#but he's also not a “just a baby UwU his acts of cruelty doesn't actually count at all and he approves of worst things because ✨ trauma ✨”

[eldrichthingy]

people that can't accept that astarion's alignment is absolutely, definitely, canonically fucking !neutral evil!, are hilarious to me. idk how??? did we play the same game?? genuinely?? do you think neutral character would approve of raiding the grove & killing a bunch of refugees & killing the gnomes etc???

[dmbakura]

Would you say AA has this sense of thinking he /needs/ to be like Cazador, because that's "what works" and what's "safe"? Like this is who he has to be, and nothing else is viable? That's how I interpreted AA's masking (especially during his sex scene, it seems very insincere and more like what he thinks he needs to be than what he wants) and I can't really make it work with Neil's statements honestly.

I also think he's very much capable of cruelty but the way AA acts is something else entirely to me because it's so goofily a Stereotypical Cartoon Villain Big Bad Sexy Vampire which doesn't really come across as honest in the way, let's say, Gortash's antics seem honest from what we know of the character. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what masking means, idk. I'm definitely not saying it's not honest that he wants to do all that power-hungry shit and that he's secretly a pure tortured soul because that's a lame ass reading that contradicts canon but everything about how he carries himself is so uncanny and all those underlying themes of being really fucking afraid and unable to face what happened/running away from it don't lead me to believe he's living an authentic life, more like he's trapped inside himself.

I don't really see how this contradicts anything Neil said. He never says AA is Astarion's most authentic self at all, or even that he's healthy and confident, only that he stops masking with theatrical deflections.

You also have to account for the supernatural element here too. In dnd lore, most true vampires basically succumb to personality rot and become paranoid and obsessive scheming freaks. I know the 'vampire ascendant' is a new thing and bg3 plays with the lore a bit more but considering this is alluded to by Astarion AND Cazador and heavily reflected in AAs behavior, I'm willing to believe that the vampire ascendant is literally just that but on steroids. Hence the cartoonish behavior lol

Astarion's a complex character. A lot of his arc is a question about how trauma can shape a person and what remains (if anything) after they've gone through something inconceivable, and if they can move past it and reclaim an identity for themself. I don't think it's a coincidence that his background is mostly vague and we don't actually know the kind of person he was before he was turned (unlike *those* fans, I also don't believe 'corrupt magistrate' means he was 'always destined to be evil' or some nonsense like that.) So much of his character is informed by the choices made in the game and how the experiences shape his worldview. He's by far the most dynamic character in the game and people want there to be a simple answer to his character (whether that be 'he's a poor uwu baby who did nothing wrong' or 'he's always been irredeemably evil and is incapable of change') when the reality is there just isn't one.

All this to say, same as what I've been saying from the beginning, both endings for him serve a purpose. They're two sides of the same coin for his character. They are both true to Astarion and his development and they're meant to contrast in ways that make you think deeper about him and his story. They absolutely cannot be taken in a vacuum and I am just so annoyed with people not engaging with the story on this level and wanting there to be simple moral platitudes to everything because they're uncomfortable with complexity.

[fyodior]

Ahhh finally someone who also believes that (while being a murderer, terrorist, etc.) Fyodor has a good heart! As horrible as some people (fictional or real) are, I find it hard to believe that people can be purely and entirely evil at their core, with nothing good lying within them. I don’t believe that people just are evil, as in being born like that. People do horrible things because of their upbringing (believing that some bad things are normal), because of trauma, clinically psychological problems, actual brain damages/dysfunctions (e.g. being physically unable to feel empathy or remorse) etc., but I just cannot believe that some people are just bad.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to excuse horrible/abusive/etc. behavior or evil actions, nor am I saying that „all evil people are just hurt and need a hug, uwu“, but I don’t think that bad people are bad people „just because, for no reason“. I don’t believe selfishness and cruelty is the „true“ human nature. Humans are capable of that, but it’s not all they are. At least that’s what I believe.

(Babies cannot survive without affection and love, no one can tell me that humans have an evil and antisocial core and are only good if it’s beneficial for them! Fuck you, Thomas Hobbes.)

Fyodor would probably still manipulate me for his own benefit and then kill me before tossing my dead body into a ditch if he was real, but I don’t think he was born like that, you know?

FUCK U THOMAS HOBBES FORREAL ive only taken intro to philosophy but i still hate that man

and i genuinely agree i think for the most part people are born not evil. that's why there's "villain origin stories" and not like. "good person origin stories" slkjdsakl for someone who commits such heinous acts like fyodor-type characters there's something behind that. he definitely doesn't just do it for funsies or because he has nothing better to do. and this is a very poorly worded response but i get what u mean and i hope u get what i mean <3 and id happily let fyodor manipulate me idc

[miiilowo]

hey you realize i can read your reblog right. i wasnt saying half the shit you put in here, i do think hes an irredeemable abusive asshole, so dont insult me and boil down my interpretation of him down to "tumblr sexyman who can do no wrong", thanks.

first off, this whole, general post, isn't worded very well, mostly because i am/was irritated at the shitty writing this series does have and always has had. its great that you managed to piece together whatever the hell this is back in 2015, thats fantastic, good for you! that doesn't change that to me, and to an extremely large portion of the fanbase, this felt very badly done and phoned in because the amount of clues that Were dropped (if you can even say they were actual clues at all) were far and few inbetween, and wouldn't lead someone to believe that william is pumping hallucinogenic fear gas into his childrens bedrooms. when you set up shit in a certain way, people are going to believe that Thats What The Story Is, because thats typically how storytelling. yknow. works. this isnt some masterful plot twist, hell, this isnt even point a to point b. ive always thought that the "closed due to leaks" thing was william trying to cover his ass because an animatronic he built MURDERED HIS OWN CHILD and he was attempting to come up with an excuse/a coverup. a lot of other people Also thought this. it's not an out there assumption to make, and acting like people are stupid for not managing to get "fear gas chambers" from "closed due to leaks" just doesnt seem fair to me lmfao

second of all, it wasnt a silly headcanon i came up with and got MAD that scott would DARE to interfere with MY AFTON that he cared for his children, it was based off evidence that was given to us in the games, because william afton in The Games is different to william afton in The Books. not everything is going to line up. for example, in the books, he sedated/put the kids to sleep before killing them, which would demonstrate a level of care of some kind, or at least a lack of complete cruelty when it comes to the murders. but i dont think he did that when he killed charlie outside in the rain. do you understand what im getting at? their characterization isnt identical in a manner of ways, and since i apparently wasnt Smart Enough and i was too absorbed in my "uwu tumblr sexyman afton" interpretation to get scotts supposedly master plan correct or whatever, i interpreted the following as him (though in a fucked up helicopter parent sort of way) trying to keep an eye on and protect his children while he was busy working because hes a neglectful piece of shit:

security cameras all over the house and in bedrooms

circus baby being modeled after elizabeth, and william repeatedly telling elizabeth to stay away from circus baby, presumably because he didnt want her to get hurt (i dont think this is an insane leap of logic to make either)

the fredbear plushie being a way to monitor evan specifically as he is constantly terrified (among other things regarding his own motives)

generally, i dont think someone who essentially founded chuck e cheese would hate children, let alone his own kids

your argument includes the fact that someone who loves their kids wouldn't do any of these things. this isnt true. someone whos a Good Parent wouldnt do these things. someone whos a Bad parent but still loves their kids to some degree might. theres a big difference there. evil people have things they care about, and i personally think that having afton care about his children but being a bad parent who goes about it in a Bad Way is much more interesting than him just being some abusive dad lmfao. im not trying to make him cute or redeemable or whatever the fuck else you might think. it may not be the perfect unconditional love that Good Characters and Good People are capable of, but we are both well aware that he's neither of those things, yes?

while none of those things were stated as being outright canon ways he cared about his kids with afton turning to the camera and telling the reader that, it was still a theory of mine that got disrupted a bit, and i feel like being upset over something like that is fair. not to pull the "im literally neurodivergent and a minor" card, but FNAF and Namely william have been a special interest of mine (autism) for nearly 9 years now. im going to be a little bit sensitive about this kind of thing. especially when my favorite character of all time who i hold dearly to me gets a wrench thrown in what i thought was his characterization by shitty writing

everyone's interpretations of the timelines and characters differ, ive just been very frustrated that people keep acting like this was the plan the whole time and shitting on people who got upset about it. scotts been phoning it in for the whole 9 years hes been making fnaf, but youd think at this point maybe, just maybe, they'd learn when to leave things behind. apparently not. (for the record, i do think it was michael in fnaf 4, and i thought it was likely the illusion discs if not a nightmare induced by the guilt of killing his younger brother. having it be the nightmare option is more compelling to me as well, considering it, oh, i dunno, Gives The Protagonist Motivation And Depth, but i guess we should throw that out the window too since everyone knew this was coming and 95% of the fanbase just happened to miss it)

honestly? im mostly irritated by the fear gas stuff because if its actual intention is to explain fnaf 4, then my main reasoning for why william actually cared about his kids in the game canon is out the window. if people are correct, and the monitors didnt exist to watch them to make sure they were safe (considering he was never home or working on shit relating to his career) but Instead existed to monitor them when their rooms were being pumped with fucking. hallucinogenic gas. god. pulling my hair out

[reesiereads]

Let's talk about Virgil...

Note: Please for the love of God read the whole fucking post.

Let's do this.

So I'll start off by saying that this post is not excusing any of Virgil's actions. Canon Virgil has been an asshole lately and its very clear he doesn't plan on changing his actions. This is more a rant about why I believe he is being characterised that way, and why its a fucking problem (besides the obvious). If you don't like negitive stuff towards Virgil scroll past.

I'll say first that I believe Virgil's characterzation makes sense. His close knit relationship with Patton makes sense because Anxiety is often affected by your emotions and how you feel about certain things (your morality). His relationship with Logan makes sense (the threats, the shutting up thing, the talking over, the arguing) because anxiety often over rules logic and reasoning, and can make you impulsive and emotionally charged (people can actually be very aggressive or irritable when anxious, most aren't uwu soft or whatever the fuck get your facts straight) His relationship with Roman makes sense because motivation for creativity can be distinguished by anxiety, not to mention the fact that your anxiety and fears about perfection or whatever can affect your work. His relationship with Janus makes sense because anxiety and lieing have a very interesting relationship, you can lie about being anxious or while being anxious but you can also be anxious about lieing. His relationship with Remus makes sense because intrusive thoughts can be scary, and can make you anxious about how you'll act or if your a good person.

However: Just because Virgil is characterized well for Anxiety, doesn't excuse his actions towards the others

As someone who has very bad anxiety, and can get very cruel or irritable or sarcastic when anxious I can understand where Virgil is coming from (if you believe he also suffers from anxiety like I do) however having anxiety doesn't excuse your actions. Just because your in a bad mental state doesn't mean you can say whatever the fuck you want and not apoligize or make up for it. And it definitely doesn't mean that you can threaten to harm people.

I'll give you an example (because I know people need those): When my anxiety first started developing I had a very bad way of coping with it. When Anxious I would snap at people, be sarcastic to the point of cruelty, and insult people.

However, I've changed this behavior and have improved massively. I am working constantly on not hurting other people or snapping not just when I'm anxious but when I'm upset or angry or anything.

The problem with Virgil is that he isn't trying to change.

Virgil has acknowledged that he is mean, and he says its so that he can be 'heard' but he also knows this isn't necessary anymore. The others have made it clear that they are willing to listen to him, and yet he countinues to insult, degrade, threaten, and berate the others. He hasn't made any attempt to stop this behavior or even bothered to fucking apoligize (one time does not make up for doing in a million other times).

I love Virgil, but people need to understand that in canon, he isn't some fucking pure baby (he literally said he hates being called that btw) he is an asshole who needs to be put in check, and needs to understand that:

Anxiety isn't an excuse to hurt others

I understand others may not agree with me on this, and thats fine. All I ask is that if you comment do it in a respectful manner. You can love Virgil (I do to, I find him relatable) and this post isn't me trying to say you can't, but please don't curse me out or take drastic measures because I'm expressing my opinions.