#and thinks that their actions are justified

[ultra-raging-ghost]

GOOD FOR PANGI!!!!! As much as I want them back together, its good for pangi to not immediately accept pilis apology and take time to think about it. It esp shows when Pili gets rejected he tells bad "it must be divine intervention, what did I do to deserve this??" like !!!! you told pangi u don't need him and don't want to see him!!!!! Even though you apologized and told him part of the reason you pushed him away it doesn't justify what you did and it doesn't erase how pangi felt about it and it doesn't show that you understood what you did - BBH is telling Pili rather gently this exact thing and that pilis actions have consequences, so good for pangi!!!!!!

[bonesashesglass]

God, I’m just so mad and upset and I need to rant for a minute:

I live in Wisconsin, where the last several years winters here have been scarily mild. It’s not uncommon for us to have a mild winter every few years or so, but we’ve been having milder and milder winters for the past several years in a row. Winters here are supposed to be long and snowy. It’s supposed to start snowing in November, sometimes October, and the snow doesn’t melt all the way till April, sometimes early May.

Last year, I felt like we barely even had a winter. There was snow on the ground for maybe two months total, it kept melting and then coming back, which isn’t supposed to happen. The snow will maybe melt after the first couple times, but once you get to December, it’s supposed to stay on the ground until Spring.

Same thing is happening this year. It’ll snow for like two days, stick for maybe one day, and melt. It’ll stay that way for a couple of weeks. It’s January now. The fact that there’s no snow on the ground, in fucking Wisconsin, is alarming. The fact that this has been happening several years in a row now is alarming. I’m seeing it happen right in front of me. We’re all seeing the effects of climate change now, and we’re seeing how it’s directly destroying and harming the planet. We can see it with our own eyes.

I’m thinking about the fires in LA right now. I saw someone talk about how they were alarmed they were getting these kinds of winds in January. (I’m not familiar with LA climate but this person talked about how abnormal it is).

Everything the scientists have been saying about climate change is coming true. It’s happening right in front of us, for the whole world to see. And still, the people responsible, the right-wing politicians and businesspeople that profit off of this just deny deny deny. How can you deny what’s happening right in front of everyone? They are destroying our planet, and they still think they can deny it happening. It just makes me so angry. That a handful of people have the power to destroy our planet and refuse to even acknowledge it. They act like the words “climate change” is liberal propaganda. As if it’s not something we can see happening right before our eyes. They pretend it’s political, they pretend it’s a conspiracy, because they have no other way to justify being against protecting the planet.

One thing that angers me most is that the only thing people seem to do about this is complain on social media. (I know, that’s exactly what I’m doing, but hear me out). LA is burning to the ground because of climate change, and what’s anybody going to do about it? Make a post on Twitter? Maybe write an article about it?

That doesn’t change anything. We need change. We need direct action. It’s only going to get worse if we keep letting companies and governments continue as they are. They cannot continue as they are.

If you haven’t heard of the book How to Blow Up a Pipeline, go look it up. The author talks about a lot of the stuff I want to get at here, but he puts it a lot better.

My hope is that these LA fires will start a movement for stopping climate change. Not just a general shift of opinion like we’ve seen the past few years, but a real movement where people show up in person to do something. We exist in a time where Luigi Mangione is seen as a hero for his actions, I hope people will get inspired to take more direct action in regards to climate change. (That doesn’t mean shooting more people, I’m not advocating for murder, but we need to start taking action beyond just complaining on social media).

I’m going to start researching resources to help myself and others to get more involved with preventing climate change. I hope one day, we’ll have an actual winter in Wisconsin again. To everyone in LA, please please stay safe❤️

[snugglyporos]

// Christ I wish I could go back in time and erase concepts like 'unconscious bias' from the world of popular lingo because people apply it to things that they don't apply to. No, most people do not possess an unconscious bias that working class people are worth less than rich people, that's your classist ideology being applied to things that you shouldn't apply it to. We might call that a conscious bias.

What is actually happening is a mix of tropes being blended together and not changing over time. Namely, the idea that the more individuals there are, the weaker they are. We see this everywhere; fifty ninjas? Weak. Not a problem. One ninja? Super powerful. Legend. This exists in everything from James Bond movies to comics to Power Rangers.

The reality is that, narratively speaking, the random cannon fodder between the protagonist and the final boss do not matter. They don't! In real life they would, but if you tried to give ever goon a backstory and explain it you would have a shit story because the audience does not care about the backstory of unnamed good #23. After they take the punch from the protagonist, the audience has entirely forgotten they existed.

Which means that, narratively speaking, the killing of the main villain is more important and more impactful than the killing of some random goon. Now, if you're a good writer this shouldn't be the case. But this too, comes from the blending of genres and tropes.

In the late 1980s, fiction became more violent and more visceral. This means that a lot more violence was happening! And yet, writers still wanted to have their protagonist show that they were the protagonist, because people were all in on moral relativism. People would be like 'well, there's no difference between the hero and the villain if the hero kills the villain.'

The response was a lot of heroes started adopting a weird kind of no killing rule; Batman will break your fucking spine but kill the guy who just blew up a building? That's too far! 'I'm not like you, a guy who kills people, I just cripple them for life!'

And again, this is what happens when genre conventions (the hero should be morally superior than the villain, or at least attempt to be) mixing with trope developments (everything now needs to be brutal and violent to reflect real life).

Now, the circle has completed itself, where we're once again back to 1985, where people are like 'actually no, the hero should fucking kill that guy.' You'll probably be a big fan of the Death Wish movies and The Dark Knight Strikes Back; you know, things that lots of proto-fascists really love because they reinforce the notion that actually, heroes should wield violence against their enemies and impose their will through abject terror.

The reality is, people aren't sitting around going 'my work should reflect the idea that workers are less important than the boss' it's that narratively, the random goons exist to be smacked down to prepare the audience for the big bad, because rising action requires that there be rising challenges. This is mixing along with personal tastes in media.

Now, you could, for example, turn this new trope on its head and ask whether the Punisher murdering every jaywalker and low level drug dealer with extreme violence makes him a villain, because his ideal is that any lawbreaker should be murdered instantly no matter how low the crime. You might also argue that the trope should actually be that the grunts shouldn't be killed by the hero, but the guy who organized them should, because he's much worse than they are.

You could also argue that, the reason why the hero doesn't just kill the villain is that murder is wrong? Even if you think it's morally justified? I think people forget, when they fantasize about an ideal French Revolution, that the most common crime people were executed for was pickpocketing, and every day they would execute the guys who got caught working the crowds at the executions the day before. More poor people got killed in the French Revolution than rich people; you should probably keep that in mind!

Because the core reason you probably want your hero to not kill people in general is that you then have to ask who deserves it and your answer will inevitably include a lot of people you might actually like! You probably don't want heroes taking vague concepts like justice into their own hands because inevitably that makes them into the Death Wish protagonist, deciding that what really needs to happen is for a white guy with a gun to just start shooting up inner cities.

You don't want your hero to start killing people because this is corrosive and it will inevitably result in comparisons between people who got killed.

So no, it's not some kind of unconscious bias, it's because we've melted a worldwide demand for bloodshed and violence with established genre tropes and if you removed one or the other people would complain and be very unhappy.

Or, I guess you could go on and say that Freddy Kruger is anti-marxist because he only targets teenagers instead of people who really deserve it.

[encyclopediamorbidica]

The fact that she says it's queer to grow up abused makes me so fucking angry because it throws out essentially decades and decades of activism, of us screaming "No! We aren't broken! We aren't gay and trans because we were hurt as children!" The idea that queer people are queer because we're abused is a notorious conservative talking point. And she just wants to throw us under the bus to justify her own bullshit. Makes me SO mad.

Like I genuinely don't think she didn't know that was what she was doing. She says such deeply inflammatory shit wrapped in progressive buzzwords and people just fucking lap it up because she made a song they liked and just decided to swear fealty to her no matter what.

Like she implied in that same post that it's also a sign of autism to be so fucked up fundamentally by abuse when like.... That's not fucking true either. That's actually some of the most ableist shit I have ever heard in my life, and she just fucking got away with it because people like to believe she's the Sole Arbiter of Autistic Experience. Genuinely, when you don't have any skin in the game about justifying your enjoyment of her art against the clear and obvious signs that she is a deeply flawed and predatory person, it just becomes fucking baffling to watch her get away with the shit she says and does. Power just inherently corrupts, apparently, although I highly doubt it's just the constant bootlicking from her followers that made her so completely mask-off about flaunting her predatory thoughts and actions.

[utdrmv-confession-box]

Transcript: I hope this is not a hot take but UTY's vengeance route is not justified and can NEVER be justified. Same for the genocide route in Undertale but this is mostly about UTY. Using the justifiers' own logic, the human souls deserved to die because humanity started the war, killed monsters due to their own paranoid fear, and made the barrier that sealed monsters underground. What's that? They never say that or mention how humanity attacked, killed, and trapped the monsters first, making humans the aggressors, and instead pull theories from nowhere in order to claim the monsters lied about their history? They sure like to make humanity seem justified instead of them being aggressive oppressors who started a war, killed monsters, and forced the survivors from their homes and into the underground. Consider me shocked that they want to make the human children blameless while not extending the same thinking to the monsters the humans left to die underground! /s Vengeance Route justifiers like to say Clover is justified in hunting down and murdering dozens of monsters in an area and only moving to the next once no more show up because five humans died. It's not self-defense at that point. Stop saying that grinding for enemy encounters is self-defense. Continuing with their logic, Integrity deserved to die because they had higher LV and had killed some monsters. (Sidenote but I don't like that their high LV was confirmed. It doesn't matter if it was only one dev's opinion, the fandom will view it as the canon answer now). Continuing more with the "justice" kind of justification for murder, a monster survivor of Clover's rampage would be justified in killing even more humans including Clover now that Clover killed dozens of monsters, right? /s And then another human could go and kill more monsters. And then a monster could kill more humans. All of it is "Justice". /s

It's horrible the humans started the war and trapped the monsters with the barrier. It's horrible the human souls were killed to break the barrier someday. (Why don't I ever see it brought up that the human mages were the ones that made it so souls were required to break the barrier in the first place? If they wanted to give monsters a chance to come back to the surface, they were willing to sacrifice future humans to do it.) It's sad those humans were children. Asriel and Chara were also children that died because of the barrier. More murder does not "even the scale". The vengeance justifiers love to say "the human kids did not deserve to die because of the past humans' actions" (while ignoring that humanity's past actions made the barrier and what was needed to break it) and then turn around and say "dozens of monsters deserve to die because of Asgore's actions" (ignoring that Clover is prowling the land and hunting monsters down by the point that their journey becomes the vengeance route). What kind of argument would they try to use if some of the monsters that Clover hunted down and killed were monster children like Kanako and her friend instead of adults... They'd probably still say it was justified to kill the monster children to "make it even". I still love UTY but could this fandom STOP trying to justify murder?

[chaos-of-the-abyss]

i don't think "war crimes are fictional my annoyance is real" is the point when it comes to thingol hate. it's fairly rare that i see stances on thingol that are "i dislike/hate him because he acts like a jerk at times and that reminds me of unpleasant irritating individuals i know irl." and when i do see that, it's like, fair enough, he can be an asshole when he wants to be. his method of telling beren to fuck off was extreme and it was petty; he could have just said "absolutely not, get out." and he absolutely is a smothering overprotective father sometimes, who very much chose to lock his daughter up. no matter if he believed he was doing it for her safety, imprisoning her is an inexcusable violation of her autonomy.

but here's the thing: i don't see that many people who hate on thingol doing so for "the war crimes are fictional, my annoyance is real" reasons. if they did that they would call him out for things he actually does in canon, for being an unpleasant dick at times and a helicopter parent -- while still knowing that from an objective moral standpoint, those things do not make him as vile as mass murderers, attempted rapists, evil overlords, and all the other types of villains you can find in the silm. but that's not what i see from most thingol hate. what i see from most thingol hate is, on the contrary, based in things that canon makes no indication of, and said things are used to make him look like a worse person, morally speaking, than he is canonically. "he's racist against the noldor," "he turned refugees away," "he was a xenophobic isolationist through and through who never let anyone into doriath," "aredhel's situation with eol is his fault," "he would have disowned luthien if she had just eloped with beren without coming to him first," "he would have let celegorm marry luthien against her will," "he owed the union of maedhros his allegiance and unreasonably abandoned the noldor by not sending forces to help," "the feanorians made every effort to be diplomatic and humble to him but he's a bigot so he snubbed them at every turn which led to them resorting to violence," etc. etc. etc. -- all in all blaming him for every last thing that ever went sour in the first age. making up lies about how a character did x and y bad action as a reason for why you dislike them isn't "the war crimes are fictional, my annoyance is real," it's "i already hate this character and i want to justify my hate." i understand disliking characters because their unpleasant behavior is more mundane, so to speak, and therefore hits closer to home -- i do it too -- but from what i've seen? that is not fandom's attitude towards thingol. fandom's attitude towards thingol is accusing him of things that he literally never does to make him far more villainous that he is in the source material

[sunflower1experiment]

I believe that is what is scary about the fandom

I’ve seen Jimmy fans despise him and enjoy tormenting his character and also like him design wise.

Yet I’ve seen people hate them more than Jimmy, which is odd because you are both on the same team but I think they mix those fans up with some people who idolize him which is worrisome.

And then there’s the fact that some people tend to confuse the idea of relating to him, no one wants to relate to him because they look at it through a black and white perspective. Which I get, yet we gotta discuss beyond that and accept that sometimes folks act like Jimmy in terms of how they perceive others.

With Curly they truly believe he should’ve done all of this stuff but realistically, would they be able to confront a long time friend who verbally abuses/manipulates and then blames them for the actions they caused?

With Daisuke, some infantalized him and saw him as stupid and innocent, thats how Jimmy perceives him.

Then people see Anya at her worst instead of how Curly sees her.

I’m saying is Jimmy’s perspective gets skewed with our views and we accidentally pull a what Jimmy does towards the other crewmates. Or we pull a Jimmy and Curly where we hate on Curly specifically instead of just disliking all three and Pony Express.

Least that’s my perspective, I wanna discuss it more but it’s really difficult.

None of the stuff here justifies anything Jimmy and Curly did, just explains it.

really good piece on mouthwashing in the washington post today

[vajrapoet]

Turning The Wheel

For SUNDANG RPG, I wanted to write a different kind of turn-based system. I stand on the shoulders of giants: PbtA’s Conversation-As-Procedure and “No Combat Minigame.” My goal was to make a battle system that had the free flowing, no-minigame feel of a PbtA/FitD game, but had a bit more structure to satisfy the action-heads.

One of the bigger inspirations for revolutionizing the turn-system is my obsession with The Raid: Redemption and The Raid 2, two seminal Silat films that have some of the best action sequences and choreographies in all of cinema. To me, it stands among Police Story 2 and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon as the current peak of cinematic action.

A few things to lay down to help center the thought-processes I had:

I am of a theater-academic background. My fascination and hyperfixation on RPGs stems wholly from the Role-Playing aspect. My friend group loves to extract stories and narratives from gameplay loops, but we want to Role-Play In A World first and foremost.

Therefore, I value the Role-Playing Experience above everything else. This is no doubt colored and informed by what RPGs I began with: Vampire: The Masquerade and Mage: the Ascension. RPGs are world-portals to me, ways to experience, interact, and interrogate realities.

I don’t consider Mechanics to be separate from the “Fiction”. I might even deem a game’s rules to be the “Infrafiction,” the Fiction underneath everything else that arises from a game. The Fiction that demands to be told. The specter that suffuses every rules interaction.

Tangent: This idea was first spurred on because of idle daydreams while playing and finishing my current run of Final Fantasy XII. For those that don’t know, Final Fantasy XII has the ADB or Active Dimension Battle System (which is funny because ADB is also the acronym for Asia Development Bank, one of the major enemies of National Industrialization in the Philippines). ADB is the evolution of the popular ATB battle system or the Active Time Battle System. It’s called ADB because you aren’t squared off into a different screen when you enter combat. Instead, you go into combat as you’re exploring the world. Combat and Dungeon segregation barriers are effectively destroyed. This is actually one of the reasons why I love FFXII so much, and so much of what FFXII worked is what I also love from its CRPG contemporaries such as Star Wars: The Knights of the Old Republic and Dragon Age: Origins. (It’s also very similar to the Combat System found in Xenoblade!)

So for SUNDANG, I had the following goals for combat and turn “order”:

Non-Minigame Combat, or Nondivided Combat Mechanics from the rest of the world/Conversation, taking inspiration from ADB.

No “Turns” just continuous “Action.”

Never-Not-Your-Turn vibe.

Skill-Based Combat.

Brutal, dangerous combat. Skull-cracking, bone-twisting, blood-drawing. Thrilling in the sense that a Horror movie is. A horror movie with wuxia protagonists.

The Action

Action Economy is when, on your turn, you have a number of “Actions” that you can do, and you cannot do anything beyond the number of actions (of course you can do anything which you can justify as an action). This will define not just how your character moves in combat, but how they think of themselves throughout their progression. The most common form of Action Economy is “Move + Action” as seen in most d20 games, especially D&D 5e.

One of the very first things that I’ve had to unattach myself from is the Action Economy. One thing I noticed while developing SUNDANG was that every aspect of the game mechanics felt like it had to justify itself within the Action Economy. This was problematic to me for 2 aspects:

It centered combat completely. Since Action Economy only really mattered in combat, every little trinket that I had to write suddenly had to have some sort of interaction that could be done when you pressed the “Interact” action during combat.

It required “mechanization.” One of the major ideas I had for SUNDANG was to provide a mechanical base that centered on the gamization of the “fluff” without the designer having had a hand in it. If something said “This is a mallet, useful for evening out dinks and repairing machineries” it should be able to be used for that without having to interact with a subsystem. Through this, we annihilate barriers between “fluff” and mechanics, creating a more “immersive” world-space that is more conducive to Role-Playing.

While nothing is wrong with something requiring mechanization, I want it to be as invisible as possible, hence why the mechanical base of SUNDANG is built for such an experience: at creating an immersive interactive world.

One of my problems with Action Economy is that combat becomes about Action Economy. This is a problem that you can see so deeply within some of my favorite games: Final Fantasy Tactics, Tactics Ogre, and Final Fantasy XII all have Speed Stats that are affected by Weight, etc. Since having more “turns” is infinitely valuable in a game about getting more chances to reduce an opponent’s HP to 0, Speed-generating strats dominated those games’ upper mechanical ceiling.

While I think that’s cool, it’s not what I wanted to do with SUNDANG. It makes strange mechanical repercussions, dominations of certain strategies and therefore a larger gap between what is used and what is not used. I don’t want to make a game where you have to “solve” it through buildcrafting. I wanted to make a game where you can express yourself in.

So, away with the Action Economy. What do you do on the turn now?

The Turn

“On your turn, you can do X and Y.” This is the basic assumption in most RPGs. In OSR and NSR games this is the common assumption as well. Move + Action is elegant, simple, and gets things moving along. It gets the system out of the way so people can keep focusing on the fiction.

More importantly, the Turn splits combat into every acting character within the current situation, context, or scene. Gives everyone a chance to act. Pins everything down into spacetime.

For SUNDANG, this was not the vibe I wanted to give off. It felt too spartan, in a way. I wanted people to be constantly moving, constantly turning. More importantly, as the RPG is a player-facing medium, I want there to be the vibe of “never-not-your-turn.” This is a problem I face with much of my past RPGs and with other combat-heavy RPGs.

You take your turn and then you sit back and wait for your next one. If you’re invested in the game, you watch as the situation and gamestate changes. If not, you wait until someone calls you out and then you ask what has happened and what has changed. In all honesty, my position is that this is not a bad game design quirk. In fact, if you design around it, it could be a good quirk. Being able to do something while it’s not your turn helps a lot with Attention Deficiencies, for example.

But this isn’t something I wanted to do with SUNDANG. I wanted it to be Never-Not-Your-Turn.

So I stole a bit from Fire Emblem. There, in Fire Emblem, a “Turn” isn’t a single character’s turn to move, but rather, an advancement of the combat time-space. You often have objectives where you have to “Rout Enemy In 40 Turns” or something along those lines.

So I revolutionized how I thought about Turns. What if Turns weren’t each individual being’s turn, but an entire group of people’s turns? Now this is phase-based or side-based initiative, common (and good! I actually love side-based initiative) in OSR games. It’s very wargame-y and, honestly, conducive to strategy. But that’s not what I wanted to do here.

So I turned the Wheel again. What if Turns were chunks of time in a combat? What if turns were just Rounds? Often, the existence of a combat minigame is so that people can “zoom-in” into the action, because this is a matter of life or death! You can get killed here! Hence why we zoom in, stop time, focus on the details because the details means the difference between kill or be killed.

So I focused on that aspect.

Turn The Wheel

In PbtA, one of the major schools of RPG Design that I profess to have arisen from, combat doesn’t have a “Turn System” or a “Combat System.” Instead, it flows naturally from the conversation. It is contiguous to the rest of the system, not requiring special attention. What you can do in normal roleplaying, you can do in combat! That’s what that meant. When you sequester combat away into a new set of rules, you implicitly change the game unless you explicitly design for it to be a microcosm of the game’s already existing rules. Due to this change, I believe the mindset then becomes that you have to play the game according to this new set of rules unless you’re particularly good at improv-ing or are some form of designer/GM yourself.

I wanted that. So SUNDANG’s “turn system” has no Action Economy, no Initiative, no Reaction (no Reactionaries!) When you want to do something, do it. But it will most likely require a roll, and it will change the state of the situation.Everything has an equal amount of appropriate consequences. This is already how PbtA “combat” goes, since it’s not separate from the Conversation, the combat is also a conversation. You do something, the world does something, you react to that, then the world reacts to that, and so on.

I therefore fused the “Turns as divisions of action space-time” and “Combat-as-Conversation.”

A lot of this clicked after listening to a Robert Kurvitz interview about how he wanted to do Skill-Based Combat Scenes. Which aligned with what I wanted to do. Check it out!

For arguments of space, such as movement rates, the normal movement rate is 5 tails (roughly, 25 feet) per second. One can then infer how much a character can move in a single Turn through that as well as the modifying, environmental factors (harsh terrain, labyrinths, and so on). This allows it to be played on a Grid with the Grid as a space-representer, with shifting distance-scales for each grid square. The more interesting consequence is that, when you move, what about the world that's actively trying against you? That will then necessitate a Check, making even movement volatile and situation-changing. 

Turn-Based Combat: Never-Not-Your-Turn

First off the bat, this conception of Turn-Based Combat arises also from Clocks and Skill Challenges. The difference is largely the Presentation, mentality, and structure.

Additionally, SUNDANG’s Skill System is integral to this conception of combat. SUNDANG is a 24-Skill System inspired by the likes of Artesia: Adventures in the Known World and Runequest, where the majority of the Skills are not even combat-focused Skills, which color a player’s expectations for how combat could go (why be chained to the 3-4 Combat Skills when you can potentially agitate your Creativity to try and use the rest of them?)

So in SUNDANG, Turn-Based Combat is as follows:

If you enter into a situation wherein life-or-death is in the details, set up a 4-, 6-, or 8-segmented circle, known as The Wheel. Segment it according to the time you have left.

Find something within the world to be the temporal anchor, the World-Time. It could be the moving train, the skyskiff (that you might or might not be on at that moment!) plummeting into city streets, the wheels of a horse-carriage heading into a crash, the juggernaut battering ram barreling through enemy trenches. You can use this to lengthen the timescale of a battle. A day-long duel between two masters might have the Sun as their World-Time.

Turn 1 begins when you point at one segment and say it does. During a Turn, all the relevant PCs must do something.When they do something, the world then does something back. As always, this is just the conversation. When a PC goes and swordstrikes a pirate captain, the pirate captain will probably swordstrike back (dealing damage if that’s the PC’s consequence or threatening damage if not). Keep the conversation going.

When all the PCs have done something, mark out that segment of the Wheel. Turn to the next one adjacent to it, and say “Turn 2.” This is called Turning The Wheel. When you Turn The Wheel, before the PCs do anything, describe how the temporal anchor moves forward in time, and ascertain the consequences of that happening:

The skyskiff breaks through the high-rises. (Now there are potential people watching, now there are potential casualties, and so on.)

The horse carriage bumps against a tree and barrels closer to the cliff. (The carriage might have chunks broken off, some combatants might be knocked off, and so on.)

The Sun begins to sink into the horizon. (Dark becomes to impair vision, a nocturnal sea predator might breach soon, and so on.)

The juggernaut battering ram flies over enemy heads and moves closer to the city walls (there might be some warriors firing projectiles at you now, and so on.)

Finally, when all the segments are filled, a Revolution happens. Something Big. Throw away that Wheel. The situation changes. It has to. That’s the only real thing in this world.

The skyskiff crashes into the city plaza.

The horse carriage flies off the cliff.

The Sun sinks completely into the sea, ushering darkness.

The battering ram slams into the city walls and breaks it open.

Often, this change in situation ends Violence. You have to deal with the consequences now. In SUNDANG, you get XP for surviving Violence, not winning it. But SUNDANG is also a wuxia-western-silat game of wandering justicemakers and hotshot swordsmen. If this happens, set up another Wheel and choose another world-time.

You somehow survive the crash, and now must fight in the city plaza amongst hundreds of watchers.

The horse carriage plummets into a jade jungle, and you must fight upon its descending carcass.

The Moon rises now, as the fight continues on.

The King’s Man-At-Arms now charge toward the juggernaut to swarm and destroy it, with you still inside it.

The Violence continues. Deal with the consequences of your actions. Look forward to another Revolution.

If this piqued your interest, SUNDANG is currently out on my Patreon and I'm running pseudo-playtests of it on the Patreon Discord!

[1ichtbringer]

I think the reason I dislike popular takes on geto and toji is that they usually disregard the very obvious social commentary behind both characters and either prioritize their victimhood without any accountability for their actions, or solely focus on their crimes along the lines of “they suck bc x character (or I) would never turn into a killer despite going through similar things”.

when it’s just crucial to understand that both of these characters are simultaneously victims AND horrible people because of their very own actions, and that you’re not necessarily supposed to like them - the narrative never justifies their actions or way of thinking either.

however, we also need to discuss victims of systematic abuse and exploitation that didn’t turn out well despite the things they went through. at the end of the day, both of these characters were very powerful people to begin with, groomed in an extremely violent environment where they experienced severe trauma without any psychological support or a teacher who made sure they were okay - their outcome certainly makes sense. yet they also chose to continue the cycle of violence as adults.

there definitely are characters with either similar upbringing or the same traumatic experience who didn’t turn out like them. in fact, it’s all about you noticing this very similarity and the tragic underlying what if’s.

[hopeforchanges]

okay hot take here don't bash my head in ... Sauron and Galadriel ≠ Orlok and Ellen

idk am i the only one who doesn't see it? i stayed away from speaking on the topic cause i didn't feel i had all the information to engage in any meaningful convo but now that a good amount of time has passed and I have listened and read other people's arguably passionate stances on this (which is great! i love when people enjoy something, it gives me joy too!!) i must say .... i don't get it lol

let me explain myself:

I get that certain aesthetics or vibes might overlap (dark, brooding antagonist vs. a luminous, female protagonist), the comparison completely falls apart when you dig into their actual characterizations.

Ellen as a Symbol of Maidenhood vs. Galadriel as a Warrior

Ellen is basically a paragon of feminine virtue: she's all about purity, innocence, and ultimate sacrifice. She represents a kind of moral ideal that aligns with the trope of the "selfless maiden." Sure there is darkness in here but like ... where? lol in the words of one of my favorite complicated female characters of the silver screen: "I can't see it, I can't touch it, I can't feel it. I can hear it, I can hear some words but I can't do anything with your easy words."

Galadriel is a warrior, a soldier, a power-hungry monarch. She was born a princess into a life of great privilege. Galadriel is ambitious, vengeful, and actively pursuing power. She definitely embodies characteristics that are more commonly associated with male domination. I love both the feminine in Ellen and the masculine in Galadriel. They just don't overlap imo.

Orlok’s Selfish Awareness vs. Sauron’s Delusional “Vision”

Orlok is unapologetically monstrous. He’s a selfish predator who knows exactly what he is and doesn’t care. He’s not trying to justify himself or claim he’s “saving” anyone—he just feeds on people because that’s what he does.

Sauron thinks he’s doing the right thing. In his mind, his actions are about order, preservation, and the “greater good.” That lack of self-awareness is huge—it makes him a completely different type of villain. Orlok leans into his evil; Sauron justifies it - doesn't even think he's the evil force - definitely not in his story.

The Core Dynamic Feels Wrong

Ellen and Orlok’s relationship is built on fear and revulsion. Ellen sacrifices herself to stop Orlok—she lures him to his doom. There’s no room for ambiguity there; he’s the predator, and she’s the prey.

Galadriel and Sauron are equals. None of them can land the killing blow because they don't want to, not because they can't. Their dynamic is tangled up in grudging respect, power struggles, and even a weird sort of kinship. Galadriel isn’t diminished or destroyed by Sauron like Ellen was by Orlok; quite the contrary. Galadriel was empowered by Sauron, healed through him (at least in the show which is the medium i am basing my opinions on, not necessarily the tolkien legendarium). That's why it's so funny to me that in season 2 he can't figure out why she won't say yes to him when she used to drool over his mortal form and so he transforms into Glambrand as his big fix cause he thinks THAT is what the issue is lol you were her friend, dumbass, that's literally it. you supported her and believed in her when no one did and couched her so she could achieve her goals - helped her self-actualize.

There are no such layers and complexities in Ellen and Orlok's relationship. Plus, the fact that he came to her first when she was a kid gives me the ick, sorry. it's giving phantom of the opera. and i HATE phantom of the opera (the original book by Leroux, the musical kinda slaps tbh)

TL;DR:

Yes, Ellen calls Orlok a deceiver, but that’s where the parallels end for me. Ellen = pure, selfless sacrifice; Galadriel = complex, power-driven warrior. Orlok = evil and knows it; Sauron = evil but thinks he’s the hero. Their dynamics are fundamentally different, and the Orlok/Ellen comparison just doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

If I’m missing something, feel free to convince me otherwise, but for now? Nah, I don’t see it.

[silverhand]

If you're using the term, congratulations, you've taken your first steps towrds becoming a fascist.

If you're told this and are defending using it, congratulations, you're ready to be inducted into being a fascist by other fascists because they see and recognize you.

If your first thought reading the two paragraphs above is to think I'm a degenerate liberal who is exactly why you personally are completely justified in saying whatever you want to anyone, congratulations, you are a fascist.

No one will mourn you when you die, and the end of your life will be full of bitter regret. You can stop that outcome whenever you decide you want to. The first step is to listen to other people when they tell you your actions are hurting them and not keep doing those actions.

fuck everyone who's started saying the r slur again i hate you and i hope your life falls apart and you die alone

[ultra-raging-ghost]

SO I'm having a little moment thinking Abt tr!Ros and this is what my brain is like rn

i love tr!ros and i love tr!pili But i have to agree with pili ESP after yesterdays convo in the cathedral bc ros's justifications for what she did on day 1 of red faction is not really a good justification.

she wanted to be scary and seen and not seen as weak so she baited and killed people who had no gear because thats all she couldve done, and now that those people are strong and capable shes experiencing the consequences and shes not happy about it, but its justified because red is the "evil" hostile faction, so yellow (and by extension, blue) dont hold her accountable for these actions and they listen to and accept her justifications for it.

That, to me, is probably the reason why Ros doesn't understand why Pili doesn't want to make up and be friends with her and keeps antagonizing her- because to her, her reasons are justified, but to Pili (and to me) she was just picking on someone weaker than her to seem stronger because she was tired of appearing weak to others.

ALL THIS TO SAY, im SUPER normal about it, i love echo chambers and I hope Pili and Ros make eachother worse

[everythingseasoning]

You know what really gets me about all villains is that at one point they were just kids who were so neglected, kids who didn’t understand how to process and make sense of their extreme, traumatic, complex situations … At some point that monster you hate so vehemently was an abused, scared, lonely and confused child, an innocent person— somebody who simply ended up doing their best, doing what they knew how to do — doing something we all could’ve ended up doing, had we grown up with their brain chemistry in their shoes. We all just know what we live, and live what we know. You can’t blame a child for not knowing better. I even argue that you can’t blame adults for not knowing better, if they were never taught, never pulled from the darkness. It doesn’t excuse their actions. I am not justifying that. But this explanation just makes the whole situation so, so, sad.

And if you disagree or agree, or both, you can reblog with your thoughts :) I welcome discussion. But please. Use critical thinking and compassion.

[ironedorchid]

The first thing I think of when I hear the word degenerate is the Degenerate Art (Entartete Kunst) exhibition that the Nazis staged in 1937 which featured modern art, including German Expressionism, Fauvism, Dada, Cubism, and Surrealism, that they had removed from museums and galleries on the grounds that it was anti-German and anti-tradition, unlike classical and realistic art.

Some of the key ideas* the exhibition overtly espoused included the notion that art which moved away from classical realism was the result of a sick or perverted mind, or the scribbles of the mentally ill and cognitively impaired**.

Modernist art movements had flourished in Germany during the Weimar Republic, but once Hitler was in power these artists were forbidden from producing or selling their art and were fired from teaching positions. Many of them left Germany, traveling within Europe or emigrating to the USA.

-

*The other central idea was that the movement away from realism was somehow the fault of Jewish influence on art and the the art world, because nazis will always choose anti-semetic conspiracies to justify their actions.

**The words they used are now considered slurs.

DNI lists on this website are fucking insane

[webby2007]

Something I love about Matilda angst is that because it had been a whole year of her being around dead Kat and she spent most of that year alone or with Kat (which arguably the same thing) a lot of things that we think about, Matilda has probably also thought about. Like she too probably spent hours overanalyzing their relationship trying to justify her actions in her own mind and she probably came up with those same depressing details we've realized. And isn't that lovely :D/j

[cherrysolo]

hi my love again hehe!! in one of your posts you were asking about luigi's goodreads!! and i made an analysis about the books he's read that ive read here it is if u want to read it :))

sapiens - also part of luigi's favorite's list!! this is by yuval noah harrari my GOAT guys.. i cannot STOP yapping about this book!! if u guys dont like reading very bulky texts and js want to get the main point there's a graphic history version and it's ive read it spits out points very concisely !! so either book it's all good :)) it's veryvery interesting it talks about evolution and why humans act like humans!! i love history and yuval noah harrari made me love evolution so much!! this book was rated a 5/5 by luigi (deserved hehe) girl honestly anyone ANYONE who gave sapiens a chance would also rate it 5/5 or a high rating it's a timeless lighthouse on the fog of defining humanity so since luigi is a very left brained man this deff fits his character all in all (oh js wanted to mention he rated sapiens: graphic history a 4/5)

harry potter - he rated 1st-3rd book a 5/5 def deserved !! ofc it's a classic ive had my harry potter phase die out and live again MULTIPLE times harry potter is probably apart of many people including luigi's first books ive read and loved list

the little prince - 4/5 (by luigi) it still freaks me out that he read the same books as a lot of us, watched the same movies as a lot of us, and that he's js a regular human but his actions moved society to forward him to transcend into the status of being "it is hell on earth to be heavenly - ts", almost even myth-like anyways back to the little prince it's rlly an AMAZING book !! it's a short read and it speaks so much about taking the truth of growing up and adulthood and making it alien through a child's eyes def made a lot of people relive an innocence that once was

animal farm - he rated this a 4/5 and i agree with that i read animal farm for school and it is a classic, so typical and so true i reference it all the time for me i gave it a 3/5 on my goodreads too because halfway through the book PLSDONT FLAME ME FOR THIS i kind ofalready picked up what george orwell was putting down - especially for the ending it was a bit obvious for me PLS DONT GET MAD IM SORRY anw it talks about the oppressive effects of a dictatorship (specifically communist government) and basically talks about how EVERYTHING gets political and even a revolution that looks toward freedom can get blurred when u lose ur ideals that's the main message i got out of this!!

the art of war - i havent finished the art of war yet..sigh.. he rated this a 4/5 and it's fitting since from the reviews ive read it's very strategic and calculated js like luigi so the rating matches with his personality

so sorry that's all the book titles that ive recognized in his roster.. I FEEL SO BEHIND but on a serious note i feel rlly inspired to read more books!! school has been so draining :(( and ive been lacking time to read im trying to light the spark again this year

i saw a lot of philosophy and psychology and self help books (including health about back pain) he's so avid about self-improvement it's stunning

i remember in luigi's reddit too he was very staunch about the fact that when he wanted to bring a book in his backpack it had to be physical and not kindle and he enumerated like 4 points to justify it it was so cute and made me so happy coz i shared the same views as him

oh and i also wanted to mention that luigi is an absolute culture absorber !! so inspiring he reads books about the places he goes to eg. hawaii and based on pictures he's a very openminded social butterfly hehe

luigi is a walking pursuit of wonder. like he read elon musk and the unabomber for specific reasons and i think it's because he was curious to find out the mindset of these people that yk he doesnt exactly idolize to euphonize it at least.. so if we wanna find out what type of person luigi is i think itd be good to judge that based on the books he's read def since it's what he's been exposed to/chosen to be exposed to so if anyone who has read the same books as he has u can always anon message me/make a post hehe i find his mind so interesting!! i love u so much!! i hope you're doing amazing!! good luck at uni!! (not that ur gonna need it hehe) sending so much love and admiration!! i mean poli sci??? now we need a standing ovulation for that. love u so much!!

OMFG I LOVE THIS SM!!!! I find it so interesting the array of books he’s read! he definitely doesn’t conform to one genre of books. especially in his tbr goodreads shelf he had a book about female pleasure….. we love a man who can read! haha

his post about not having a kindle and rather a physical book makes me giggle! I previously shared the same views, because nothing compares to holding the actual real book! But I now have a kindle and it has changed my reading habits completely! he would definitely be a lil suspicious if his so read on a kindle, because why choose a device over real writing on a page???

I definitely agree with you that reading can be so draining and book slumps are inevitable! I always try to set reading goals but I rarely accomplish them lol. do you think that luigi always set a goodreads yearly reading goal too? I wonder what his goal was set to!

I genuinely have such a smile on my face reading these replies ahhh!!!! ily <3