#+ there IS an objectively correct answer here jsyk.

[diosapate]

i was tagged by @hauntedmoors >:)

rules: list your five all time favorite films and have people vote on which one matches your vibe

tagging: @dykegerard @dykeandballs @rovensheres @goblins-riddles-or-frocks @familyabolisher ✨

[utilitycaster]

What’s your feeling on the Laudna-is-a-suntree-corpse reveal? I think I remember you finding the theory silly at one point, so are you still frustrated? The thing with her ears was somehow the most upsetting to me.

You know this is a great question and I was wondering if anyone would ask it. I actually found that I didn't mind how it was presented in the story, in the end. You've caught me in an oddly reflective mood, which is probably good for everyone myself included, and I want to answer this and also maybe elucidate my philosophy on theories in a way that's perhaps more honest and a bit...idk about kinder, but at least more patient and less contrarian than I've been.

Specifically about this theory

In hindsight, I don't love this as backstory but I don't hate it either. I think I reacted so negatively to this as a theory for a couple of reasons.

The first is that I do feel Vox Machina at times occupies this outsized mythos within the fandom and it was something I felt particularly keenly coming in with Campaign 2; it felt (still feels, tbh) sometimes that there's this air of "welcome :) you don't have to have seen campaign 1 to enjoy campaign 2 :) but jsyk campaign 1 was better in every way :) it was better when the fandom was smaller and all you johnny come latelies weren't here and you're wrong for preferring campaign 2 :) anyway welcome :)" (I should note - many, many people who have been around since Campaign One don't do this at all, it's a tiny minority who do, but god they piss me off). Anyway, to that end I'm hesitant about strong connections to Campaign 1, to the point that it took a good deal of time for Orym to grow on me (and he has, to be clear).

The second is that, and maybe this, ironically enough, is me jumping to conclusions, it felt like it was treated as definitively correct (well, that and the competing theory that Laudna was a de Rolo) when it was merely a possibility, and one that I didn't feel added much (more on this below).

The third is that I could feel the way a certain segment of the fandom wanted this to be true for Angst Reasons and this is a sticking point; I have a low, low tolerance for angst and I've talked about that before, in that I'm way more interested in realistic depictions of responses to tragedy, ie, either like, actual grief and trauma, and then processing and healing. Like, I want the Nein post-Molly's death, I want Yasha and Caleb's stories...but I also want stories that we're getting in Campaign Three, in which Laudna, Chetney, Orym, and Ashton have all experienced objectively horrible, life-altering events but they all seem to share this attitude of "yes, this was horrible. Nothing I can do will change it, and even resentment against those who did it won't help, and all I can do is move forward." I guess what I'm saying is that if you want to delve deep into angst and "oh no I made myself sad" that is an entirely valid personal choice but I have no taste for it, and I can't really block it either without blocking a lot of stuff I do want to see so I just...seethe.

So this was a super long way to say that it's not going to be my favorite choice but I actually appreciate that Laudna is like "I was an innocent bystander who brutally murdered to send a message I don't even totally understand, and I don't want to think about it too much, but in the end, it is what it is and I'm somehow still here so let's make the best of it."

(FWIW the part about the ears doesn't bother me terribly? I mean it's awful but we already knew how horrible the Briarwoods were, like, this doesn't really change much and I can respect a gory detail, but I understand it being rough)

Theories in general

So I'm in no way above theorizing to my own taste...but I do want theories to answer a question. Otherwise it's wild unfounded speculation, and I know that is fun for some people but it's no fun to me. I don't even mind being wrong about the concrete happenings, but I do mind being wrong about vibes, I guess is the best way to say it?

Like, to give a couple examples in which I was wrong (both C2 because I was spoiled for a decent amount of C1) - I was very wrong about the campaign going on longer bc the Uk'otoa and Trent plot threads were still out there, but I was correct in that they were still out there and need a resolution; the difference was just that the resolution would happen for the most part as epilogue or post-campaign. I was wrong in that I leaned towards Essek not being a traitor and just being caught up in some weird personal stuff...but he was indeed caught up in some weird personal stuff and his intent wasn't really to betray.

So here, I was 100% wrong about Laudna not being a Sun Tree corpse. But I do think that her response to her death seems like it would have been the same had she just been killed by a necromantic wave of energy, or by a stone giant, or whatever. That's what I ultimately felt strongly about - that the connection isn't rife with meaning, that it's just a thing that happened. I should probably, when dealing with theories, focus more on things like that than the details. I feel like this is hedging but I promise that's not my intent - this is me realizing things about why I dislike certain theories and how to better personally frame it instead of shooting them all down wholesale.