REQUEST: Can we have both /changepose Poses?

[Inori-Yuzuriha]

no

female au'ra master race

[CaptainLagbeard]

I wouldn't mind them doing this, and if by any chance possible, I wonder if they could make them save by class...

[Anarnee]

This please! Like I am STILL offended that male DRGs get THE Dragoon pose. Like forget you SE I am a DRG too. The only way I can do it is LB3....

[TaranTatsuuchi]

I"m always up for having more options.

[Khalithar]

I really want the female drk's stance, would look badass. No I won't fantasia for it either, I'm way too attached to my Elezen male. :P

[Cherub]

I want female WHM pose for my manqote...... It's rly cute

[autumn]

Agreed OP!

Haven't read the thread, but there's definitely some poses I'd love to use.

[ErikMynhier]

*Sigh*
See the difference?

I see you starting your argument with a passive-aggressive emote expressing how exasperated you are at my stupid. Sort of a cheap way to start and doesn't lend you much credibility. You may think you need the boost to your stance, and you do. To sit there and state that a physical stance that is by the way physically possible is somehow more disruptive to your suspension of reality then magic is a very weak argument.

See the difference? ^-^

[CosmicKirby]

I see you starting your argument with a passive-aggressive emote expressing how exasperated you are at my stupid. Sort of a cheap way to start and doesn't lend you much credibility. You may think you need the boost to your stance, and you do. To sit there and state that a physical stance that is by the way physically possible is somehow more disruptive to your suspension of reality then magic is a very weak argument.

See the difference? ^-^

Well: I wrote this prior post after a full shift had me leaving work at 3am, so it's a bit more enthusiastic than usual. That being said, being (admittedly) rude doesn't lessen credibility, my argument stands whether or not it was stated in proper decor.

I do apologize that it was taken directly, as I'm, more exhausted at the argument itself; that one can't find flaws in minor physical details in a piece of fantasy media, simply because fantastical elements exist alongside the typical ones.

Do you have a response to this argument in particular?

[Saito_S]

I see you starting your argument with a passive-aggressive emote expressing how exasperated you are at my stupid. Sort of a cheap way to start and doesn't lend you much credibility. You may think you need the boost to your stance, and you do. To sit there and state that a physical stance that is by the way physically possible is somehow more disruptive to your suspension of reality then magic is a very weak argument.

See the difference? ^-^

No, it's not a weak argument. Cosmic's response perhaps has an unnecessary air of condescension, which they acknowledged in the more recent post; nevertheless, they are right. Magic isn't disruptive to one's suspension of disbelief in a world where magic is said to exist. That's part of the premise of the world. So it's no problem.

When it comes to suspension of disbelief in fantasy an sci-fi, strict "realism", per se, really isn't that important, on its own. What is important are "believably" and "internal consistency." Magic still isn't "realistic" but it is believable within the framework of the world that has been set up. Warp drive and hyperspace, in Star Trek and Star Wars respectively, are both whackadoodle nonsense if you examine them with a critical eye and try to apply real science to them, but that doesn't matter. Both of those settings have "faster-than-light travel is possible using tech that is beyond the understanding of real-life modern humans" baked into the setting. So we don't need to know exactly HOW it works to accept that it works. Same with magic in a fantasy setting like XIV. The horse-riding thing, on the other hand, is just a thing that happens for no reason. It uses an element that, unlike magic, is directly taken from the real world (in this case, horseback riding), and then suddenly something absurd is done with it. There's nothing baked into the setting of XIV that would account for it.

So THAT'S the difference. A fantastical element which is an acknowledged part of the setting, which may be "unrealistic" but is used believably and consistently within the setting (usually; it's not like XIV NEVER makes an error in terms of that consistency, but that's beside the point), versus something that is an element directly taken from the real world and then is suddenly used in a nonsensical way with no explanation.

Is it of SUPREME importance? No. As has also been acknowledged, it's a nitpick, but that doesn't change anything. As Cosmic said, one can find flaws in the details of a world with fantastical elements and critique those flaws. Being fantasy (or sci-fi) isn't a license to just do whatever you want with no explanation.