VN Ren'Py Completed Warlord [v1.1.2 Elite] [deepglugs]

[bobdillan]

"No NTR."

Mom gets shown off, implying they are an LI with some sexual tension with MC... then gets raped and murdered....

 

[deepglugs]

"No NTR."

Mom gets shown off, implying they are an LI with some sexual tension with MC... then gets raped and murdered....
View attachment 2208556

Not raped.

 

[bobdillan]

Not raped.

..... uhhh.... You still have it written in the dialogue...







As you can see there clearly is... (from latest version btw, had to download it again)

Like you've written rapey guards... and they supposedly didn't for the mom? despite saying they would do as much to the sisters, as they already had done to the mom?
And used the term "jeers and laughter" and later "violated".... like what you think violated and beaten means? obviously means raped and killed :|

Can't really say not raped when it is clear they were... just cause it isn't outright explicitly stated "She was raped" or overly detailed doesn't change the setting and what is stated "violated" to have happen and what would only logically happen given the setup of rapey soldiers capturing and toying with the Mom...

Like there is no reason they would only kill her... cause you haven't given one.

So if she wasn't raped.... you mean to tell me it was consensual getting "violated and beaten"? You literally have it written as rape... just that it was off-screen.

You have quite the bit of re-writing to do for it not to be rape... One possible method is create a reason for them not having time to and just killing her, like the MC and the two sisters escaping. But well you wouldn't be able to the beaten to death thing as easily, because well, that is a slow way to kill someone, and time would be needed for that.

If it barks like a dog, wags its tail like a dog, and looks like a dog, you don't need someone to outright state "It's a dog" to know it's a dog.

 

[deepglugs]

I'm not sure how being beaten to death is not a violation of ones bodily autonomy. Clothing being ripped can certainly happen in any struggle. Did you play the game and come to this conclusion before reading the thread? If so, you may be right that there is too much implication with the "violated" word.

 

[The Rogue Trader]

It never ceases to amaze me how so many people are more upset about the (removed but still lingering) rape of the MC's mother than her violent and unjustified murder.
Nice medieval mentality at work here...


EDIT: a month has passed, and it amazes me more and more... Apparently we are swarmed by cowardly apes, humankind is doomed.

 

[mrttao]

I'm not sure how being beaten to death is not a violation of ones bodily autonomy. Clothing being ripped can certainly happen in any struggle. Did you play the game and come to this conclusion before reading the thread? If so, you may be right that there is too much implication with the "violated" word.

This is nonsense, and you know it.
You are hiding behind some penny philosophy to try to claim that word does not mean what it actually means.
Your scenario was very clear on what happened as per

evidence

Also, if you wanted to play this kind of word game. technically "an outrageous violation" is one of the possible dictionary definitions of the word rape, and technically "happy" is one of the definitions of the word "gay".

but you can't write "He gay raped your ass" and then try to convince us you actually meant "what if these words ackshually meant he broke the NAP by killing your donkey while singing a merry tune? And please disregard all other ancillary evidence showing otherwise"

Putting aside word quibbling. there is also a term called "death of author". it means that once a work is published it only gets judged on its own merit and not any clarifications that the author makes afterwards.
So you can post that "by violated I meant murdered. by ripping her clothing before violating her I meant the clothes got chopped up in combat. by having them discussing taking a turn at her I meant they wanted to be the one to deliver the killing blow" etc etc.
This is not what your story actually indicates and you know it.
99.999% of people who read the scene as posted are going to conclude they raped her. Not that weird semantics word salad explanation

 

[bobdillan]

This is nonsense, and you know it.
You are hiding behind some penny philosophy to try to claim that word does not mean what it actually means.
Your scenario was very clear on what happened as per


Also, if you wanted to play this kind of word game. technically "an outrageous violation" is one of the possible dictionary definitions of the word rape, and technically "happy" is one of the definitions of the word "gay".

but you can't write "He gay raped your ass" and then try to convince us you actually meant "what if these words ackshually meant he broke the NAP by killing your donkey while singing a merry tune? And please disregard all other ancillary evidence showing otherwise"

Putting aside word quibbling. there is also a term called "death of author". it means that once a work is published it only gets judged on its own merit and not any clarifications that the author makes afterwards.
So you can post that "by violated I meant murdered. by ripping her clothing before violating her I meant the clothes got chopped up in combat. by having them discussing taking a turn at her I meant they wanted to be the one to deliver the killing blow" etc etc.
This is not what your story actually indicates and you know it.
99.999% of people who read the scene as posted are going to conclude they raped her. Not that weird semantics word salad explanation

Thing is... it was also originally rape... and it shows :| the soldiers are still rapey, and it is still heavily implied just no longer outright stated like it was before.

 

[deepglugs]

99.999% of people who read the scene as posted are going to conclude they raped her. Not that weird semantics word salad explanation

That's my question really... if people come to this conclusion on their own without being led by older posts in the thread. If it's true that 99.9% believe it's undeniably rape, then your point is valid (or even >50%). I haven't seen feedback elsewhere that supports it, but that's not proof that disproves your claim. At any rate, I've fixed the highly questionable wording. 0.6 will have the fixes along with Chapter 6.

I appreciate the feedback. Thank you.

the soldiers are still rapey,

The soldier will continue to be rapey, but not always. They are not out to do good for the world.

 

[mrttao]

Thing is... it was also originally rape... and it shows :| the soldiers are still rapey, and it is still heavily implied just no longer outright stated like it was before.

Fair enough. But in such a case you need to rewrite the whole scene properly. can't just replace one word to make it not be.

That's my question really... if people come to this conclusion on their own without being led by older posts in the thread. If it's true that 99.9% believe it's undeniably rape, then your point is valid (or even >50%). I haven't seen feedback elsewhere that supports it, but that's not proof that disproves your claim. At any rate, I've fixed the highly questionable wording. 0.6 will have the fixes along with Chapter 6.

Sounds good, thank you.

 

[bobdillan]

Fair enough. But in such a case you need to rewrite the whole scene properly. can't just replace one word to make it not be.

Part of the point.

That's my question really... if people come to this conclusion on their own without being led by older posts in the thread. If it's true that 99.9% believe it's undeniably rape, then your point is valid (or even >50%). I haven't seen feedback elsewhere that supports it, but that's not proof that disproves your claim. At any rate, I've fixed the highly questionable wording. 0.6 will have the fixes along with Chapter 6.

I appreciate the feedback. Thank you.



The soldier will continue to be rapey, but not always. They are not out to do good for the world.

I came to that conclusion before reading the thread... only had read your comment about no-NTR before playing... and still it was obviously rape my guy... Look no further than the clipped images I gave you... it is clearly still basically outright stated to be that... what else is the player supposed to think the soldier you made overly rapey would do?

Lines like "We didn't have time for those two because we were too busy with that one." tend to only mean one thing... just fyi.

Although I will admit, I could have instead asked first, instead of making a antagonistic comment.
If wording is fixed wording is fixed.
I would still highly suggest you give them a reason that would logically stop them, because "plot says so" isn't exactly effective for believability. And well, making it less obvious doesn't change the implication either, you need to have it answered instead of left to the players imagination... because well, sinister rapey guards tend to only do one thing to pretty females :|

 

[TheDick69+]

I didn't believe it was rape, so that stupid number 99.9 % is just that, plain stupid. All that think that they can talk for others act accordingly!

Good story and love the lore behind it!

 

[kokos94]

I didn't believe it was rape, so that stupid number 99.9 % is just that, plain stupid. All that think that they can talk for others act accordingly!

Good story and love the lore behind it!

i belive for example, just simple cause there was before

 

[TheDick69+]

i belive for example, just simple cause there was before

That some believe and some don't, that I can agree with. But when someone throw up a stupid number like 99,9 % believe, well then I really have to disagree.

 

[kokos94]

That some believe and some don't, that I can agree with. But when someone throw up a stupid number like 99,9 % believe, well then I really have to disagree.

kay probably not 99,9% true...little bit exaggerated, but i think that main reason to write that is that most ppl think about it.

One cause they know that it was there before..
anothers cause it is only logic that there was lots of rapes in pillagin...and with that writings it is clear that they was bussy with her...
and rest will just ignore it.

 

[nikkunamesu]

I don't know about you guys, but I'd gladly let Eisheth step on me

 

[deepglugs]

Chapter 6 will be available on Steam on Dec 26th. It's about twice as big as any other chapters and has one of my best lewd scenes at the beginning of the chapter. Any wishlist adds would be appreciated:

You must be registered to see the links

I'll release to public probably around the 28th.

 

[deepglugs]

In which engine are the characters and animations made? They are very smooth and don't seem like Daz 3d or Honey Select? Is it blender made? Like Ahsokka in Exile.

Sorry I missed this. Blender is the answer.

 

[rance4747]

The story got softcore, and so is my PP for it. Glad I decided to wait a bit instead of supporting the creator outright.
Too many times when creators post lots of promise filled tags only to later bend under woke mafia pressure and censor half the jucy tags to appease people that wont ever spend money on their products in the first place.

 

[nikkunamesu]

The story got softcore, and so is my PP for it. Glad I decided to wait a bit instead of supporting the creator outright.
Too many times when creators post lots of promise filled tags only to later bend under woke mafia pressure and censor half the jucy tags to appease people that wont ever spend money on their products in the first place.

I'm not the dev, but my curiosity is stronger, so...

What are you talking about?

 

[Smarmint]

I wonder if this is the same dev of MIST (which was just completed a few months ago). or perhaps another dev using the same models.
The characters look very similar, with a few minor tweaks (eye color, hair thickness, eyebrows)

It not using Daz, but some other engine that is rarely used in AVNs. Not sure which one (the Sims?).

Compare this:
Mist:
https://f95zone.to/threads/mist-v1-0-3-395games.42509/#lg=post-2799977&slide=3

to this:

Warlord:
https://f95zone.to/threads/warlord-v0-6-1-deepglugs.132455/#lg=attachment2082864&slide=0