#but like...you're allowed to disagree with it

[thatbitchery]

THE 2025 CODE

In light of the (inevitably) incoming new year new me &Co , I thought I'd add to the list of new things you're supposed to be doing

In 2025 we will not cater to people that do not pay our bills. If they are not actively contributing to your bills their desires do not count.

In 2025 we will be necessarily disagreeable. We will honor our point of view and ideas and while we will not be shoving them into everyone's face, we also will not compromise on them to make others comfortable or to appeal to others. We will honor our intelligence and integrity and stand on business, we have the opinions we have and that's that. We will be comfortable with being disagreeable.

In 2025 we will be comfortable with silence. We will not attempt to fill in the blank spaces with words, we will not double text, we will not surrender information or words to avoid awkward silences or anything. We will be very, very comfortable with silence.

In 2025 we will not be auditioning for people unless it's a paid role. Not for their friendship, their love, their acceptance, to be at peace with them- for nothing. We will not try to make them like us by being funny or cute or pretty or whatnot. We will not Will He Like This? Did That Upset Her? Was That The Right Thing To Say? & Co We will do us, if they like us good for them if not also good for them. This is our world they are just in it.

In 2025 we will NOT be centering our anything around anyone (Family can get a pass, and school). We will not cancel our existing plans to make space for people that did not bother to make their plans earlier and simply came at last minute. We will not plan our anything- not outfits, not words, not events, not anything around anyone else, especially not a man or potential romantic interests. we will not tune our interests to them, we will not bend our opinions to them, we will not squeeze our time for them, we will only factor us in. Self-centered is the theme out here. We will not make space for anyone at the expense of us. Me, Me, Me.

In 2025 we will be difficult to please the Simon Cowell way. We will only give compliments when they have been earned. We will only smile when we feel like we want to, we will only be impressed by things we find impressive. We will be stingy with our joy, our compliments, our smiles, our approval and only give them when earned.

In 2025 we will not be parenting adults. If someone feels offended by us, its their job to let us know they were offended by us, our job to see if it's a relationship that needs repair or not. We will not be cleaning up after adults. We will not be gentle parenting fully grown humans into anything - not basic human decency, not relational politics, not basic human hygiene, not nothing. And by people, I largely mean men. When we want to be moms we mom children.

In 2025 we will not be performing unpaid labor. We will not be a free therapist or trauma bucket to be dumped into, not relationship therapist that repairs other's relationship, not maid or chef or waiter duties, not nanny duties, not free coaching, NONE. If we provide expertise, we get paid, e. Not for our families, not for our friends, not for community, not for men.

In 2025 we will validate our desires. Better yet, in 2025 we will NOT be demonizing our desires. We will retire from that Self Shaming role we have been playing and allow ourselves to want it all. We will validate everything we want. Yes I want to Kill Andrew He IS A Piece Of ISht. Yes I want To Marry Brad Pitt. Yes I Want- yes I want. So what.

In 2025 we will not be trying to change people. People will show us what we mean to them by the way they act and we will accept that as a truth and act in our best interests with this information on hand. We Will not try to coach people into treating us better. We will not play zero sum games. We will accept it as a truth and make a decision based on it.

In 2025 we will abandon organized religion for spirituality.

In 2025 we will take responsibility for ourselves and mostly our relationships. We will understand and live from the understanding that it is our responsibility to have mature and functional relationships and any dysfunction we tolerate we accept and it's OUR fault if a person treats us the same way twice.

In 2025 we will be retching level disgusted by inconsistency, even from ourselves. We will not tolerate disrespect, especially not for some surface level 'peace' and worse- attention. Not disrespect to our time, to our dreams, to our ambitions, to our bodies, to our intelligence, to our style, to our families to our preferences to our plans to our everything. We will understand we accept by tolerance and we will serve absence as needed.

BMAC

[mythalism]

Watching a video of the "fight Solas" ending and I find myself really disliking the fact that Rook declares that the Veil must be tied to the life of an elven god. It is treated like a fitting punishment for Solas, and even in the redemption ending, Rook all but orders Solas to sacrifice himself to maintain the Veil (or the status quo). I also can't help but feel that Solas, the last of the elven gods, is being sacrificed to maintain the Veil that he, alone, is somehow expected to magically maintain, allowing everyone else to go on their merry way. The implication here is that the elves are losing the last of their history, or pantheon, and this is a GOOD thing, and now we can all move forward and live peacefully. Am I overthinking this? 'Cause if this was the intention it does sound kind of bad.

yeah. i do agree and i dont think you're overthinking. and even if you were, im about to overthink way harder so don't worry. forgive me for getting on my legal philosophy soapbox but thats my whole brand at this point so here we go: it is a very retributive view of punishment and desert (deserved-ness) that i morally disagree with and feels outdated in the political landscape of 2024 to me PERSONALLY!! the foundation of retributive justice is:

(1) that those who commit certain kinds of wrongful acts, paradigmatically serious crimes, morally deserve to suffer a proportionate punishment; (2) that it is intrinsically morally good—good without reference to any other goods that might arise—if some legitimate punisher gives them the punishment they deserve;

obviously this is how much of the western world conceives of punishment and western media is consequently saturated with narratives that espouse this. most of the time, restorative justice is seen as mutually exclusive with retributive justice, though there are some people who say they can be used in tandem. i disagree anyway.

i think solas's endings grapple with these ideas in a way that is... messy. its confusing because we dont actually know if he is truly imprisoned, in the sense that he cannot leave. we know he is in A prison, though its unclear whether its the new regret prison that rook was in, or the black city (epler refused to clarify this during the AMA because of "spoilers", while trick said the implication is he is "going back to the prison", the epilogue slides imply he is in the black/golden city, as does his quest to heal the blight which only exists in the black city). we also do not know what capacity he has to leave. with lavellan or after being "redeemed" by willingly binding himself to the veil, he does not have the lyrium dagger but he does have the capacity to free himself from his regrets (if hes in the regret prison) or heal the blight (if he's in the black city), exemplified by his golden epilogue slides. if he is tricked or fought, he is not in a mental space to overcome his regrets and does not swear to atone by healing the blight, but he does have the lyrium dagger with him, so we can assume he can just use it to leave, the way we literally see him do earlier in the game lol. whatever message they are trying to send with his "punishment", i think it is muddied by the vagueness of what actually happens to him in the end and where he goes.

if the message truly is that he "deserves" to be imprisoned in the fade for his long list of crimes, i find that lazy and nonsensical. first of all, he loves the fade and has been dying to return to it so thats not really a gotcha, but more importantly, which crime warrants this punishment? and is his punishment proportional? this is impossible to answer because we do not know what the punishment truly is. we also dont really even know what crime he's being imprisoned for. taking down the veil? he didnt actually get to do that. are we punishing him for something he didn't do yet? is it for killing varric? sure, i guess that one works. its the strongest of the options we have, but the game is also pretty clear that its not what varric would want. what about all of the other people he has killed? the spirits he sacrifced in that siege on elgar'nans temple? the mages who summoned and corrupted wisdom which he incinerates alive? flemythal and felassan? do they deserve retribution via solas's imprisonment? would they want that? would they find it just and satisfying? the game does not ask these questions. so we dont know. does he deserve to be imprisoned for for what he did to the titans? ok, maybe. this is stronger than the others at least. but in the trick/fight endings he doesnt vow to heal the blight, so what does his imprisonment do for the dwarves and the titans spirits? this is what i mean when i say his imprisonment is retributive, but it is not even thoroughly retributive. it does not think deeply about what solas deserves for his crimes and the proportionality of such a punishment, but it is clear that we are supposed to that he deserves to be in prison, it is morally good that he is receiving "justice", and rook is a hero for imprisoning him. his punishment is presented as a moral good because he deserves it. unfortunately for veilguard, i dont think i would ever be convinced by this message in any narrative anywhere, even if it was better written, because this is not a moral philosophy that i subscribe to.

his redemption endings feel so much better and more satisfying because his vow to use his immortality and knowledge to heal the blight that he created is restorative and has a direct correlation to his crime of creating the blight by tranquilizing the titans in the first place. his imprisonment achieves nothing outside of removing him as a "threat", which is ruined by the fact that he has the dagger and can just leave lol. devoting the next significant portion of his life to alleviating the titans suffering is not just reparative remedy that directly affects the people and creatures he has harmed, it also actively makes the world of thedas a better place. to be clear, im not saying solas is innocent. he is guilty. of a lot of things. he bears responsibility for a lot of things. he would qualify as a war criminal. but i do not believe in retributive justice. veilguard having solas kill varric because trespasser made me sympathize with him "too much" is not going to make me believe in retributive justice. for the non-atonement imprisonment endings to feel satisfying you have to subscribe to this ideology of moral desert and punishment and a lot of people do. the entire american carceral system is founded on it. so is christianity. and bioware clearly subscribes to it as well. you might disagree with me and subscribe to it yourself. thats fine. but i believe it has caused a lot of harm to our world and continues to do so. seeing it manifested in media is always disappointing to me.

regardless of the technicalities of his imprisonment, his binding to the veil is the one thing that happens regardless of his ending, and i agree that it is icky for similar reasons. the veil is his responsibility, as is the blight which he will be keeping contained with his life, so i guess you can interpret it as proportional? but again, what crime is he paying for with binding his life to the veil? is he not paying for a crime at all? is binding his life to the veil even part of his punishment? or is it just something he has to do because he's the only person alive that can do it? if that is the case, that it has to be him because he is the only proper sacrifice, and not that he deserves it, then what does it say about rook that they sacrifice someone undeserving? if he is deserving, why exactly? if he wasn't the only elven god left alive, would he still be deserving of such a fate? if the answer is no, then he does not deserve to be bound. what gives rook the right to make this call? based on the convo they have before the ending where they plan to bind him to the veil, its not clear if rook binds him because they think he deserves to be bound to one of his greatest regrets, or because he's quite literally the only option. either way, i think there is an argument for it being cruel, and unearned coming from someone like rook, who really has barely been a victim of solas's sins outside of a 2 week time-out. literally harding binding him would've been far more satisfying. or imagine if fragment mythal went rogue and did it, or morrigythal did. mythal would not be justified either but at least it would be fucking banger and evil and interesting of her. anyway.

i think your point about what it means for the elves to lose their final living god, outside of mythal who is [redacted] ? is a fantastic point. through solas's binding, they also lose the veil-less future he represented that was promised to be a better world for them. would it really have been? probably not. solas clearly thinks so. but we will never know lol. the failure of the story to grapple with the dissolution of the elves entire belief system is one of its most egregious ones, and i think this is a symptom of it. dragon age's elven lore got itself into a weird spot by veilguard and i think they just abandoned it rather than attempting to write themselves out of it. i love stories that grapple with the average person's culpability as complacent in imperialism. this is part of why fullmetal alchemist is my fav story of all time and you should watch it (fullmetal alchemist:brotherhood on hulu please im begging. but you have to watch the "brotherhood" one not the other one. its complicated dont ask). veilguard seemed to want to do something like this, but they got themselves into weird spot with the elves because their evil, slavery-based empire is a thing of the distant past, and in the present they are systemically oppressed and have no social or political power.

usually in these sorts of stories, someone currently living in an imperialist society who is directly benefiting from that imperialism is confronted with their complacency and asked to rise to the occasion of standing up for what is right, despite their material best interest. they often sacrifice their privilege as a benefactor of imperialism in the present to attempt to make up for the evils that system has inflicted on others. fmab does a wonderful job of this. there is at once both an acknowledgement that no, this is not literally YOUR FAULT, you did not order a genocide or press the nuke button, but you have benefited from it and/or participated every day of your life, whether that is through the stolen land you live on, the fact that you have never seen war in your home country, the way you can buy whatever fruit you want at the grocery store any time of year, or the way your tax dollars fund the bombs being dropped on children thousands of miles away, and you do have a moral obligation to do whatever you can to fight back. i believe this is a very important lesson for the average american (and canadian since we are talking about bioware), and anyone that lives in an imperialist country, that a lot of people have not yet learned ... lol.

this feels along the lines of what veilguard was going for (or maybe they werent and this was accidental, idk which is worse), but it fails because the elves are not currently benefiting from their past empire, like at all. actually, they live in squalor and at risk of constant violence from human empires. they have experienced centuries of genocide, violence and slavery at this point in modern thedas. the imperialistic success of the elvhen empire has absolutely no bearing on their current lives, it provides them with no privilege, and it gives them no culpability in its evils. they are thousands of years removed from it. and its not like "oh the british empire was dissolved 50 years ago so imperialism is over" no. because britain's wealth and power are a direct result of that imperialism, thus they do still benefit from it presently, even if the "official empire" is dissolved. this is true for most empires. but with the elves of thedas, they have none of the power or privilege that the elvhen empire accrued through its evils. if anything, it is tevinter that benefits most from the lost elven empire considering how much of their society is founded on its technology, and the fact that. you know. they are currently, modernly, presently an empire based on slavery. OF ELVES. so why, then, does veilguard present the elves as culpable? why does the angry titan harding creature say they are "thriving" at the titans expense? why does bellara take personal responsibility for the evils that elgar'nan and ghilan'nain commit when she had nothing to do with them? the messaging with this is so strange. it would make sense if elves were still the ruling class but... they're not. the only remnants of the empire that they have access to is their own bodies... which are systemically, bought, sold, and mutilated. though the game does erase much of the racism they face in what i can only assume was an attempt to make this work.

the combo of this + solas's trick/fight endings for what is fundamentally, according to this game itself, a desire for a better world for elves and spirits, no matter if it is misled or his methods are violent, is a depressing, bleak message that i find to be irresponsible to be sending in 2024 and considering the real world groups of people that elves are based on, most notably of the dalish as indigenous north americans. veilguard sees elves lose not just their understanding of their past, dissolving their entire worldview, their conception of their cultural identity, and their relationship to their religion, all without sufficient (or any) exploration of how devastating such a process would be, but by imprisoning solas, erasing his followers and supporters from existence, and binding him to the veil, it also robs them of the possibility of a more just future... while asking you to cheer because he deserved it. dont try to make the world a better place unless you do it the right way. work with the world as it is. your attachment to the past (when you werent being genocided regularly) is a disease. you deserve to go to jail because you tried to change the world in a way that that was too disruptive. get over it! move on! rot in jail!

[flamsparks]

The Importance of Hate being an Option

From someone who's worst is "neutral" and struggles with that too

Numbers regarding how many players on average go for the evil alignment in RPGs change depending who you ask to. But there's a general consensus that they're low.

The fact that evil runs are often less rewarding (closed off quests, lost companions, and so on) surely plays a roll in the choice. But I can guess many players - like me - are just the definition of this:

I am the kind of player who manually saves before starting most conversations with companions, to try again if I fuck up the first time.

And yet.

How I missed the rude option (the real one, not that mildly-direct-still-nice bullshit that was the crossed-armed option) in Veilguard.

Not because I would have used it.

But because, certainly at least most of the times, I would not.

To get Dorian to bring you along to meet his father, you need to have a relatively high approval. And this makes sense. In that moment, Dorian is making himself vulnerable, and you find yourself in a situation where you can hurt him. Truly. You can be awful to him. And the fact that you can makes the whole situation much more real, and makes you understand why Dorian is so worried about what you’re gonna do. You can be evil then. And that’s why choosing not to be makes the whole scene so real. Because I had a choice, and I chose to be decent.

In DAO, you could choose to be literally anything and everything: racist, sexist, blasphemous, EVERYTHING! And you can choose not to be any of them.

The value of being good lies in the freedom of choice only an evil option provides. And the worth of loving is only given by the possibility to hate. One exists only as long as the other is an option.

There's a character in the franchise whose personality really gets on my nerves. I really don't stand them. And yet, can you believe that I love that character? Because they feel real. And that's exactly why I don't stand them: because they feel like a real person, a person I wouldn't get along with irl. And that's why I love their character, and it's one of those I hold dearest in the entire franchise.

You know you've succeeded in writing a character who feels real when there are people who love it and people who hate it. Because that's how people work irl. You can't like everyone you encounter, you can't dislike everyone.

There's ofc nothing wrong with having one or few characters who are just genuinely likeable. Varric was written the way he was to compensate for a group of companions who were otherwise perceived as too antagonistic, at least in the beginning of DA2. And even then, he was still no knight in shining armour. But there's a difference between having a few overall agreeable characters to smoothen out your experience some and outright avoiding any crease in every personality to minimise chances of disliking any characters.

When you write characters trying to make them palatable to everyone, you're inevitably simplifying them to give them only traits people will like and reduce their "flaws" to minor inconveniences at best. But a person's flaws are as much a part of them as their qualities. Again, remove one or the other, and what you have is an empty, painted-over husk.

And this is what I hate most of companions in Veilguard. They are bland, superficial, struggling for tridimensionality. And they feel so incomplete that not only I can't get myself to care for them. I can't even get myself to hate them. You can't hate a sheet of paper for being bidimensional.

I demand my right to hate.

To hate a character, an idea, a plan, an institution. I demand my right to tell people to fuck off, to tell someone they are an idiot, that their plan is bullshit, that I detest what they stand and fight for. I demand a chance to disagree and fight with characters over ideas and ideologies. Not because I would, but because this is what allows for a deep worldbuilding that feels real under every aspect, and gives you characters who feel like real people you can love or hate.

People had questioned in BG3 what was the point of forcing devs to implement evil choices when the vast majority of players wouldn't make them.

This is why. And I missed it awfully in Veilguard.

[dallonwrites]

bestie how the fuck do you start writing again when you haven't written in years bc you're so paralyzed with Fear of Writing Badly mixed with How Do I Get Started and also WHAT do I write about HELP

I WANT to write but every part of it is. so. DAUNTING

Ohhh bestie I have BEEN there. Whenever I take breaks from writing I find myself scared that I'll have just….forgotten to write?? I think the fear of "bad writing" is amplified when you don't write for a while, however long, because you have to like hype yourself up to go back to writing and it's like what if I do all that and then I just can't do it? Returning to writing, especially after a long time, for me has taken a lot of mental work, trying to understand what will make writing fun and healthy for me. A lot of it, honestly, is easier said than done, but also it's mental work you'll keep doing after you start writing again and as you write, and for me it's easier to process my relationship with writing when I am actually writing.

A big part of that mental work for me, and something I think is so valuable, is to reconsider what "bad" writing is and give yourself permission to write it. Sometimes you will think your writing sucks, happens to all of us, but that isn't all it has to be. Like yeah, I'll think something I wrote sucks, but I still wrote it. I can revisit it and work on it and maybe I'll turn it into something I'm happy with. And even if I don't, I still wrote it, I learned from it. Writing does not need to be "good" by whatever standard we're holding it up to for it to have value. And you can delete it! Nobody has to see it! Also you can have fun writing something and still think it's not your best. I've written a lot of "bad" scenes that I had fun with because the scene was entertaining to me! I love when writing turns out how I like it, or I write a banger prose line, but equally I found it helpful to give myself permission to not worry about that all the time and just focus on my interest/enjoyment in what I'm writing, regardless of the "quality". Again, easier said than done, but something I've found easier the more I write, because you'll have bad writing days but you'll also have writing days that are so good

I know a lot of people see writing as a skill that they want to improve, and like I agree it feels really good to see your writing grow, but writing is so much more than the skill and the craft and the theory. There is no objective "perfection" to reach with writing like we are not Sims with levelled skills LOL. Writing is art and creativity and it should be fun and fulfilling. And IMO, the more you focus on what makes writing fun, you will grow and "improve" as a writer a lot quicker and in a way that is a lot more enjoyable than if you treat writing like some icy quest for perfection. You also get to decide what "good" writing is for you/your story. Some of my stories are more prose focused and I'll play more with language, imagery etc. Others are more about the plot and just having fun imagining this scene. Sometimes it's a mix of both. What is "good" writing depends on the writer, story, genre, etc. There is no one way to write.

I'm rambling a lot because I'm just really passionate about this and I cannot express enough how easier writing got, including all the difficult and ugly and frustrating parts, when I gave space to prioritise my enjoyment and fun. People love to romanticise the idea of the "struggling" writer. I see stuff on here and I'm like you guys….writing should be fun. Like yeah sometimes it's hard and we should talk about that but like, you Need to make sure you are having fun. Anyway I'm going to try not to ramble and bullet point some things that helped me:

Make Writing Fun: Lol! Literally whatever makes writing fun. Sometimes I just write super indulgent scenes and the fun of that sets me up to work on my projects. When I work on my projects I try to find what in each scene I'm going to enjoy the most, and focus on that to help me write the rest. I make playlists, moodboards, memes, art etc for my story because it's fun, and it helps me be engaged with my story outside of writing it. Just, have fun.

On productivity: some people will benefit from setting clear goals and running towards them. Some people don't. For me it depends on my headspace. I don't think productivity is a bad thing, it can feel good, but productivity should not be the only reason you write. And the most productive writing process is whichever one makes writing enjoyable for you, because that's how you'll get words on the page

On that note, please be wary of anyone online who who treats the writing advice they share as Fact. I'm not saying every writing teacher out there does...but some of them market it that way! And creators do not have an authority on writing just because they have a platform however big. There are some AMAZING content creators out there who talk about writing, and I have found them motivating, but like just let yourself be picky about who you listen to/engage with. I say this because I consumed some very Strict writing advice when I was younger and it literally contributed to my years long slump so like...I'm picky now LOL

About goals: Personally, gentle goals are what help me get back into writing. Maybe just write for 20 minutes, or write every day for a couple days. When I do word count goals, I base them on how I feel that day, and recently I don't make a word count, I'll transfer it to the next session but smaller. So if I try to write 500 words but can't I'll say okay, lets try 250 next time. Goals can be a great motivator and way to feel achieved, and maybe bigger goals will help you, but you're also allowed to adjust them as you go to make it easier

On finding new ideas, having been there before, you don't need a fully fleshed out idea to start writing. My longest break I came back to writing with...one character and a backstory? If you have stories/characters already you can revisit them, either build on what you have or completely change it. Or if you don't have that, if there's a piece of media you like you can take that concept and play around with it in your own way, or you can even just write fanfic until you have your own idea (if you want your own idea, fanfic is cool too!) You can even just find a cool pic on pinterest and play around with describing it, writing about it, seeing if you can get anything from that. Ideas are everywhere and they can be tiny, and I think if you have that want to write you Will find your story eventually. All writers have had the Idea struggle, but I think the more you engage with writing and think about what concepts and stories interest you already, the more you'll like train yourself to get ideas

That was very long and maybe a lot but like, I am very passionate about this! I've been in writing "slumps" where I didn't know if I would write again, I've started writing again with no ideas, and in those times all I had was the fact I knew I wanted to write. There are a lot of reasons why we end up having long breaks from writing and it is totally normal, sometimes beneficial for us, and we should never give ourselves a hard time for not writing for however long. But also remember that you can always come back. Every one of us has the capacity to create, whatever that looks like, and you can make it as self indulgent and self serving as you want.

[randomnameless]

Rewatching Shez's supports with Edelgard, it kind of irritates me that Edelgard looks upset after Shez points out that the average farmer probably hates her for the war. Like, ma'am you knew this would lead to mass death and a lot of people not being fans of yours, and considering Hubert also points out the Edel's policies are meant to benefit nobles who give her money and troops and keep down the commonfolk, she shouldn't be surprised by this answer. Shez even softens the comment by saying "you must have a good reason" but it's like Edelgard can't handle hearing any kind of real criticism from people she respects (or claims to). I think it's another player-pandering thing, can't have the Lord be mad at you, but it just makes Edelgard look like a thin-skinned whiner who can't handle the harsh criticisms that her actions are going to bring her. At least when she went on about "her path of blood and death" in 3 Houses she seemed to have some sense of "yeah people will hate my guts." Idk it probably comes down to the developers being scared to have someone truly criticize Edelgard without pushback.

That supports irks me for other reasons lol, basically the fact that Barney points out how water is wet (something Supreme Sailor Fuku apparently missed, as you noticed) but within 1 convo they completely drop that plot line and get along with her plans because, eggtivation means that someone as bland as Barney - who could represent common sense - must also be drowned under liters of Hresvelg Grey.

Imo, it's not "your lord cannot be mad at you", but again and again with the Fodlan games, "no one can be mad at Supreme Leader, not even you(r self insert character)".

FWIW, FEH got her writing right - faced with contradictions and criticism, Supreme Leader ragingly storms out of a conversation when the characters aren't from Fodlan and thus cannot be eggtivated (or when the Fodlan team isn't writing them?).

Given how her Nopes' Big B's support basically has her say "you're either with me or against me", no wonder why criticism, at least in Nopes, is something unknown for her, hell, Ferdie must behead his father to demonstrate times after times that he and House Aegir aren't her enemies - in a way, even with the twist they added (let's ally with those icky disgusting beasts to get rid of uncle, and THEN we will free Fodlan from their scaly grasp!) Nopes wrote Supreme Leader to be even more uncompromising and more bull-headed than ever, if in Houses she had a modicum of self-awareness (she's still the Adrestian Emperor though!), in Nopes it's written away.

[crownedwille]

.

[northern-passage]

i've shared some of Alex Freed's narrative writing advice before and i recently read another article on his website that i really liked. particularly in branching/choice-based games, a lot of people often bring up the idea of the author "punishing" the player for certain choices. i agree that this is a thing that happens, but i disagree that it's always a bad thing. i think Freed makes a good case for it here.

...acting as the player’s judge (and jury, and executioner) is in some respects the primary job of a game’s developers. Moreover, surely all art emerges from the artist’s own experiences and worldview to convey a particular set of ideas. How does all that square with avoiding being judgmental?

[...]

Let’s first dispel–briefly–the idea that any game can avoid espousing a particular worldview or moral philosophy. Say we’re developing an open world action-adventure game set in a modern-day city. The player is able to engage any non-player character in combat at any time, and now we’re forced to determine what should occur if the player kills a civilian somewhere isolated and out of sight.

Most games either:

allow this heinous act and let the player character depart without further consequence, relying on the player’s own conscience to determine the morality of the situation.

immediately send police officers after the player character, despite the lack of any in-world way for the police to be aware of the crime.

But of course neither of these results is in any way realistic. The problems in the latter example are obvious, but no less substantial than in the former case where one must wonder:

Why don’t the police investigate the murder at a later date and track down the player then?

Why doesn’t the neighborhood change, knowing there’s a vicious murderer around who’s never been caught? Why aren’t there candlelight vigils and impromptu memorials?

Why doesn’t the victim’s son grow up to become Batman?

We construct our game worlds in a way that suits the genre and moral dimensions of the story we want to tell. There’s no right answer here, but the consequences we build into a game are inherently a judgment on the player’s actions. Attempting to simulate “reality” will always fail–we must instead build a caricature of truth that suggests a broader, more realized world. Declaring “in a modern city, murderous predators can escape any and all consequences” is as bold a statement on civilization and humanity as deciding “in the long run, vengeance and justice will always be served up by the victims of crime (metaphorically by means of a bat-costumed hero).”

Knowing that, what’s the world we want to build? What are the themes and moral compass points we use to align our game?

This is a relatively easy task when working with a licensed intellectual property. In Star Trek, we know that creativity, diplomacy, and compassion are privileged above all else, and that greed and prejudice always lead to a bad end. A Star Trek story in which the protagonist freely lies, cheats, and steals without any comeuppance probably stopped being a Star Trek story somewhere along the line. Game of Thrones, on the other hand, takes a more laissez-faire approach to personal morality while emphasizing the large-scale harm done by men and women who strive for power. (No one comes away from watching Game of Thrones believing that the titular “game” is a reasonable way to run a country.)

These core ideals should affect more than your game’s storytelling–they should dovetail with your gameplay loops and systems, as well. A Star Trek farming simulator might be a fun game, but using the franchise’s key ideals to guide narrative and mechanical choices probably won’t be useful. (“Maybe we reward the player for reaching an accord with the corn?”)

Know what principles drive your game world. You’re going to need that knowledge for everything that’s coming.

[...]

Teaching the player the thematic basics of your world shouldn’t be overly difficult–low-stakes choices, examples of your world and character arcs in a microcosm, gentle words of wisdom, obviously bad advice, and so forth can all help guide the player’s expectations. You can introduce theme in a game the way you would in any medium, so we won’t dwell on that here.

You can, of course, spend a great deal of time exploring the nuances of the moral philosophy of your game world across the course of the whole game. You’ll probably want to. So why is it so important to give the player the right idea from the start?

Because you need the player to buy into the kind of story that you’re telling. To some degree, this is true even in traditional, linear narratives: if I walk into a theater expecting the romcom stylings of The Taming of the Shrew and get Romeo and Juliet instead, I’m not going to be delighted by having my expectations subverted; I’m just going to be irritated.

When you give a player a measure of control over the narrative, the player’s expectations for a certain type of story become even stronger. We’ll discuss this more in the next two points, but don’t allow your player to shoot first and ask questions later in the aforementioned Star Trek game while naively expecting the story to applaud her rogue-ish cowboy ways. Interactive narrative is a collaborative process, and the player needs to be able to make an informed decision when she chooses to drive the story in a given direction. This is the pact between player and developer: “You show me how your world works, and I’ll invest myself in it to the best of my understanding.”

[...]

In order to determine the results of any given choice, you (that is, the game you’ve designed) must judge the actor according to the dictates (intended or implicit) of the game world and story. If you’re building a game inspired by 1940s comic book Crime Does Not Pay, then in your game world, crime should probably not pay.

But if you’ve set the player’s expectations correctly and made all paths narratively satisfying, then there can be no bad choices on the part of the player–only bad choices on the part of the player character which the player has decided to explore. The player is no more complicit in the (nonexistent) crimes of the player character than an author is complicit in the crimes of her characters. Therefore, there is no reason to attempt to punish or shame the player for “bad” decisions–the player made those decisions to explore the consequences with you, the designer. (Punishing the player character is just dandy, so long as it’s an engaging experience.)

[...]

It’s okay to explore difficult themes without offering up a “correct” answer. It’s okay to let players try out deeds and consequences and decide for themselves what it all means. But don’t forget that the game is rigged. [...]

Intentionally or not, a game judges and a game teaches. It shows, through a multiplicity of possibilities, what might happen if the player does X or Y, and the player learns the unseen rules that underlie your world. Embracing the didactic elements of your work doesn’t mean slapping the player’s wrist every time she’s wrong–it means building a game where the player can play and learn and experiment within the boundaries of the lesson.

[y3ahwhat3ver]

Been seeing this over and over and it's sort of been annoying me but. Valentino and Alastor are not even remotely comparable. Like. Look I may be a bit biased bc I like Alastor and don't like Valentino beyond the funny moments he has but like.

Okay. Alastor sucks. Like he's a violent dickhead but part of that is that he's very restrained in his violence. The only times we see him do anything outright violent are when he/the hotel are under attack and then his one moment with Husk. His relationship with Husk gets brought up a lot when people make the comparison but to me like.

Throughout the show you see Husk talk shit to Alastor, literally all of the time. He heavily dislikes him (in my opinion a major part of that is bitterness over losing his own title just to become subservient to Al) but he doesn't ever really seem scared of him, beyond the one moment. He and Alastor have known eachother for years and it's pretty clear to me that Alastor sort of just. Let's him say whatever as long as he doesn't hit A Limit. Alastor's own contract is something he's very clearly sensitive about and Husk bringing that up when he was already in a bad mood. I'm not saying the way he treats Husk in this scene is good, or right but just that it makes sense in context.

I guess what really does it for me is Niffty as well? Like it's so clear she loves Al, quite literally crawling all over him and crowning him. They have a very sweet relationship in the show. She's comfortable enough with him to freely speak about her own feelings ("I really like them Alastor. They let me put on roach puppet shows without booing")

You just get the sense that like. Alastors relationship with his contractee's is. Maybe not the most outright friendly but it's not inherently violent.

And then you compare that to Valentino. Valentino is violent, but worse he's impulsive. And also kind of an idiot. Like the first time we see him it's Velvette calling Vox to come deal with him bc the man is on a rampage and killing her models. He has to be talked down from going to the hotel and killing everyone there. (Already a bad idea image wise but like. With the literal Princess of Hell in that hotel it's like. What was your plan for after that Val. What was your plan for after you attacked the only heir to the throne, the literal daughter of the devil. Christ.)

The difference here is that the only contractee we see him interact with is Angel Dust, and their relationship is fraught with abuse. Physical, sexual, and psychological. Valentino enables his drug addiction because it makes Angel more compliant. Even when he is not being violent towards Angel himself, he's still perpetuating that violence through the work he has Angel do (literally the everything about Poison makes me kind of sick to watch. Tbh, like great song but i cannot watch the mv without getting kind of upset. And look there's a conversation in there about sex work, and specifically SAFE sex work but that's not really what this post is.)

Like. There's literally a line in the show about Angel being WATERBOARDED at work. ("You know, Val, he's into that waterboarding shit now - I don't know, it's a kink." - episode 6 welcome to heaven) And this is JUST Angel's perspective. You don't see Valentino's other contracts but from the way Angel is treated, it's kind of clear that he does shit like this to anyone under his control, and thus anyone who cannot tell him No.

Look. You get the sense that Alastor is a dick, but there's no implication that he takes Niffty and Husk out back and beats them when he's aggravated (with them or otherwise.) We literally watch Valentino assault and threaten Angel because there is someone stronger than him [Valentino] who is trying to get him out of work.

[Edit (June 2nd, 2024): I want to clarify that I do like loser, baby and also Husk as a character and this is more abt my grievances with fandom comparing the two. In series, Angel needed that discussion with Husk and even thought their situations aren't 1:1 or even really that similar, it's still clear that Husks attempt to like. Empathize with him worked for Angel. That is all, thank u and goodnight]

[galactic-rhea]

.

Sometimes I remember my family is, overall, very very stupid

[cephalofrog]

noah caldwell-gervais is the only motherfucker to have ever been correct about dark souls and elden rings' difficulty. no one else understands

[gxlden-angels]

RUBY FRANKE AND JODI HILDEBRANDT SENTENCED TO 4 TO 60 YEARS IN PRISON LETS GOOOOO

[itti-the-mouse]

If you're allowed to Unironically Block people for thinking Ocarina of Time is a better choice than Majora's Mask, then i'm allowed to Unironically Block you for thinking Skyward Sword is anything other than the absolute worst the series has to offer. Bye.

[retributory]

really funny to me when people read danmei/baihe with shizun/disciple main pairing and then complain online the main pairing is shizun/disciple. what are you even doing here dude

[nerdyfangirlingbooks]

Wild how some people still don't seem to understand the basic concept of seeing posts about media with a take you disagree with, and simply.. scrolling past

[astralazuli]

So there's that D&D class quiz going around, & I took it & was so deeply offended I got Paladin.

& so I have had conversations with both Bestie & Birdfriend about this grave insult & they both were like, "Well... They have a point?" & informed me that my desire to absorb hits meant for others & deep drive to help whenever I actually can & strong convictions make me a bit Paladin-coded.

& I am just so... Idk. It's just interesting to get glimpses of yourself from other people's POVs. To be told that my defining characteristics are protecting & healing others & being incredibly fighty about the things I care about... Especially as someone whose brain specifically fixates on whether I care enough, do enough, give enough... Yeah. It's just kinda wild.

Anyway, I'm now adjusting my self-perception to include the fact that if I were a D&D character, I would be an Oath of the Ancients Paladin & not a wizard & that actually that's okay.

[reserwrekt]

I do not have to tolerate people's toxicity, how are we back to trying to normalize that?