The tag implication #47117 red_crown_(cult_of_the_lamb) -> lamb_(cult_of_the_lamb) has been rejected.

Reason: The Red Crown isn't strictly speaking a character. In fact, it can't even go anywhere without Lamb, so for all intents and purposes they're the same character, since any picture with Lamb automatically has the Crown.

EDIT: The tag implication red_crown_(cult_of_the_lamb) -> lamb_(cult_of_the_lamb) (forum #345252) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

post #3579981 would seem to disagree.

Arguably, an artist could depict the Red Crown on another character's noggin, say as in some strange alternate universe crossover event. This would also mean Lamb could conceivably be depicted not wearing the Red Crown, perhaps because someone cosplaying as Lamb took the crown off, but haven't removed the rest of their costume.

The tag implication red_crown_(cult_of_the_lamb) -> lamb_(cult_of_the_lamb) (forum #345252) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

clawstripe said:
Arguably, an artist could depict the Red Crown on another character's noggin, say as in some strange alternate universe crossover event. This would also mean Lamb could conceivably be depicted not wearing the Red Crown, perhaps because someone cosplaying as Lamb took the crown off, but haven't removed the rest of their costume.

post #3562704 post #3524012
Different character with the crown, lamb without the crown.