybe Gajah Mada

      Elephant General

        Loading editor
    • I've been thinking about the original request for allusions, and it seems to me that Cyrania of Bergerac's idea of Robin Hood could work well. Characters with colors: Robin Hood (in robin's egg blue), Will Scarlet, Friar Tuck in brown for his habit, and Little John in Lincoln green. Updated, Robin is the leader and he's a ninja with a long bow, Will is the only fighter who can outdo Robin so let's give him a sword, Tuck is the master of the bo stick, and Little John is the tank with any weapons you like. The motley crew of them in their bright garb can give the team the name Jester, a name to bring to mind the mixed colors of a jester's traditional garb. I think it could work. Does anyone else?

        Loading editor
    • I'm still fairly sure Russel is Robin Hood.

        Loading editor
    • Mercen-X: Why is Russell Robin Hood? 

        Loading editor
    • Oh, yes, a bit of further thought: Jester as a team name is evocative of the temperaments and exploits of the Merry Men, not just their colors, and what with the originals living in Sherwood Forest and skiving for their livings and for funds to supply the indigent, I could see them as a troupe of Faunus, Sun's cousins so to speak. I really think Cyrania of Bergerac's idea fits the show and the orignals nicely.

        Loading editor
    • A) Russel Thrush was originally to be named Russel Crow. Given the timing of Russel's introduction just a few years following the release of Robin Hood starring Russell Crowe, the allusion is hard to mistake. B) Robins are typically imagined to be red birds like cardinals likely because of DC's Robin. Russel means red and he is a bird allusion like all of team CRDL. C) Hood and his merry men are associated with the color green. D) Daggers are the signature weapon of Will Scarlet. Russel wouldn't the first in the show to reference multiple characters.

        Loading editor
    • Mercen-X: Russel could have been Robin Hood, but wasn't. He was a follower, not a leader and I can't think of a reason not to make him the leader if he were a Robin Hood type, unless it's that he's a bully, which is OOC for Robin Hood. I don't know who would confuse a cardinal and a robin if they've ever seen them or pictures of them; the robin isn't red all over, and the English brand has an orange gorget, limiting the extent of their 'redness', which is actually orange. The English brand also has light tan, speckled eggs; the N.A. robin is more versatile with the robin's egg blue color to bring to the table.

      The robin red coloring put up against a true scarlet looks dull and dowdy. Naming Russel's team Cardinal kills the idea of playing up 'his' red coloring. Russel is a bird allusion; Robin Hood or Robin Wood -- a 1300's version of the name, in modern spelling -- is a Robin Hood allusion. Equality there. Will Scarlet is at least one Merry Man who didn't dress in green, and Friar Tuck is another (possible name change to Tuck Friar). Will Scarlet has to be named Scarlet because it's the original name of the character, and there are just a whole lot of Scarlets running around RWBY not to maintain the identity of the one based on the legend. I like the robin's egg blue way out of dealing with the duller red with the brighter one; I also like the overall complement of blue, red, brown and green, a strong palette in my opinion.

      Lincoln green comes in as Little John's color; call him John Little if you like. Will Scarlet was actually a master swordsman who fought with swords in both hands. Is the 'dagger' skill from the movie? It's not associated with the origin of the character. (There also was no African member of the Merry Men who emigrated to England at the end of the Crusades; you just can't believe everything you see in the movies! Or comic books! Which doesn't mean any of the four characters I've adapted couldn't have a lot of melanin in their makeup. Robin's egg blue eyes against medium to dark skin; yummy.)

      So in the end, as you mention, a character might have a number of references. My characters reference Robin Hood pretty much exactly, and it's not just one but all four, and their team name isn't entirely a matter of alphabet soup but is indicative of the kind of prankster exploits with which the Robin Hood mythos is riddled. I like it. (In case you were wondering....)

        Loading editor
    • Also, it has never been said that multiple characters couldn't use different twists of the same basic allusion. If we had ten off of one, then people could complain. But just two, especially if one is definitely unclear.

      I like the idea of making Robin's color blue, Scarlet's scarlet, Tuck's brown, and Little's green. But it would be too direct an allusion if we just gave them the exact same names. How about Azure (sky blue, english) Sherwood for Robin, Scarlet Timber for Scarlet (probably should do a different red name since we don't want too much overlap of character names), Duncan (brown warrior) Elwood for Tuck, and John Rowen Lincoln for Little John? J E Sherwood Timber Elwood Rowen

        Loading editor
    • Let's see:
      Mulan - leader... Lie Ren - not the leader
      Thor - leader... Nora - not the leader
      Achilles - leader... Pyrrha - not the leader
      If I'm correct about Dove, he alludes to Hector, who was also a leader.

      I already said the association of robins with red likely comes from the superhero sidekick Robin.

      This isn't fanon. You're not actually going to get the allusions you want. Will Scarlet if alluded to in the show would not be named Scarlet for the same reason Russel wasn't named Russel Crow. There are already two characters with similar sounding names either as given or surnames. If their excuse for not naming him Russel Crow is that it sounded too similar to Qrow, then you're not getting "Will Scarlet" either no matter what logic you use.

      Friar Tuck wouldn't be named Tuck Friar either. The T in your suggested JSTR can come from his second name. But it's not CNR anyway, so it would be changed completely.

      Admittedly, I'm not as keen on differentiating blade types (one man's dagger is another man's shortsword) but, whatever. It doesn't matter. I'll remind you that ALLUSIONS are little more than referential reminders that hint at a character's inspiration. What you're looking for are called Exported Characters or Expies. Exactly the same character with minimum change just to get past legal issues. I'll also remind you the original Red Riding Hood was neither a leader nor a fighter, wasn't versed in any weapon much less a scythe, had no parents to speak of and was gobbled up by a wolf disguised as her grandmother before (some stories say) being cut out of its stomach by a passing woodsman... Miraculously alive. The only thing to her allusion is a red cape.

      Basically, what I'm saying is that there's very little purpose to your suggestion given how picky you are about it. Character allusions have already proven repeatedly to be... not always obvious. Red and Snow White were obvious, Ozpin and Glynda were obvious. Everyone else took a bit of sleuthing to figure out.

        Loading editor
    • To Cyrania de Bergerac: I'm cool with the name changes; I knew that only two were color-related and needed changing. The color complement fitting a nice range of palette and the Faunus/Merry Men/Jester concept tickled me more. :)  I really like using 'Sherwood' for the leader's surname; great choice! No trampling on Red Ridinghood's hood! Also John Rowan Lincoln, with red berries in the winter.

      The trouble with multiple Scarlets in RWBY more or less seems an unfortunate nuisance rather than a real stumbling block. I rather feel as if putting together a character based on Scarlett O'Hara and calling her Harlot O'Hara would be, well, wrong except that it does describe the colleen's personality, besides her being a 'scarlet woman'. But maybe on Remnant 'Scarlet' is a very popular unisex name. I can't count the number of Bonnies, Lisas, Amandas and Kates I know, you know? Dale used to be common for both sexes in the mid-1900s. SFF allows for some inimitable stretches at times. And scarlet is just such a good color for comics and animation.

      To Mercen-X: The problem with comparing the leaders on JNPR with the Cardinal group is that each of the JNPR members allude to leaders. Each of Cardinal's members do not allude to, um, leadership birds. They'd all have to be big raptors, dino-birds (like archaeopteryx) or mythical birds (thunderbird, for example), not a Dove in the bunch. Russel Thrush as he turned out in the end just isn't a leader, and he'd be so OOC if an allusion to Robin Hood that I'd propose him for a team of antagonists; only he'd still have to be a leadership bird. Hey, a Grimm Thrush. It could work....

      Your theory that robins are associated with red because of DC's Robin is putting the cart before the horse. 'Robin Redbreast' predates DC by half a millennium, going back to the 1400's. DC stole from legend; it did not create the connection.

      I'm not actually looking for expies. The thread called for allusions and I read a number of ideas proposed which were interesting, but I saw potential in Cyrania of Bergerac's Robin Hood idea that I thought went beyond the neat and simple. I started with the classic team of FOUR from the 1200's, ditching Maid Marian along the way because Maid Marian. Then I worked on the colors, character names, team name and outlook on life (Jester) and genus/species/whatever (Faunus).

      It did not all come in a thundering rush like Niagara Falls. As I worked on one aspect, I found myself interconnecting others. The fact that two of the members of Robin Hood's band already had colors in their names--Robin and Will Scarlet-- made the choice of colors easy, attractive and almost mandatory. As for 'Friar' not being linked to a color, it's an allusion to the friar's brown habit. Little John, or Cyrania's name John Rowan Lincoln, is the obligatory Lincoln green character.  If I'd done all of them up in Lincoln green, it would have failed to describe Scarlet and Tuck as the ballads described them, and everyone would have been green. (That may be something I feel more keenly about, accuracy in writing I mean, than you do. Not wrong, just different. Working backwards to erase a few blatancies to mystify the reader/watcher is where you end, not where you begin.)

      But, you know, I didn't just make this stuff up out of whole cloth. 

        Loading editor
    • Mercen-X wrote:

      I already said the association of robins with red likely comes from the superhero sidekick Robin.

      Or maybe because, you know, robins have freaking red on their chest. All of them have red on their chest and sometimes even their faces. The ones that don't instead have a color close to red, like orange. Exceptions are very rare in comparison.

      Have you ever seen a robin? Evidently not.

        Loading editor
    • Re: Crikey --

      It was one of those swear words you use in polite company or if there are kids about, instead of 'Christ'. Likewise 'crimony' or 'cripes' or a bunch of others. Old, old slang, Christianity-based. I know no one cares. Just trimming a loose thread here. 

        Loading editor
    • TheRozenQueen wrote:

      Mercen-X wrote:

      I already said the association of robins with red likely comes from the superhero sidekick Robin.

      Or maybe because, you know, robins have freaking red on their chest. All of them have red on their chest and sometimes even their faces. The ones that don't instead have a color close to red, like orange. Exceptions are very rare in comparison.

      Have you ever seen a robin? Evidently not.

      Are you talking to me?

        Loading editor
    • 174.89.110.232 wrote:

      The problem with comparing the leaders on JNPR with the Cardinal group is that each of the JNPR members allude to leaders. Each of Cardinal's members do not allude to, um, leadership birds.
      Just... What? Let me clarify something to you you've clearly failed to grasp: CRDL's team theme is birds. But the individual characters themselves are NOT allusions for birds. Cardinal Henry Beaufort (originally, Bishop) was a religious leader, Hector of Troy (compared to a "cringing dove" in the Iliad) was a leader. I'm still not certain who Sky Lark alludes to, but I'm willing to bet he was a leader of some kind as well.

      174.89.110.232 wrote:

      Your theory that robins are associated with red because of DC's Robin is putting the cart before the horse. 'Robin Redbreast' predates DC by half a millennium, going back to the 1400's. DC stole from legend; it did not create the connection.

      It did not all come in a thundering rush like Niagara Falls.

      That may be something I feel more keenly about, accuracy in writing, I mean.

      I don't honestly care if Robin Redbreast was stolen. I only mentioned the Boy Wonder due to your comment robins are not entirely red which to me seemed a challenge to clarify how a robin would be called a red bird.

      You'll have to forgive my impulsiveness, I was under the impression we were talking about the same thing. But while I was busy defending my mad theory of how Russel could be Robin Hood, it seems you were merely continuing to expand on your desired "allusion".

      Your accuracy in writing is all well and good... within context. Based on your responses to why Russel couldn't be Robin, your submission allowed very little room for creative presentation within the context of the show. Yours would be more suitable for a show about ACTUAL fairy tales/legends or explicitly about Robin Hood himself. I'll remind you Robin Hood was an outlaw, which has become a romantic way of saying "criminal". Being a bully may be out of character for the romantic ideal of the legend of Robin Hood, but not so much by way of the fact he really was considered by many to be a criminal.

        Loading editor
    • Mercen-X, I believe the issue of how Russel Thrush could be a Robin Hood type and one of the four leaders (if so) of CRDL has been thrashed sufficiently and in all honesty I'm tired of it. Go on believing your belief; I still maintain that he's a bully and OOC whether you take Robin Hood as a lovable, honorable rogue or as an outlaw. (Look into the state of the law and how easily a man is outlawed in a country without a written constitution, long before Runnymede. Being an outlaw wasn't necessarily something a completely honest person could escape.) We can agree to disagree.

      Yes, you misunderstood my statement of fact that robins are not wholly red birds as being a challenge. I would never challenge you to disprove a fact. No wiggle room here; robins simply are not wholly red. Google some pics if you like.

      Surely expanding on a theory or a plot point is within the bounds of frank discourse. You see it as my being in a straitjacket shaped like the ballads of Robin Hood, leaving no space for further development. I see my expansion as development itself. The ballads from the 1200's on were highly popular and most were of the jolly Gest or jape type when they weren't about righting injustices.

      I am not sure how many considered him an outlaw only, and would welcome your sources for the statement that 'he really was considered by many to be a criminal.' In the literature and oral tradition (ballads) he was more likely to be portrayed as a dispossessed noble than a dangerous robber. Robert of Loxley or Robert, Earl of Huntington are two examples. There is quite an extensive body of knowledge still being studied about the historicity of Robin Hood, with a couple of standout candidates proposed with documents like the town rolls of both employees of the government and people fined for a variety of misdoings to support the theories. If you are serious about researching Robin Hood to support your theory that Russel Thrush is an allusion to him, there's plenty of information on the net. But Robin, Little John and Will Scarlet are in the tradition, the three of them alone, show up in the 1200's earliest materials. Robin is actually in 'Piers Plowman'....

      No, it's time to stop doing research for others. A few months ago I was researching the mythological Robin Hood as connected to the May Day revels. Marian shows up and the pairing is not entirely wholesome fare for the whole community. It took me into the Robin Goodffellow and Wild Hunt realms. I don't believe it impossible to break out of my straitjacket. I'm simply interested in everything

      Good night, all. 

        Loading editor
    • 174.89.110.232 wrote:

      I am not sure how many considered him an outlaw only, and would welcome your sources for the statement that 'he really was considered by many to be a criminal'.

      He stole from the nobility, minimum. And ran away from the law.

      I actually am more interested in how would Robin Hood not be considered by many a criminal or outlaw.

        Loading editor
    • To TheRozenQueen: I've written long replies to you twice and lost them both, and have a magnificent migraine again, so I might answer in greater detail later if you have specific points to discuss.

      Long story short: unpopular laws are often broken by the masses either from necessity or as a type of freedom fighting. The issue was how many of the people of the time (when there was no social network; a dreadful royal, Prince John, running the country to his profit and its ruin, on the throne; and people just starved in the streets whenever John or his barons decided to declare new taxes and seized their property down to the last measure of flour in their homes) -- how many of them would consider Robin Hood a criminal? I wanted the numbers, how many are many and where's your source for comparison purposes: 90%, 50%, 10%, less than 1%?

      Modern comparison: personal marijuana use. Many think of this as a crime. It is illegal. There is to the mind a difference between crime and illegality. Morality plays a part. Laws change. If the law where you are regarding smoking up changes tomorrow, are you drenched with criminality for smoking up today? Some laws don't change quickly enough, and I'm not advocating either legalizing marijuana or using it, let alone growing and distributing for profit, this is just an example, people.

      When an unpopular law doesn't change quickly enough the masses may ignore the technicality that it's legal. How many hundreds of stupid laws are on the books going back to just the 1600's and 1700's because people *forgot* they were there? Joan of Arc burned in part because she dressed like a man when leading her troops, even though she won France her victory (she was sold out by her King/Dauphin). Stupid law. Didn't change fast enough. Don't throw out your jeans, ladies. Take a moral stand!

      Comparisons with other fictional antihero/heros of the thief variety: Raffles, Flambeau, Cary Grant's role in 'To Catch a Thief' -- the saying is 'set a thief to catch a thief'. 

      Other antiheros/heros, other crimes, very popular nevertheless: Dexter -- definitely a criminal, fun to watch (till they killed off Julie Benz and then tried too mate him with his stepsister, utterly wrong writing there). His sense of morality was that being a serial killer who killed only other serial killers who'd escaped justice was a good thing. Dex wasn't a mental or spiritual giant, exactly. Still fun. The gamblers in 'Guys and Dolls', and their comical love affairs, great music. Popular in their times, staying power iffy. I somehow think the theme to the 50's-60's English 'The Adventures of Robin Hood' (Robin Hood, Robin Hood, riding through the glen; Robin Hood, Robin Hood, with his Merry Men; feared by the bad, loved by the good, Robin Hood, Robin Hood, Robin Hood) is catchy and infectious enough to stay the track. Just threw that in, don't know why.

      When laws declare the previously legal now illegal: Coca-Cola, whose Christmas ad of plump St. Nick in red trimmed with white fur showed him taking the 'pause that refreshes' with cocaine in the drink. Sherlock Holmes shooting up the 7% solution, whatever Dr. Watson thought. We like them and ignore the new criminality of the acts. Coke has to leave the coke out of the Coke now, though.

      Robin Hood's popularity: a millennium of people loved the stories. It's the underdog theme. Robin, being sanctioned or sanctionable for his acts, nevertheless takes a bold step and creates a group of freedom fighters/redistributers of wealth in unusual circumstances, saving the poor and righting wrongs wherever he finds them. He is always, always shown as being overwhelmingly loyal to 'Good' King Richard, the enthroned king of England (off playing in the crusades during John's viceroyship of England), who always pardons Robin and the Merry Men when he shows up in a story. It's bad, bad, bad Prince John, baddest prince in all English towns, against whom Robin revolts. Robin is everyman in his attitude to the law then. (Even the barons/nobles hated John, who was a real person, and forced his hand at Runnymede into signing the Magna Carta, the real constitution, to prevent royal seizure of property the Crown had no right to. It didn't protect the commoners, though.)

      There were other things I wrote in my first two reply attempts. I don't remember. But I would just caution that you can't form an opinion entirely on fictional accounts of things, popular or not. Look at the source instead, look at the laws of England in the 1200's and you become a partisan of Robin Hood whatever your sense of morality, as long as it's not a sense of immorality. Bollywood doesn't show us the sick and starving so beloved by the sainted Mother Teresa. That's not entertainment, though it is true.

      Let me know if any of this is unclear or murky. My painkillers haven't kicked in entirely and when I start quoting song lyrics I'm off in a little paradiso-purgatorio hoping for clarity but unable to gauge it. Sorry if I've wasted your time.

        Loading editor
    • 174.89.110.232 wrote:

      Long story short: unpopular laws are often broken by the masses either from necessity or as a type of freedom fighting. The issue was how many of the people of the time  would consider Robin Hood a criminal? 

      When an unpopular law doesn't change quickly enough the masses may ignore the technicality that it's legal.

      Stealing, is a crime, has always been a crime, and will always be a crime. It has been a crime since ancient times. Stealing from the nobles is even worse. In the eyes of everyone Hood was a criminal, especially in the eyes of the nobility, who were the ones in charge, the ones that made and upheld the laws.

      If a man steals your wallet, he's a criminal. If a man steals the wallet of the president, he's a criminal. It has always been like this, and is still like this, only a complete idiot fully disconected from the world would think otherwise.

      Whether "unpopular laws" change over time is completely irrelevant. Or do you honestly think "Stealing is a Crime" is an "unpopular law"?

      Literally everyone knew Robin Hood was a criminal. The only thing is that while the nobles hated him, the commoners didn't as Robin was on their side and he helped them. But it doesn't change anything about what he is: A criminal.

      If a man steals the wallet of the CEO of a big-name company, and gives you the money in said wallet, does he stop being a criminal? Don't make me laugh.

        Loading editor
    • To TheRozenQueen: You're right; stealing is classified as a crime and stealing from the nobles is even worse...insofar as the nobles are concerned. I honestly believe that in Robin Hood's day 'stealing from corrupt, robber barons' was not considered a law and that 'stealing from the poor via tax laws was an unpopular law.' If the proceeds of the theft turn up in the hands of the starving poor or to ransome a captive lady of the court before she can be pressed into marriage with a bounder, it's certainly worse for the nobles moneywise. Not so the starving poor and the ransomed lady. Again, there were more ransomed ladies and starving commoners than nobles, and the point shouldn't be missed: the nobles amassed their wealth off the backs of the serfs and tenant farmers who worked for them, oftimes dropping them from the category of freemen to landless members of the class of no-man's-land where people fell between the cracks and starved in winter. Robin Hood taking back what the overtaxed citizenry considered to be properly theirs absent the arbitrary taxation doesn't appear criminal to the citizenry.

      Laws changing over time is the heart of the matter. Again, a law considered unethical by people governed by it is likely to be ignored. Or to be rebelled against. Unless and until it goes away. I'm seeing Samuel Adams leading the Boston Tea Party at the moment, but that's again a real occurrence. 

      Stealing in a democracy is a different thing from the kind of stealing Robin Hood was doing. In a democracy, incomes range from low to high in a variety of levels and it isn't necessarily the end of the world if you lose your tv or car; they might be insured in any event, even if the company takes the heat, but they make money off the insurance premiums anyway. England in his time wasn't a democracy but a monarchy without a constitution, no protections for the masses from any act the Crown chose to take, and with Prince John on the throne the Crown pretty much took it all until Runnymede.

      It interests me that all your examples of stealing involve current thefts from very well monied individuals: the President, or a CEO of a corporation. The difference between stealing from them is that they operate in a democracy, and Robin Hood did not. The poor of his day had no votes to cast, no recourse to run for office, no political connections; they were s.o.l. Getting away from theft, look at the refugee crises all over the place. Life is simply better in democracies and people risk their lives to go there, legal or not.

      Maybe the term 'extenuating circumstances' will ring a bell, or 'defence of necessity' or 'defence of self-defence or defence of others' or in a rather obscure one, 'money had and received', a plea in equity which nowadays puts the courts in the role of protectors of the constitution. Not even elected lawmakers can make illegal laws when the courts can and must strike them down. The courts of today would uniformly strike down the arbitrary taxations whatever field of monarchical law was being cited as justification. I'm not sure if I've made it clear, but in Robin's day the nobles and royality did not just seize taxes, but they also seized lands, horses, forests, and last but not least, brokered brides betrothed as babies (too much alliteration, sorry) to friends of their fathers to marry men in their fifties when they were about 13 or 14 for the sake of melding fortunes and lands. It was not a good thing to be a teenaged noblewoman in those days.

      So, my migraine making staring at the screen very glary now, I think I'll log off and try and sleep. I'm enjoying this discussion very much. Thank you, TheRozenQueen.

        Loading editor
    • Sorry, one correction: the first use of 'law' in the first paragraph should read 'law or crime'. Thanks.

        Loading editor
    • 174.89.110.232 wrote:
      You're right; stealing is classified as a crime and stealing from the nobles is even worse...insofar as the nobles are concerned.

      I honestly believe that in Robin Hood's day 'stealing from corrupt, robber barons' was not considered a law or crime and that 'stealing from the poor via tax laws' was an unpopular law.

      Laws changing over time is the heart of the matter.

      Stealing in a democracy is a different thing from the kind of stealing Robin Hood was doing.

      It interests me that all your examples of stealing involve current thefts from very well monied individuals: the President, or a CEO of a corporation. The difference between stealing from them is that they operate in a democracy, and Robin Hood did not.

      I'm enjoying this discussion very much. Thank you, TheRozenQueen.

      -As far as anyone was concerned. It has always been like that, even in the most barbaric, savage communities. Stealing is a crime, you could ask 4000 people and they will all say it's a crime. It has been a crime since even long before Jesus was born. And it has not changed, nor has it ever changed.

      -Are you a dumbass? Stealing is Stealing and Stealing is a Crime, no matter who you stole from. Steal from a beggar, steal from a noble, steal from a baker, it's a crime everytime.

      -Except it isn't, at all. It's completely irrelevant, especially because stealing has never stopped being a crime.

      -No it isn't. It's a crime, regardless of whether it was done in a democratic nation or not. Hell, why are you even mentioning "democracy"? It has nothing to do with the subject.

      -Yes, because all nations with presidents are democratic, and all corporations work democratically. Definitely. Sarcasm aside, still completely irrelevant.

      -Well, I'm not enjoying it. You're a fucking idiot, fully disconected from the world, bringing up irrelevant subjects, trying to act like a crime is not a crime and giving the most stupid reasons for it.

        Loading editor
    • well yeah, stealing is a crime, but the heaviness of said crime depends on how much you stole, who did you steal from, and what are you gonna do with that stolen thing

        Loading editor
    • Roze, try to avoid sounding like Live. Just like him, using insults just makes it harder to take you seriously.

      I came up with a bunch in response to 174... But I'm not in the mood for it just now.

        Loading editor
    • Stealing is absolutely a crime - taking someone else's property from them without their consent or any compensation is morally wrong.

      However, what about when that person wrongfully obtained the object(s) in question, as in the oft-fictionalized case of Prince John with his unfair taxation of the poor that boardered on robbery?  What about stealing from a thief?  It is still a crime, aye, but can you truly still suggest that a thief who steals from thieves and gives back to the original owner is in the wrong?

        Loading editor
    • Morally grey area in certain circumstances, then. 

      - Surana 

        Loading editor
    • JayHart wrote:

      What about stealing from a thief?  It is still a crime, aye, but can you truly still suggest that a thief who steals from thieves and gives back to the original owner is in the wrong?

      Depends. Remember people often turn a blind eye when others commit crimes depending on the situation. One still commited a crime, but won't be punished for it.

        Loading editor
    • Aye, exactly.

      Point was, not everyone who's a criminal or outlaw is "bad".

        Loading editor
    • JayHart wrote: Point was, not everyone who's a criminal or outlaw is "bad".

      Bad is relative. 

      - Surana 

        Loading editor
    • And last time I checked this discussion and read 174's textual bibles of comments, no one was talking about Robin Hood being "bad" in any way. I was only arguing that he was a criminal, a thief, while 174 seemed to think that stealing from the nobles didn't make you a criminal.

        Loading editor
    • Robin Hood was a criminal. In the eyes of the law and anyone who disliked him. Of course, perspective is a huge chunk of things. From the Sherriff of Nottingwhatsitcalled viewpoint, yeah, he was a criminal, to those Robin Hood gave the stuff to, he was a hero. 

      - Surana 

        Loading editor
      • Nottingham, IIRC.

      Also, criminal and hero are not mutually exclusive anyway.

        Loading editor
    • Thank you.

      True. 

      Again, perspective. But I do understand any potential confusion. To clarify, from the perspective of the law, Robin Hood would be viewed as a criminal for his actions, from the perspective of the people who Robin Hood gave the things he stole to, (which I think was mostly money that they needed or something similar) he would have been viewed as a hero. 

      - Surana 

        Loading editor
    • If you've ever watched the recent BBC take on Robin Hood, the Sheriff of Nottigham in that series doesn't think of Robin as a criminal. He thinks of him as a rebellious obstacle to his goals and simply labels him an outlaw in order to sanction his pursuit and capture of the folk hero. But regardless of outlook, stealing is a crime. Dexter knew he wasn't any less a criminal for murdering serial killers. The Agent on Serenity (Firefly the movie) knew that the paradise he was killing to create would not be open to him because he was "a monster". The Christian Bible states that the only laws we are allowed to break are those which force us to break Biblical laws. So if the President himself orders someone to steal something, lie, commit adultery (non-marital sexual congress), or kill, a person need not obey that law on the merit that it goes against their religion. I only mention the Christian Bible in particular because it is the only one I'm actually familiar with, but I'm given to understand that most religions share this view.

        Loading editor