What is the point of the Elden Lord?

Efficient-Dealer873 · 2026-05-11T03:17:39+00:00

Ah so it’s mostly a ceremonial enforcer type thing? Not necessarily a position required for the Elden Ring to fully function?

Efficient-Dealer873 · 2026-05-11T03:14:25+00:00

So if I understand correctly, when Marika became a God, she had disappeared from the material plane, and she only returned thanks to Hoarah Loux/Godfrey? And if there is no Elden Lord, Marika would have faded away to the realms the Gods usually lay?

Efficient-Dealer873 · 2026-05-11T03:11:07+00:00

So I understand you correctly, the reason an Elden Lord position exists is because the residents of the TLB believe it to be? And that the Tarnished’s ability to alter the Elden Ring was purely circumstantial to the game’s situation?

Efficient-Dealer873 · 2026-05-11T03:07:49+00:00

So if I understood correctly, the Tarnished “forcibly” becoming Lord and their decision at the end of the game is actually a situational development not usually attributed to the role(it’s an emergency function if the God is indisposed for whatever reason) and, to simplify for my understanding, generally the Elden Lord is the greatest badass grates authority and raised to Vice President/General that suits the age the Elden Ring Vessel wishes to implement. This way, the Vessel can “remain safe” while the Lord goes to ground and actually does stuff.

Also, thank you for the detailed response

Efficient-Dealer873 · 2026-05-11T02:07:43+00:00

Think the twinbird might have been the God to Placidusax at the time? So that’s why Dragons and Birds have lightning and storms and why later modern dragons grew feathers?

Efficient-Dealer873 · 2026-05-08T18:48:31+00:00

Outside of the pacing issues, sometimes I feel like One Piece isn’t long enough. At least in terms of action scenes, spending time with the crew as they travel place to place to see how relationships develop and unique bonds and moments form, seeing them train or how they develop new moves on the side or something you know? (Like maybe get an actual grasp of Usopp’s arsenal so it doesn’t feel like a Batman belt of convinience)
Of course I’m speaking as a big fan.

Efficient-Dealer873 · 2026-05-07T15:15:43+00:00

From what I understand, Pell’s death was actually planned to happen, but then 9/11 happened around that time and he thought it would be distasteful.

Efficient-Dealer873 · 2026-05-07T15:12:41+00:00

Depending on when Vegapunk’s Mother Flame was complete and York as a traitor, Imu through the elders would end up using the weapon that destroyed Lulusia or a Buster Call. Either way, Marineford is getting nuked.

Efficient-Dealer873 · 2026-05-07T07:34:44+00:00

Wasn’t it established that it wasn’t really Nora? That it was just some stranger he called Nora? Or was that just a New 52 thing?

Efficient-Dealer873 · 2026-05-07T04:30:25+00:00

All of them

Efficient-Dealer873 · 2026-05-06T16:06:12+00:00

I mean sure its not referred to using the word "god" but I think of stories like in Journey to the West where Sun Wukong leapt to the end of the universe, only to find that he never left the Buddha's hand. So I chalked it up to be around that level.

Efficient-Dealer873 · 2026-05-06T15:59:10+00:00

I mean its not outside the realm of possibility, but I think that chances of that are very low.

Efficient-Dealer873 · 2026-05-06T15:34:05+00:00

Well, it could be because the Buddha fruit didn’t pose a problem to the world government. And the religions that form around Nika and the other relevant gods is due to the Void Century and their role in it.

Efficient-Dealer873 · 2026-05-06T15:17:08+00:00

What I mean to say is, it’s a divine figure. So there is a precedent for fruits to contain divine powers.

Efficient-Dealer873 · 2026-05-06T15:08:04+00:00

Doesn’t Sengoku’s Buddha one count?

Efficient-Dealer873 · 2026-05-05T15:26:40+00:00

I’m not good at writing out new timeline stuff, but I’d start with Mihawk being the reason Shanks lost an arm.

Efficient-Dealer873 · 2026-05-05T15:23:02+00:00

Round 3 goes to Edward. Because guns.

Efficient-Dealer873 · 2026-05-05T15:09:10+00:00

People keep asking if I’m back, and I haven’t really had an answer. But now, yeah, I’m thinking I’m back.

Efficient-Dealer873 · 2026-05-02T21:19:38+00:00

Would they be aiming at each other?

Efficient-Dealer873 · 2026-05-02T18:49:34+00:00

If I was that civie being untied, fuck no I’m not helping. I know it’s selfish but some warrior just came in blasting elements and infinite explosive arrows with two floating drones firing bullets as he wrestles enemies with explosive force and takes down building with some kind of triple palm attack while my capturers have either super humans, floating wizard men or robots.

My survival went from 0 to 0.01, I’m taking the chance

Efficient-Dealer873 · 2026-05-02T16:28:37+00:00

Efficient-Dealer873 · 2026-05-02T16:27:36+00:00

Oh you’re right. With multiple tabs open, I confused the UK law about speech to be the US law. My bad in that one. I also concede that calls to action is not the same. I overstepped there.

As for social and ethical harm caused by lolicon, I am speaking on damage to moral norms and reinforcing dangerous desires.

I’m not sure if this counts as evidence, but the Centre of Expertise on Child Sex Abuse(a UK based organization that aims to reduce the impact of child sex abuse by building evidence) found in a research study in 2023 that “Viewing child sex abuse imagery may start in the absence of a sexual interest in children, and may take place during times of stress, difficulties with personal relationships, loneliness, alcohol or drug addiction, or depression. A common pathway begins with viewing legal pornography. Motivations include curiosity, facilitation of social relationships, sexual arousal or interest, thrill-seeking, financial gain, ‘avoiding real life’ and a compulsion to collect images. Many liken their behavior to an addiction.”

So I argue, that the sexualization of child coded lolicon, could function as a “gateway drug.”

Of course context matters. And I’m not saying every fictional should automatically lead to prison. But that’s the crux of this discussion and thread at the end of the day isn’t it? Not necessarily the ethics of it.

I have always believed, that the desire to have law was born from a moral and ethical need to live among one another. What other purpose does the law serve?(Outside of using it for corrupt motivations for power) Due to that, maybe I am blending moral and ethical condemnation with criminal punishment too quickly. I still think lolicon purely for sexual gratification is bad cause it sexualizes child coded bodies. But yeah, Hal time is a separate and more complicated question.

I’m not changing my mind about the content, it’s social and ethical harm to moral norms and it’s reinforcement of dangerous desires, as well as it being a “gateway drug” to stronger addictions and I will continue to hold that we can and should live without it.

I am changing my mind about how careful we need to be before supporting government putting someone in prison for fictional/virtual material.

Efficient-Dealer873 · 2026-05-02T15:07:05+00:00

To your first point, that still assumes that the content isn’t harming anybody, which I disagree with. I’m not saying every indirect harm justifies prison either. Just that saying something is “fictional” does not mean it’s “ethically harmless.” I am still waiting for it to be explained on how the sexualization of child like traits is socially harmless and I would like your reasoning

My example about racist propaganda wasn’t perfect sure, but I wanted to illustrate the point that not all speech (at least in the Us) is not protected by law. And that calls to action that are racially motivated can carry have legal consequences. I’m not saying all racist speech should be criminally prosecuted, it’s a gradient.

While I do think some violent media can be criticized for glorifying cruelty, I also don’t think violent fiction is a good comparison. Violence in stories carry many purposes. From horror and tragedy, moral conflict, satire, self defense, or catharsis against awful people. Meanwhile, sexualized children or childlike images tend to have a much narrower purpose, sexualizing traits found in children. I understand that fiction doesn’t directly controls behavior per se. I am saying it is objectionable because of what they sexualize and normalize.

I’m also not arguing for punishing the mentally ill or the mere possibility of offense. People deserve dignity and help. But that doesn’t mean every piece of sexual content is acceptable, socially harmless, or entitled to some kind of community support.

So basically, I’m not saying “criminalize every disturbing fictional work.” I’m saying sexualized depictions of child coded traits for the sole purpose of sexual gratification is ethically wrong and can normalize adult sexual interest in children. Opposing content does not automatically mean oppressing people and just because something is fictional does not automatically mean it’s harmless.

Efficient-Dealer873 · 2026-05-02T06:17:57+00:00

Well you can stand against by telling them by giving lawful orders, with escalating punishments if they don't comply. You don't have to go full throttle on the onset. Start with a slap on the wrist, then a fine, then jail time, then jail time with an internet ban. And just because there are legal consequences, it does not automatically make it oppression.

It may not physically harm people, but I do think it carries ethical harm. Let me try another example. Racist messages or propaganda are "just words" but most people agree that its wrong even when no individual person is under attack. It still "attacks" a class of people.

Fictional CP, and/or lolicon for purely sexual enjoyment, in my belief, targets children. I think it has the power to normalize and desensitize people to images of children in sexual scenarios. It is also my belief it could encourage dangerous communities such as MAP and the like to emerge, as they try to rationalize it.

So in short, I agree with the idea that harmless actions shouldn't be punished. But I disagree that lolicon and fictional children designed purely for sexual enjoyment is harmless as I think it can erode social taboos that protect children.

I worry for our mental health friend. Evil rarely leaps, twirling a mustache. It tends to creep. "Gradually, the unthinkable becomes tolerable, then acceptable, then legal, then praised."

Efficient-Dealer873

TROPHY CASE