there's something so poetic about kipperlilly copperkettle—who hated one of her classmates for daring to be better than her and having a dead dad, who refused to improve herself and instead chose to be bitter and entitled, who was so obsessed with being Special and Important like she felt she deserved that she willingly worked with a rage god, betrayed her party, and killed her friend—getting killed by fucking. Hold Person. her fancy optimal build IMMEDIATELY folding in the face of riz's cleverness and experience and applied knowledge. she spends years fixated solely on racking up EXP and getting the Best Abilities, and then when she dies, she's killed not in glorious combat but by a clever, practical application of a 2nd level spell that she NEVER would have ever thought of using because she has no creativity or adventurers' spirit, cast by the same classmate she always hated with a watch his dead dad gave him.
5K notes
·
View notes
Uhmmmmm soo. Over the past few months I've been seeing a lot of complaints or comments that digimon has too many designs which essentially boil down to “There are too many designs that are just humans in costumes.”
And for a while I just nodded my head and went Yeah Alright, because I Understood where it was coming from (the way most perfect + ultimate levels tend to become more humanoid over their predecessors) and thought it was a valid complaint even if I don’t agree. But eventually it got to the point where I got legitimately invested in wanting to know How Many Digimon there were that you could classify as “basically humans” and well. Here I am.
For the past week or so I came up with my own “categories” and counted how many digimon fit under each category to then later put into a graph like the one you see above ^
I did all of this for like, first and foremost My Own Interest, but I decided to share the results anyways in case someone else thinks this topic of discussion is interesting? I'll include as well under a read more a more in depth guide to the data i've accumulated as well
FYI, Important disclaimers: This is all highly subjective. Im not trying to claim these are any sort of objective categories canon to Digimon or that the results are objectively canon. You may think some or all of these categories are deeply redundant, or you will disagree with me over what counts as say, A Monster or A Furry or A Humanoid, and that’s fine. There are also digimon excluded from the total, most notably digimon that are cameo/minor characters in a singular digimon property, or recolours (ie Gabumon versus Psychemon) or which had minute design differences (Like, almost all of the different Agumons) because I thought including all of that was redundant or unnecessary. If there was a major difference in designs (ie Original Falcomon versus 2006 Savers Falcomon) however I did consider it as a separate design. Also, no X antibody designs were included, because oh my god there are already so many digimon and the X antibody designs could probably merit its own pie chart.
Baby 1 + 2:
Explicitly Creatures/Animals/Naturalistic Monsters/etc: 89
Inhuman/Monstrous in other ways (example- Robots/objects/undead): 17
Anthropomorphic animals/creatures (Furries, inclu robotic anthros): n/a
Humanoid but still inhuman/monstrous/weird in some way: n/a
Essentially humans/Humans in costumes: n/a
Rookie:
Explicitly Creatures/Animals/Naturalistic Monsters/etc: 73
Inhuman/Monstrous in other ways (example- Robots/objects/undead): 26
Anthropomorphic animals/creatures (Furries inclu robotic anthros): 7
Humanoid but still inhuman/monstrous/weird in some way: 7
Essentially humans/Humans in costumes: 4
Adult:
Explicitly Creatures/Animals/Naturalistic Monsters/etc: 96
Inhuman/Monstrous in other ways (example- Robots/objects/undead): 51
Anthropomorphic animals/creatures (Furries inclu robotic designs): 18
Humanoid but still inhuman/monstrous/weird in some way: 23
Essentially humans/Humans in costumes: 6
Perfect:
Explicitly Creatures/Animals/Naturalistic Monsters/etc: 64
Inhuman/Monstrous in other ways (example- Robots/objects/undead): 46
Anthropomorphic animals/creatures (Furries inclu robotic anthros): 39
Humanoid but still inhuman/monstrous/weird in some way: 46
Essentially humans/Humans in costumes: 9
Ultimate + Super Ultimate:
Explicitly Creatures/Animals/Naturalistic Monsters/etc: 68
Inhuman/Monstrous in other ways (example- Robots/objects/undead): 41
Anthropomorphic animals/creatures (Furries inclu robotic anthros): 48
Humanoid but still inhuman/monstrous/weird in some way: 95
Essentially humans/Humans in costumes: 17
Hybrid:
Explicitly Creatures/Animals/Naturalistic Monsters/etc: 7
Inhuman/Monstrous in other ways (example- Robots/objects/undead): 4
Anthropomorphic animals/creatures (Furries inclu robotic anthros): 6
Humanoid but still inhuman/monstrous/weird in some way: 8
Essentially humans/Humans in costumes: 7
Armour:
Explicitly Creatures/Animals/Naturalistic Monsters/etc: 40
Inhuman/Monstrous in other ways (example- Robots/objects/undead): 5
Anthropomorphic animals/creatures (Furries inclu robotic anthros): 11
Humanoid but still inhuman/monstrous/weird in some way: 7
Essentially humans/Humans in costumes: 1
83 notes
·
View notes
is there any death in the rewrite that you consider to be really graphic? where do you draw the line in the violence of a character's death?
Hmmm... Probably Tigerstar honestly! The cats wrote a song about his organs falling out.
I think when it comes to the "line" of a character's death, it's very subjective. Me and every other kid who read WC pogged out when Tigerstar had a really drawn out, horrific death on-screen, but I'm still haunted by Sootfur with his broken leg, falling down towards a badger while Squilf couldn't save him and seeing the aftermath of his "sightless eyes" when the animal moved off him.
One of those was objectively less graphic, but imo a LOT more harrowing. I think emotions are a lot more important in how deaths are received by an audience than the actual blood and guts, which I think gives you a decent idea of what you're gonna get here.
I think Leopardstar's rock concert is the "ceiling" of how intensely I describe deaths. I think that one's pretty graphic, but it's for a reason. The point is that it's a brutal killing that haunts Mistystar, you get me? And I try to write "around" the gore, describing sounds, the rest of the body, etc.
There is also cosmic/body horror with the Ancestor Rats, and more importantly, BB!Cats do food processing. They skin dead animals and separate the organs and such. When I get around to doing an entry on animal fat, I would also like to show WHERE in the body the fat is stored on certain animals. It's a lot more important to nutrition than you think it is.
BUT whenever I feel like I'm "around" Leopardstar's Boulder Appointment or an Ancestor Rat, I always always tag that. Less "violent" things like the song about the organs (Tiger's In A Heap) and more gentle food processing (like an offhanded mention of removing entrails or skinning) isn't tagged.
If I ever end up including a "diagram" of where fat is stored in the body or "how to properly skin a small rodent" It will be tagged as gore and I'd try to stay tasteful to begin with, I would ABSOLUTELY never drop something like that on anyone untagged and unwarned.
83 notes
·
View notes
Ngl as a small business owner who puts out something extremely pirate-able and who has never earned enough to make a pay check, this...
...is extremely upsetting.
Do y'all realize that most small business are maybe a handful of people? Do y'all realize that company's like LLCs exist to protect owners from legal and financial repercussions if the company falls apart? I'm not a company because I have stockholders, I'm a company so that if the business goes bankrupt the banks can't seize my fucking house. It's not evil to use existing legal structures to protect my family's assets. It's not unreasonable to ask people not to steal from businesses like mine.
It's like on Tumblr when it's One Artist or One Author Doing The Thing Themself you guys are all about it but the minute anyone tries to collectivize to do better we go from One Person Against The World to The Embodiment of Capitistic Evil with no in between, which is especially insane coming from the website that claims to think individualism has turned toxic and we should do more with community organization. The minute lots of people are involved in a business, there HAS to be legal structures like contracts and shit to protect the people involved. The Lone Creator Forging a Path is great for that one person. What about everyone else?
And so... some of us try to make a company to lift up a group.
And then I see shit takes like this.
Maybe. Maybe DONT fucking pirate from literally anyone just cause they've got the word "company" I'm the name?
Maybe remember that for small businesses, yes even when they're a company, there's a single person, or a family, or a group of friends, who are working their asses off to build something, and actually? Stealing from them makes you a FUCKING DICK.
Like. You realize we're just people right? Other regular people trying to survive the dystopian hellscape that is the now?
Maybe stop acting like you're automatically entitled to the labor and creations of others solely because you've decided that there is an entire huge category of people it's okay to steal from.
Like honestly. What the fuck.
97 notes
·
View notes
Sometimes I think about how Wilde actually saw Guivres burn down the Eiffel Foley because there's no way he got away from Paris before that. And about how much he had to be lying to himself afterwards to keep working for the Meritocrats without thinking about the innocent people that were still trapped there and about the small gang members that while not innocent definitivaly didn't deserved to be burned by a dragon. If when talking about how Sasha was an unreplaceble asset to Apophis he wondered how many young lost people with same backstory as Sasha burned in Paris. How many kids? If in his nightmares he would sometimes go back to exchanging puns with Sasha only for them - the team - be in the fabric while Apophis burned it.
About how the moment Grizzop presented Wilde with the list of Barret's man Wilde's questions are not about how many moles are there but "is there any proof that the Harlequins are involved with the Similacras at all?" How he was ready to belive the dragons were lying and there was something sinister going on from the start.
Sometimes I wonder if the party not being there in Paris was part of what made then still proud meritocratic agents till the end of the word. Sometimes I think about how while they didn't saw it they knew about the destruction Guivres caused and they had to know that not everyone escaped. Sometimes I think how much Apophis being resonable and being nice TO THEM influenciated them into staying.
Because Sasha created the Harlequins the moment she saw Rome burn.
Sometimes in a different dragon tangent I wonder if Sasha felt weird talking about meeting Apophis and Hamid's ancestry. Trying to explain to her kids and to Cicero and to the comunity she built about the dragons that ruled her word (and weren't always bad nor were evil just complicated shades of gray) when the dragons ruinned their lifes.
28 notes
·
View notes
the "big picture" - whether that refers to some detached, calculated greater good; ruthless ambition and progress for the sake of progress; or even the dear listeners' cosmic indifference - as an antagonistic force in wolf 359 is so fascinating to me because of the way eiffel as a protagonist is set up to oppose it, just by nature of who he is. eiffel retains his humanity even under the most inhumane circumstances. his strength is in connection, and with that he's able to reach others who share his core values, but he's operating under a fundamentally different framework from the show's antagonists. he can never understand where they're coming from or be swayed by their points of view because, for better or worse, he can only see the world through a close personal lens.
it's an ideological conflict he has with all of them, but notably with hilbert: "you talk about helping people, but what about the real, live people around you? [...] that's your problem. you're so zoomed out." eiffel will never, ever see that "big picture" because he is so zoomed in. at his best, he puts things into perspective and grounds the people around him. at his worst, his perspective narrows so drastically inwards that he becomes blind to everyone and everything else. his failings are deeply, tragically human - they're personal, they're impulsive, they're self-destructive. they're selfish. no matter how much he might try to narrativize or escape from himself, he's still left with doug eiffel: "it's taken me this long to realize that running from everyone else means that you're alone with yourself." eiffel could never be convinced to harm others on purpose, but he has hurt people, and it's never been because he didn't care. the very fact that he cares so much, that he's incapable of reconciling the hurt he's caused with the things he values, is what keeps him from real growth for so long. where many of the other characters in wolf 359 will justify their cruelty in service of something they consider more important, eiffel is so caught up in vilifying himself and the fear that he's always going to harm the people he cares for without meaning to that he shuts himself off from the people who care about him and perpetuates his own self-fulfilling prophecy.
232 notes
·
View notes