#but the way the story is developing is developing the kind of character she needs to be for it to actually develop

[once-a-traya]

i've been thinking a lot about the way kingdom come: deliverance ii structures its romances. it's interesting, in the sense that they all feel bespoke - short fling or long term or in-between, there's no hard and fast system that applies to all characters. most games with romances stick to a rhythm: you have the initial flirtation options, then there's a companion quest (or multiple companion quests), then you are 'locked in', and finally you get a scene at the end.

anyway, spoilers under the cut.

the romance with katherine is the closest to that model. which makes sense! she's a traumatized person who needs to be convinced henry is reliable, and she also doesn't know him, so the flirting is apt. it stretches across the entire game, because trust-building takes time and action (sidequests), and much like the romance with hans, a lot of the 'romance' moments hinge on non-romance moments you have with her throughout the story. romance in this game is part of a continuum of human interactions; it's something you can lean into if you want, not a reward toggle.

rosa's romance lasts while rosa is plot-relevant, and is contingent on you flirting with her and giving her the feeling that she and her capabilities are respected. you have to spend time with her and back her up, basically. then there's the various flings, which are all context-dependent. and theresa, which is technically a full-blown romance even if she's only on-screen for five seconds, because henry makes it a romance by bringing her up and speaking of their time together - in that version of the story, she's often on his mind. (but, like the other romances, you have to actively bring her up in the epilogue yourself; the game doesn't hand you "here's your reward romance content")

which leaves us with some interesting implications re: hans and henry. there are, as far as i've been able to find, five heart-icon dialogue interactions between them in the game, one of which is The Big Scene. none of the four romance dialogue options before that are flirty. the flirting happens outside of that, in all the non-romance sections, in ways that can be brushed off as bros-being-bros if you're into that. in fact i'd say most of the development that makes the romance possible happens in the non-romance sections.

the romance choices just let you lean in a little further.

the first romance dialogue comes at the midway point; it's hans apologizing for being a dick and henry can then respond to say it's fine, hans can always rely on him no matter how he behaves, he's the closest friend henry has. the second comes at maleshov, right after henry has staged an elaborate rescue for hans, and it's about henry reassuring a panicking hans that he will always be there for him and they can handle any situation together. the third romance dialogue comes halfway through the italian job and is missable - it's henry telling hans he's missed spending time with him, and repeating that when hans tries to joke it off as a 'yes we should go wenching again soon' kind of deal. finally, the fourth is shortly afterward, with henry worried about hans's claustrophobia, and stating, 'I care about you. maybe more than you know.'

hans brushes all of these things off, it seems like, but then by the Big Scene it's obvious he's been thinking about them a lot. and then hans is the one who makes a move, not henry (though you have to pick the option to trigger it). notably, even if you end the romance scene early by leaving or fumbling the moment, hans makes it clear he thought henry had feelings for him.

so if the difference between non-romanced and romanced katherine is flirting + her feeling she can trust and rely on henry, and the difference between non-romanced and romanced rosa is flirting + her feeling respected by henry, what's the difference between non-romanced and romanced hans? well. it's henry being earnest about his feelings, and going out of his way to make it clear that he cares about and values hans above everything else.

and that, maybe, in this time of extreme trial, he's safe to make this move on.

the extended implication of that is that hans had romantic feelings for henry all along, of some sort or another. he just doesn't address them in a non-romanced path because he doesn't feel confident to abandon plausible deniability and leave the safe, charged ambiguity between him and henry. not outwardly. possibly also not inwardly.

anyway, it's interesting. it also means that the entire game is technically the hans/henry romance arc. and i think that's neat.

[maxdibert]

I disagree with your take on JKR being misogynistic in her portrayal of woman in HP. If the story doesn’t need the information then she doesn’t have to tell it. She as the author has every right to choose what she puts in it and what she does not.

Everything is seen through Harry’s eyes, and Hermione was the closest. Probably why she is also the most developed.

Rowling’s portrayal of women in HPis deeply rooted in internalized misogyny, and this is not simply a matter of narrative perspective. While it's true that the story is told through Harry’s eyes, the way female characters are written—how they are framed, developed (or not), and the roles they play—reflects a larger pattern of valuing women based on how well they conform to traditional feminine ideals.

Nearly every major female character exists in relation to a male figure or serves to prop up a man’s development. Hermione, for all her brilliance, is ultimately sidelined when it comes to the core emotional arcs of the story. Despite being the most capable and intelligent, she is often reduced to a “nagging” or “bossy” stereotype, and her main function is to assist Harry and Ron. Meanwhile, Ginny, rather than being given an independent personality, is molded into an idealized “strong, cool girl” love interest for Harry without much depth.

Rowling’s writing enforces rigid notions of what makes a woman "worthy." Women who are kind, nurturing, and traditionally feminine (like Molly Weasley) are celebrated, whereas those who challenge norms (Fleur, Tonks, and even Luna) are ridiculed or minimized. Fleur, for example, is treated with disdain until she proves her worth through self-sacrifice and unwavering devotion to a man. Meanwhile, characters like Cho Chang, who dares to show emotional vulnerability, are framed as weak and undesirable.

On the flip side, women who are overtly ambitious or powerful are almost always villainous or unlikable. Bellatrix Lestrange is a caricature of female hysteria and obsession. Umbridge is the ultimate representation of oppressive, suffocating femininity gone “wrong.” Even Rita Skeeter, whose ambition mirrors that of many male characters, is framed as deceitful, invasive, and grotesque. Contrast this with male villains like Voldemort and Snape, who are given layers of complexity and depth.

The way relationships are written further exposes Rowling’s traditionalist approach to gender. Women are expected to be supportive, emotionally available, and devoted, while men are allowed to be flawed, emotionally stunted, and self-centered. Ginny, for example, is essentially Harry’s reward for being the hero—her personality is flattened into a "cool girl" archetype who exists mainly to affirm him.

Meanwhile, Hermione, the most developed female character, is paired with Ron in a relationship dynamic that reinforces the idea that women must “fix” or tolerate emotionally immature men. This is a recurring theme—women endure, support, and sacrifice, while men grow and benefit from their patience.

Then, one of the most glaring issues is the absence of strong, meaningful female friendships. Hermione, despite being surrounded by other young women, never forms deep bonds with any of them—her closest relationships are with male characters. The older female figures in the story, rather than serving as mentors, are either maternal figures (Molly Weasley, McGonagall) or antagonists (Umbridge, Bellatrix). There is little space for women to exist in solidarity or support one another outside of their roles in relation to men.

The argument that these portrayals are a result of Harry’s limited perspective ignores the fact that Rowling, as the omnipotent author, chose what to emphasize, develop, or ignore. A well-written story with a male protagonist does not inherently exclude well-developed female characters. If perspective were the issue, then why do male characters—Dumbledore, Sirius, Snape, even Neville—get emotional complexity, depth, and agency, while most women are relegated to roles that serve others?

Ultimately, the series reflects Rowling’s own biases about gender. Her female characters are not simply underdeveloped because the story is told through a boy’s eyes—they are underdeveloped because Rowling’s writing operates within the framework of traditional, patriarchal gender norms, where women are defined by how well they serve the male narrative rather than existing as fully realized individuals in their own right.

[bekaterrier]

Happy Audio Drama Sunday! This one's a bit of a long one, as I listened to whole seasons of a few different shows. Blame my new commute time!

@victoriocity S1-3 Re-listen: After my Wooden Overcoats re-listen the other week, I was craving more silly British audio drama and also more Tom Crowley. Victoriocity satisfies both those criteria so well. The pacing, the world building, the humour, the acting, the sound design...all absolutely fantastic. Time for me to continue my time in Even Greater London by re-listening to their audiobook High Vaultage.⚡

@thefringespod S2: I had so many feelings this season! First, surprise Alasdair Stuart playing Alasdair! Which is funny because everytime I heard the name Alasdair in S1 I thought of Mr. Stuart. Tampering with heartlines?! I'm not surprised Marigold is upset! I was very curious about Whim's background, and was glad to finally hear about their life and how they ended up on the Fringes. Whim rewinding the recording multiple times to hear Sil say, "Whim is very dear to me," just about broke my heart open! Minerva has wreaked so much havock! I'm very curious to hear how they're going to deal with her in S3. 🎻

@hauntnowpod S2: I understand Parker's concern, but a few weeks isn't enough to recover from that kind of trauma! The apartment being obsessed with terrible cooking shows had me giggling so much throughout the whole season! I was immediately invested in them though, not gonna lie. Turning Mary's narration into a running joke is hilarious. The verbalisation of emojis in the ghost hunters' chat was great. Why so many new ghosts? "The humans don't really know it yet, but there's a massive pandemic going on." Ohhhhhhhhhhh :((( Aaron and Henry are so sweet! Surprise Hughes and Mincks!! "But she did find the strength to forgive, the tenacity to imagine a different future, and the generosity to teach it to someone else." That is really lovely, and going to stick with me. I am ready to dive into S3! 👻

@monkeymanproductions' MTO Phases Story 2 - Cas and Pol: Time to see what our goodest girls are up to on the moon! Through them, we got to hear a bit more about what everyone else has been up to too. Cass's narration continues to be fantastic, especially when he does all the different character voices! He's really making those characters come to life again. 🌘

@hinaypod Chapter 50 - Pagpapasiya (Decision): It feels like forever since we had the whole gang back together in one episode! I was very excited to hear how everyone reacted to the new developments, and I was not disappointed. [Redacted] Donner name reveal (?!!), Murphy and Laura going straight for the hot goss, Ashvin being doubtful of the Benefactor's motives (I'm right there with you pal)...it felt a bit like coming home. ✨

Greenhouse: A one-season completed show by Atypical Artists and it was adorable. I love an epistolary love story. You slowly learn about the characters, their qualities and their flaws, as they learn about each other. It's also a wonderful way to do worldbuilding. Their literary and movie/tv show discussions were great. And the Tamora Pierce mention? It's like this show was made for me. 💐

@forgedbondspod Chapter 8: All of these conversations were very sweet. I forgot Leon Egan (of Tell No Tales) had been cast in this, so it was a fun surprise to hear them as Appollo. I need me some more Dite and Phae time though! 💍

[mymarifae]

aHA! i have finally figured out why i never jived with the kanade tenma hc. like you know me. THE found family guy. even if i don’t hc it myself i can still have fun watching other people have fun. but this one was always just 1. confusing and 2. not fun for me to see and i could never articulate why but i’ve got it now

the entire problem with Kanade Tenma is as a whole the fandom has a tendency to treat kanade like an orphan. like she has no family, no support system, like she’s all alone and needs to be taken in by the... tenmas... for some reason... (still not sure why the fandom decided she needs to be a tenma like she’s never even met tsukasa or saki. how is she getting over there. if she’s getting taken in by anybody it should be like... the mochizukis) and it’s like... guys. you do realize she’s not an orphan, right? she has family. she has good family. idr all the reasons why her grandma doesn’t live with her, but i’m assuming it’s along the lines of her being too old and frail to properly take care of a child at this point in her life - which is why she set kanade up with that caretaker/housekeeper system. it’s not perfect, but at least she isn’t being left to fend for herself

her dad is alive. just because he had a stroke and is now experiencing vascular dementia doesn’t mean he’s basically dead or that kanade is basically fatherless or something awful like that. (i’m genuinely still not sure what the fuck the game thinks it wrote irt what put kanade’s dad in the hospital but like. it wrote a stroke followed by vascular dementia. that’s what it did. “burnout” my fucking ass) i know at the end of the day kanade tenma is ultimately just a harmless headcanon, but like... please take a moment to think about the message even your most harmless headcanons might send. “if your parent is suffering from dementia and no longer recognizes you... well you don’t have a parent anymore. you need a new one. sorry.” obviously no one intends to say such a horrible thing, but remember that intent <<<<<<< final impression left on your outside audience.

having a family member that you love so much forget about you is a story that needs to be told. the prsk fandom needs to take a step back and just let this be told As It Is. kanade’s family is so, so fucking important to her. she’s only the person she is today because of her parents and all the gratitude and love she feels for them both. like, literally her most recent focus was her realizing how loved she was in light of mafuyu’s mother’s coldness. she knows that she experienced true unconditional love - something that mafuyu’s mom seems incapable of giving her daughter - and she still carries that love and warmth in her heart now. it’s what defines her as a person. it’s what gives her the courage to continue living. it’s why she believes she can save mafuyu and so many other people. she has that memory of what real genuine honest to god unconditional love is, and she’s so fucking determined to share it with the world.

kanade doesn’t... need a “new” family. her family may have suffered multiple tragedies, and it may be fragmented and a little broken, but... it’s hers. i don’t think it’s in good taste to take that away from her and try to “fix” her by placing her in a “better” family. it’s completely unnecessary.

[palossssssand]

A and B for Gingull and Eidwinn? Also I love their designs so much!

For Gingull: A) Why are you excited about this character?

I'm mostly excited about Gingull because they're kind of the culmination/crossroads point that ties all the other characters together, I think it's an interesting point for a character to be in. Admittedly, I've been having a hard time figuring out exactly how Gingull fits/moves the story forward since she's a product of the circumstances. I'm definitely going to be projecting a lot of personal experiences onto her, so there's a catharsis element to her too. I'm also excited to figure out how she interacts with all the other characters, given that she becomes mute at the beginning of the story, and not everyone would know/understand how to communicate with her and the frustration that comes with it. Also going to have so much fun with electrical imagery <:] The other thing I'm mainly excited to think about is her relationship with Delta(sea urchin), the soldier that pulled her from the malfunctioning machine and saved her life. There's going to be some tension between the two because Gingull is in no way obligated to forgive Delta for it, given that Delta was still actively Working for the military, and Delta has her own guilt complex about it as well due to efforts to break from the military and work towards doing some good. It's a dynamic that I don't think I've really seen or know how to describe, but I feel like it's easily the most interesting one to explore in regards to Gingull's character arc.

B) What inspired you to create them?

Gingull was created for the very initial premise of slug city's story, which was "dystopian government project to 'fix' mental illness spawns beasts that are representative of the illness to stigmatize it", like, the trope of an inner self or unwanted traits being a separate entity and character must learn to deal with it, or something. Gingull's beast is a long, wormy thing made of pure elctricity, and the imagery of that came first, and then Gingull's design, and then the story premise. The above description is currently a bit outdated and a little more nuanced, but the core of Gingull's character concept was built from the electrical beast, hence her helmet shaped like a socket. Initially, the idea was that she wore the helmet to cover her face because she's afraid of the disfigurement, and the electrical beast is a manifestation of her desire to be wanted and understood, so there's a moment plotted out in the story where she discards the helmet and the beast goes after the helmet instead of her. This is still partially true, but I've added a layer where the helmet enables her to not need to make eye contact or mouth expression, so there's an element of new comfort from that. Not sure where I'm going to take the previous concept with this, she's definitely a character that I'll need to workshop more in order to flesh out the core of the story.

Sorry for the really awful image quality but I don't think I've ever shared the beast designs before. Here's Gingull's.

For Eidwinn: A) Why are you excited about this character?

I'm really attached to Eidwinn, I'm honestly still not sure where he fits in the story, but he's very charming to me. Not that he's actually charming personality-wise, he's pretty reserved and generally unfriendly, but he's just very enamoring to me. I'm definitely thinking about a moment in story where Gingull goes to him for solace or happens to meet him, I haven't fleshed out those details yet. I'm also waffling on whether he should have prior relationships to the other characters, but he also just feels far removed from them and I think he's good as-is as a character that isn't directly involved in the other character's happenings but is nonetheless affected by them. He's important in Gingull's context because he's someone that's experienced life in a similar way to her, so there's solidarity in that.

B) What inspired you to create them?

I got started with slug city's premise and began making characters that would make cool beast concepts. Eidwinn's thing is that he's a plant shop owner who has a hoarding problem, and instead of doing anything meaningful about it the govt just dragged him to their machines, so his beast is this massive monstrous orchid that's supposed to represent his (debatably) unhealthy attachment to his plants. I haven't exactly decided if the beast manifestations are decided by Other People's perception of their root issues, or if it's a self-imposed idea, or a combination of both, because each implies something different about the nature of the beasts and how the characters interact with them. There's definitely a sense of shame associated with them, especially in Eidwinn's case where the beast roaming around causes him to be more shut in than before. In any case, I just really liked the concept of his character so he's stuck around. I needed characters that weren't direct players in the story.

also I know I probably could have typed thought up in The Text Post but additional thoughts always get put in the tags and I'm not going to bother retyping them. it's about the vibe of rambling in the tags <3 here's my post-post thoughts:

list of slug city characters question list

[bananasareupsidedown]

[realjem-art]

sometimes you gotta sit down and think about the evolution of The Character

[byoldervine]

Writing Tips - Character Strengths And Weaknesses

So characters need to have strong and weak points to keep them interesting and prevent them from seeming too stagnant; a character without strengths feels flat and boring, while a character without weaknesses feels overpowered and stagnant. So when it comes to character creation, how do we come up with good strengths and weaknesses?

1. Archetype. What role does your character fill in the story? Would any of the typical strengths and weaknesses for characters in that role apply to them? Could they be modified or altered to better fit?

2. Backstory. What was their childhood like? Do they have good relationships with their family? Have they worked in certain jobs or participated in activities that would lend themself to a certain skillset, or lack of? What struggles have they faced in the past that might have shaped who they are, for better or for worse?

3. Personality. What is this character like? How much of it comes naturally to them? Is any of it a learned behaviour or coping mechanism? Is any of it an act? How aware are they of this? Is it intentional or just a force of habit? Are the strengths and weaknesses you’re considering compatible with the person they truly are, even if they’re not compatible with the act they might put on?

4. Speaking of compatibility. Does it make sense that your character would have certain strengths or weaknesses depending on these other factors of their life? Are the strengths and weaknesses even compatible with each other? A patient character isn’t likely to be reckless or have a short temper, for example, though of course any combo has the possibility to work when approached with care and consideration

5. Double-edged sword. An easier and, in my personal opinion more interesting, way to approach it is to make the strength and weaknesses stem from the same character trait. A selfless character could struggle to prioritise themself. A loyal character could compromise themself or their objectivity in favour of supporting the people they care about. An overconfident character could get in over their head and underestimate the danger they’re in while taking unnecessary risks, but it would also lead them to taking on opportunities and challenges not many other people would, allowing them unique rewards for putting in the effort and courage. What character trait could you take to an extreme? Would it be good or bad for your character?

6. Character development. What about your character should be different from where they started? Think about the kind of person you want them to be at the end of the story, then inverse that to get them at the start of the story. What journey do they need to go through to develop into the new version of themself? If you want them to end as a responsible, patient and selfless person, they need to start off irresponsible, reckless and selfish. And don’t forget that you can build up negative character traits, and that even heroic characters who are objectively good can keep their less heroic qualities

7. Contextual strengths. Remember in ATLA when Katara couldn’t do much of anything in the desert and Toph was unable to effectively sandbend to the extent she needed to compensate for her blindness? Their strengths were turned into weaknesses, which they later worked to compensate for and improve on. What situation would put your character into the same sort of situation? Are their strengths actually useful in most contexts, or just the context of their environment or situation? Are their weaknesses actually useful, and they’re just not in a position to see this? When taken out of their current situation, would they fumble or thrive?

8. Types of strengths and weaknesses. Characters might have physical strengths and weaknesses, such as physical disabilities, additional features, powers or curses, literal physical strength, etc, but they also might have mental strengths and weaknesses such as intelligence, dexterity, balance, problem solving, a wide range of skills or obscure knowledge, memory, quick-thinking, resourcefulness, social skills, gullibility, etc. Beyond this, there are also separate emotional strengths and weaknesses, such as compassion, emotional intelligence, compartmentalisation, emotional range, self-awareness, insecurities, etc. There’s so much that could become a strength or weakness, and characters can have as many as you like from all three areas

9. Nature vs nurture. What your character has been taught or trained to think and feel and behave like does not inherently mean that this is who they actually are. Depending on their environment and the people around them, two people with the same strengths and weaknesses could end up diverging at critical points to become entirely different people, or two people who couldn’t be any more different could land in a position where they both become more and more alike as time goes on. Our environment and the people in it can shape us, both in our past and in our futures, so don’t leave the present as something stagnant; if a certain trait makes sense for them to have but you don’t want them to have it, have them unlearn it

10. External conflict. What literal journey will your character go on for the story? What strength might be useful for it? What weakness could hinder their efforts? Would these work for their character? If all else fails, make it practical or impractical as desired

[assumptionprime]

Playing Dark Souls 2 again and damn, in spite of its rough edges, I think it’s my favorite.

They’re all good, mind you. Dark Souls 1 is the foundation, and 3 is playing the hits while also saying that it can’t just play the hits forever and has to end.

And Dark Souls 2 is doing its own weird different thing and I love it.

I think it has the best story of the three games, because it really concerns itself with people.

The intro isn’t a list of people and monsters you need to kill, it’s your story. How you came into this land. You are afflicted with the curse of undeath, and it’s destroying your life and your mind. Everything that follows is based around that. You’re not the Chosen Undead, a title put on you in the first game because of a role you’re expected to play in some legend. You’re the Bearer of the Curse, because that’s your concern in all this, your curse.

You see it afflict others throughout the game, too. Most of the characters in Majula can’t remember how they got here, their goals, their lives before Drangleic are fading, same as yours. Lucatiel is by far my favorite NPC in any Souls game, a tragic view of another cursed undead that doesn’t quite make it. You fight alongside her. She confides in you, forms a bond with you. And then, as the last remnants of her mind, her self, leave her, she begs you to remember her name. Vendrick, the mighty king of Drangleic, is a shell of himself. He shuffles around in his own tomb, having long ago succumbed to the curse. He may as well already be dead. In every way that matters, he is.

And if you don’t figure something out, it’s going to happen to you, too.

Some to do has been made about the world layout not making sense. Some say it’s bad design or development troubles leading to compromises. Others say it’s intentional, that time and space are warped, though I think that’s either not true here or done much better in DS3. I subscribe to a third camp I’ve seen a bit less frequently: These nonsensical ways you move between some of these places are because you forgot how you got from one place to the other.

“So you got to the top of the tower, then what?”

“Oh, then I got on an elevator, which took me up— up to… I was on an elevator… then I was in an old keep sinking into a lake of lava.”

You’re losing your mind and your memory, you just can’t remember what happened between Earthen Peak and Old Iron Keep.

So you go slay the old ones, find Vendrick, seek out the ancient dragon, defeat Nashandra and—

It doesn’t work. You don’t cure the curse. You can either take the throne, or keep looking for a cure. We don’t see what kind of monarch you are to your ruined kingdom if you stay. And we don’t see you find a cure to the curse if you leave.

You lose.

It’s left to you to decide, does continuing to fight this fate have meaning? Is the struggle, in and of itself, worthwhile?

Dark Souls 2 is about going Hollow, and I love that it goes in such a different direction with its lore and story to be that.

[ennn]

Things I Liked About the Agatha All Along Finale - Initial Thoughts

Wooooo boy. Hey look I'm a bleeding heart shipper but I'm old and have been in enough fandoms. Let's process shall we?

Alice! Alice echo-ing what so many fans are saying about her lost potential. Rio actually being kind in reminding Alice her death did have purpose. "You're a protection witch, you protected someone."

The development of Billy's extremely complicated relationship with Agatha. Kid's not loyal to Agatha, he's understanding her, or starting to at least. He sees her being a relationship with Death and he's curious about the story there. He cares enough to connect the dots and see Agatha as a full person. And we see that developed as the finale goes.

"That's it? That's all the time that I get?" The show reminds us that death sometimes just happens – "Sometimes boys die" – I wonder if one of these writers is a Sandman fan because I immediately clocked a parallel to Death of the Endless taking a baby's life in her first comic appearance.

Death of the Endless is of course much kinder than Rio is with her (iconic) reply to that eternal question. "You lived what anyone gets... A lifetime."

That whole convo we got in the preview clip. And then them just sitting down and talking more? Albeit with layers of manipulation but y'know that's them.

Agatha telling Rio that she'll hand over Billy if Rio leaves her alone: essentially making Rio once again choose between her duty and her feelings towards Agatha. The deepest cut Agatha could make – which we see echoed with "If you do this I'll hate you forever." They know each other and the best ways to hurt each other.

I laughed waaaay too much at Agatha ragging on Jen's last vegetable name.

Jen's unbinding ritual was powerful and a fantastic moment for the character. She recognised and embraced her power. Agatha's mask slipping a little at the end as well. Amazing. Sasheer killed it.

The whole scene with Agatha working with Billy to bring Tommy back was beautiful and emotional and well put together and showed the side to Agatha that cements her as a great mentor (when she's not being the biggest murderous asshole).

Agatha using what she learnt from her Alice and Jen – and what Lilia told her – to hold her ground with Rio... okay it lasted like 10 seconds but it was a nice callback! Agatha's such a shameless survivor.

Incredible kissing. We knew Hahn and Plaza would deliver and they did. When it comes to kissing women, these two absolutely go for it.

Rio looking absolutely gutted with having to take Nicky away. Plaza really delivered with Rio's pain in these eps. Agatha calling her "my love", cursing and then begging.

Rio being soft about Nicky despite her job. Nicky willingly going with her with no fear, no hesitation – suggesting that they did bond somehow? Nicky knew she was a friendly face and trusted her. It was really a good death, all things considered. He wasn't sick, he wasn't in pain, he wasn't scared he simply fell asleep and just went.

Rio reminding Nicky to kiss his mom goodbye. She cares so much, as much as a personification of death can. It's funny how some people thought Rio was going to be this manipulative big bad but no, Agatha's the more toxic one in this relationship.

Okay like imagine Agatha finally dying and just straight up BOOKING it before Rio pops up. Rio hates ghosts. The number of times Agatha deliberately pissed her off this finale was amazing.

"I'm sure he'll forgive you for... whatever you did." Aw Billy is a good kid. Just like Nicky was. Agatha needs that reminder, that anchor to not be the Worst.

Chemistry aside, Agatha and Billy being mentor-pupil makes a ton of sense because these Maximoffs do the most fucked up shit (unintentionally) with their magic and Agatha's got the knowledge, charisma, cynicism, and the morals of a spinning compass to support him.

Alright when are they announcing the sequel / spin-off? I know there's a rumour of it happening. Rio's got 2 abominations and one endlessly aggravating ghost of an ex to deal with now.

[lettiegrief]

It's ironic to me that part of the fandom insists so much that Hua Cheng's personality revolves around Xie Lian when in fact MXTX created Hua Cheng first and then had to make Xie Lian his ideal type. Like, the truth is that Xie Lian was molded for Hua Cheng. I find this contradiction very funny, I'm sorry.

But they were indeed created for each other.

Hua Cheng has a strong personality, he is firm in his ideals and beliefs, assertive in his opinions, cold in his justice and someone who does not bend the rules just to fit in, he creates a third way instead of adapting to a world that hates him and was cruel to him.

His ideal type would have to be someone as confident as him, who not only does not bend the rules, but also does not get corrupted by difficulties, someone benevolent enough to see people like him with kindness, because only someone faithful in his beliefs would be able to be so different from everything that the world says is right — because the right thing is for you to annihilate people like Hua Cheng, whether they are innocent or not, just because of a supposed curse that they did not ask for.

This meta is based on this excerpt from the afterword that MXTX put in TGCF ↓

When it comes to character designs, the Shou’s were decided on first for the first two novels, but I was torn over the Gong’s for a long time, and needed a run-in period. Hua Cheng, however, was an exception. Inspiration struck and there he was; inspiration struck again, and I blinded one of his eyes.

[...]

It was actually the Shou, Xie Lian, who tortured me for up to half a year’s time. When the novel started serializing, I was still torn over him for a long time.

[...]

But the most important thing is, by my instincts, someone like Hua Cheng will most definitely love someone like this. So, after a good half a year’s worth of qualms, in the end I still typesetted him: It’s you!

Speaking more about this postscript, I found it interesting how for MXTX, Xie Lian was the most difficult character she has ever played. People tend to think that Xie Lian only has two personality traits: (false, for many) kindness and idiocy. The idiocy may even be right lol, but when you stop to think about it, Xie Lian is a really difficult character to create and, mainly, to develop.

For all the layers he has, he could easily be a snobbish prince, a vengeful and bitter ex-prince, a fallen prince who rises again to reconquer his kingdom and reclaim his throne or a spotless saint who is always intelligent and wise and is above things like sadness, anger, lust, etc.

We know that Xie Lian is none of these things, he was not made for these plots. But if he is none of these things, then what could he be? Honestly, I find it very difficult for anyone to come to the conclusion that your protagonist is a "loser" who failed and has no ambition to rebuild his kingdom and become the new king. It's bold to make your protagonist a poor and extremely unlucky nomad, especially with the princely background that you gave him, we can see from the amount of stories out there about protagonists who lost their kingdoms and then have a path of reconquest that it's difficult not to be tempted to follow that path.

Of course, Xie Lian is a god, something greater than a prince or king, but he is a poor god, known as "the joke of the three kingdoms", he has no wealth and for 800 years he only had 1 believer that he didn't even know existed and he is also known as the "god of plague" and "immortal scrap collector", unconventional titles in the literary world lol

He must experience youthful ignorance, overestimation of his own abilities, have been laughable, been foolish, made mistakes, despaired, felt hatred, gone crazy. But he can’t run, and he can’t hide; everything is what it is. All this was killing me. Not just within the text, but outside the text too. My mediation was useless, and I’ve no energy anymore either, so in order not to be affected, I stopped looking at comments altogether. Since I always habitually vaccinate myself before a serialization begins, speculating on all the worst possible scenarios and preparing myself mentally, by the time serialization started I had already expected how all the negative comments would go down. But after much hesitation, I still thought, why not try all different kinds of characters? I haven’t tried writing a main character like this before.

— MXTX

[mask131]

I am re-reading the Silmarillion, and something strikes me. The women of Tolkien's world have been talked about TO DEATH especially with all the recurring debates surrounding the Rings of Power series.

As we all know, Tolkien was not a "feminist" in the modern sense of the word. He had a very male-centric point of view and appreciation of the world, he had male-driven and male-centered stories, and actual women characters were sparse and rare. There are only five really big female characters in "The Lord of the Rings" - the quintet of Galadriel, Eowyn, Goldberry, Lobelia and Shelob. [No, don't talk to me about Arwen, she only really was a character in the movies, in the book she's just there in the appendix and she was literaly an afterthought of Tolkien to act as Eowyn's romantic double...]

Consider this. Galadriel, Eowyn, Goldberry, Lobelia and Shelob. This tells you everything you need to know about Tolkien's women, in good and bad.

The Silmarillion has the same motif of having a lot of female characters, only for most of them to be just footnotes, secondary characters with no lines, under-developped one-liners... with in a contrast a handful of super-cool, super-badass, complex and developed heroines at the center of the plot.

Aka, on the bad side, when listing the Valar, while Tolkien gives an interesting personality, great domains and cool attributes to all the male ones, half of the female ones are just... there. And do one stuff. And never appear again. I mean come on... Vana and Nessa? Estë and Vairë were done dirty... That's the actual type of "non-feminism" Tolkien has. It isn't about him hating women or trying to be offensive in his depictions - it is about him just, not putting as much thought, effort and care into his female characters as his male ones, a bit the same way he creates the vast expanses of the East and South of Middle-Earth and then never bothers actually developing more of it or seeking to tell tales of it - but that's for another discussion about Tolkien's "racism". Here we talk about women.

But here's the thing, aka the good side... When Tolkien does find the time and care to develop and flesh out a female character, by Iluvatar he goes all out! Again, we are back on what I said earlier: the women of Lord of the Rings can be counted on one hand... but these fingers are Galadriel, Eowyn and Shelob, so you can't claim he isnt writing powerful, important or uninterestng female characters. Which leads me to my original remark - as usual I get driven away in digressions of all sorts and kinds.

Have you ever noticed that Melkor's greatest enemies, the ones he fears the most, and his most effective foes... are women? Tolkien might not like to put them front and center of his tales, and he might have been a man of the early 20th century England in culture and mind, but boy does he has something to say about how women are actually the first enemies of the literal embodiment of evil and destruction! I mean think about it. Varda of the Stars, and Yavanna of the trees. Nienna has her ambiguous relationship to him - her tears work against him, and yet without her plea for him he likely would not have been released from the dungeons of Mandos. You have Melian with her Girdle, and Luthien with her Hound. And of course most of all Arien, guardian of the Sun, not only one of the rare fire spirits that Melkor couldn't corrupt (despite him basically ruling over all fire), but that frightens him so much he keeps hiding away and doesn't even dare to attack her... [I also reblogged some times ago a post praising the brilliance of Tolkien keeping the old European sun-moon motifs but switching the genders. The weaker, inconsistant, lustful, whimsical, disorderly, untrustworthy Moon is now a male principle, while the steady, dangerous, strong, powerful and beautiful Sun is a woman.]

It is actually REALLY easy to do a feminist retelling of Tolkien's work. Melkor doesn't fear Manwë as much as Varda. Aulë's works and servants get corrupted by Melkor, while Yavanna's do not. Melian and Luthien actively works against him. He friggin' pisses himself when the Woman of the Sun shows up. Sure, there are some evil female characters that serve him down the line and are relegated to the "obscure footnotes and undescribed secondary characters" zone - Thuringwethil the vampire or queen Beruthiel. I coul also dropped deleted characters from early drafts, like the ogress Fluithuin. But among them stands Ungoliant... THE only true female big bad on the dark side of Arda. THE badass, nightmarish, creepy eldritch abomination. And who ends up double-crossing Melkor, almost KILLING him, and again making him basically shit in his pants - as Varda and Arien do.

The first enemies of Morgoth are not the Valar, or the Maiar, or the Elves... It's women.

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Writing Notes: Novel Outline

Novel outline - a document that includes important planning information about your novel’s structure, plot, characters, scenes, and more. It is the skeleton of your novel.

An outline can be anything from a one-page written document to a comprehensive visual mindmap that uses diagrams to represent the link between information and ideas.

If you have the space, you can write your sentences on index cards and post them on a wall to make it easier to view and manipulate the parts.

Each event should be a single, short sentence (e.g. Danny gets shot in the leg).

How to Create a Novel Outline

Grab your notebook (or index cards) and follow these simple steps:

1. Craft your premise

This is the underlying idea for your story.

A good way to find the premise is to ask yourself, “What would happen if…?”

For example: What would happen if a young man who survives a shipwreck spends months in a lifeboat with a large Bengal tiger? (Life of Pi, 2001) Or: What would happen if four strangers met in an Italian villa during World War II? (The English Patient, 1992).

Next, it might help to try and answer a few key questions to help expand on the premise and generate new ideas. Things like:

Who is the main protagonist?

What is the situation?

How will the protagonist change from the beginning of the novel to the end?

What is her/her objective?

What does he/she want?

How does he/she get or not get what they want?

Is there an opposing force that is stopping the protagonist from achieving this objective?

What is the central conflict of the novel?

What about the central theme—what are you trying to say?

Once you’ve worked out the answers to these questions, write a 1-paragraph summary of the novel. Think of it as an elevator pitch.

2. Determine your setting

In a novel, the setting (time, place) can be just as important as the characters. Readers need to feel a sense of where things are happening, just as much as why they’re happening.

Planning setting can depend on a number of things, depending on what kind of novel you’re writing. Get to know your setting intimately. Do as much research as you can. If your novel is set in the real world, find photos, descriptions, and other materials to inform your ideas.

Is your novel set in a boarding school? During a particular period in time?

Find as much information, both written and visual, about boarding schools in that time. Picture your settings in your mind, and write down as much detail as you can: everything from how something looks and sounds to how it might smell, taste, or feel.

3. Get to know your characters

Write character profiles. Visualize them. Pretend you’re introducing these characters to your friends. What would you say about them? What details would you include, and what details would you omit—and why? What kind of journey will each character undertake in the novel? Where will they start, and where will they end up? Who will be central to the novel’s plot, and who will just serve as color and background?

Develop character backstories. Think of the moments in each character’s life that have led them to the point where they are introduced in the novel. What elements have shaped their personality and progression as characters? Do they have unresolved issues crucial to the plot?

One method is to conduct a Q&A with the most important characters, as a way of finding out more about them. Ask your characters a series of questions (get as personal as you want) and have him/her answer in his/her own words.

4. Construct your plot

Construct a timeline of events. Write down everything that happens in the novel, from the beginning to the end. Include details where you can, such as where the events take place, and who is involved. If you know the outcome of the events, and how they will impact the novel’s overall plot, include this as well (these can help form the foundation of additional subplots).

Beginning: The beginning of your novel has to accomplish a lot. It must introduce the hero, the villain, and the world of the story, as well as the story’s sole dramatic question, and it must do this with enough energy to grab your reader’s interest right away. A prologue can be useful for seizing the reader’s attention.

Middle: Often, tension evaporates in the middle of a novel, so it’s a good idea to figure out your ending first. It may not be perfect, and you can always change it later, but it’s useful to know the climax to which your characters are headed. Having that destination will help you stay focused during the “middle muddle.” Write as many short sentences as you need to describe the pathway your characters will take to reach the climax.

End: While it may seem daunting to figure out the ending so early, just return to your sole dramatic question, which already has your ending hidden within it. For example, if your question is: Will Ahab catch the whale? Then your story’s finale will be the moment when he does.

5. Write your scenes

Once your plot outline is in place, you’ll have a better idea of what scenes will need to be placed where. Add them to the outline. Flesh them out as much as you want—everything from where the action takes place to who is involved, even dialogue if you already know what you want your characters to say. Don’t worry about things making sense at this point, you’ll have time later to go back and highlight anything that feels out of place. Just focus on getting everything down so you can see it in front of you.

Once your outline is complete, you’ll be free to start writing your first draft with the knowledge that if you falter, you can always turn back to the outline to see the big picture. As you begin the writing process, watch out for gaps in logic. Refer back to the outline, and update storylines, plot points, and the timeline as you go along.

While it’s necessary to have a basic grasp of your characters and your world when you start writing, it’s not essential to know everything up front. In fact, even with the most meticulous outlines, you may still find that your characters do things to upset your plans. When this happens, follow your instincts. Don’t be afraid to toss your outline or significantly revise it mid-way through your novel. A good rule to remember is that outlines involve plotting what will happen to your characters, but in the end, your characters should determine your plot.

Classic Methods for Creating Novel Outlines

No two outlines are ever the same, however there are myriad methods to kickstart the novel outline process.

Synopsis outline. This involves the creation of a short document, usually one or two pages long, that gives you a rough idea of the novel’s structure but also leaves room for flexibility. Think of this as a synopsis of the book, hitting all the major beats: what happens in the beginning, middle, and end? What are the major plot points and twists? What is the climax? What is the resolution?

In-depth outline. This is a more evolved outline that usually involves writing chapter summaries and outlining the different scenes within those chapters. This is more comprehensive and can take a lot more time. However, some writers swear by this method to stay on track. Some in-depth outlines can almost be mini-novels themselves, hitting around the 10,000-word mark.

Snowflake method. This method was created by author and writing instructor Randy Ingermanson. It begins with a one-sentence summary of the story you’re trying to tell. For example, the sentence could be something like: “Two teenagers discover a secret cave that contains treasures that a group of criminals has been hunting for.” The snowflake method would then require you to build that sentence into a paragraph, and then use that paragraph to create a series of character descriptions, and from there a series of storylines that involve those characters. The process spans outward until you have a fully outlined novel.

Bookend method. This method is for writers who prefer to leave some things to chance. It involves plotting the start and end of the story, as well as each of the main characters—but nothing more. This method is usually recommended for writers who already have a strong grasp of the characters and the kind of story they want to tell.

Basic Questions Every Outline Should Answer

Besides listing characters and plot points for story structure, your outline should give you a general sense of the direction of your story as well as the primary conflicts and tensions that will make it intriguing for readers. Keep the following questions in mind while creating your outline:

What is the main contract of the story? You must resolve the promises you made to your reader by the end of the novel.

What sort of time pressure is working on your characters?

What is at stake for the protagonist of the novel? Does the pressure on the main characters grow more intense as the story progresses?

Pros & Cons of Creating an Outline

Some writers are comfortable creating a detailed outline for a novel. New writers in particular find it helpful to have a road map.

Others feel that writing an outline diminishes the pleasure of discovering the story along the way. They argue that working from an outline means you’re not creating anymore, you’re translating your ideas.

In the literary world, novelists who use outlines are referred to as “plotters.” Example: Ernest Hemingway.

Those who don’t are known as “pantsers” — a reference to flying by the seat of their pants. Famous pantsers include Margaret Atwood and Stephen King.

While every writer is different, there are some general pros and cons to consider before creating your novel outline.

The benefits of creating an outline:

Helps visualize the big picture

Keeps the story on track

Logs which scenes go where

Clearly presents character arcs

Acts as a guide to ease writer’s block when you’re stuck

Clarifies the middle, to avoid the “muddle”

The drawbacks of creating an outline:

Can create a stilted narrative

If followed too closely, can feel formulaic

May lead to more showing rather than telling in the actual writing

Characters may seem to make inauthentic choices, solely based on plot points instead of natural results from narrative action

Bestselling author Stephen King supposedly swears by putting interesting characters in difficult situations and just seeing what happens. He famously said: “Outlines are the last resource of bad fiction writers who wish to God they were writing masters’ theses.”

That aside, both plotters and pantsers agree on one thing: there is no correct way when it comes to novel writing. It simply depends on what kind of writer you are, and what works for you.

Sources: 1 2 ⚜ More: References ⚜ Writing Resources PDFs

[thisisnotthenerd]

putting the tl;dr at the top as a poll and the commentary under the cut because it’s quite rambly and it’s also late and i’m tired.

*whether dorian is one of these is up for debate

there’s some discussion of bell’s hells not having the “it” factor for a lot of people. even though it’s my first campaign and the only one i’ve mostly watched live, i kind of have to agree.

there’s a distinctive lack of investment in backstory for the group in terms of what they’ve spent time on in campaign. i think fearne is the only one who’s been done justice, even though we’ve seen other exploration, because they’ve been to her home multiple times, and while her backstory isn’t central to the main plot, it is close. it’s enough distance for her to be able to develop as a character but also for us to see where she came from.

imogen’s is tied directly to the main moon plot, so she’s had screen time aplenty, but less time to develop quietly, as laura does really well. i might argue for orym, but that’s because his is kept simple but with depth. his backstory comes through in the acting because he’s put up against his family members occasionally, but he’s a little guy at root.

for everyone else it’s been short detours. sometimes not even that. the spotlight oscillates between moon plot and god arguments with indecisive wandering in between.

while not everyone in vox machina inherently had a deep personal connection to the big bads of their campaigns, they didn’t need to. they did it for their friends, because they loved and trusted one another deeply. they made decisions about what they were facing and stuck to it, even when it meant sacrifice. they made multiple levels of friendship around and across the table.

at this point bell’s hells has been told a bunch of different things to do. and honestly i don’t know if they ever decided on one.

that’s not the point of this though.

there’s some archetypes or dnd players out there: roleplayers and power gamers. people who are all in it for the story and people who are all in it for the game. and it reflects in the characters they build.

somehow bell’s hells (collectively) is neither.

they don’t have strong investment in the plot collectively. the character concepts range from simple to deeply complex, and i have to say that i think the simpler has worked better for a plot-heavy campaign, because the characters that started simpler had a chance to develop over the campaign rather than competing for time between the plot and their own stories hanging over their heads.

take dorian. he was a humble bard, a former noble, who’s trying to make his way in the world. he refused great power from an evil source and paid the price in the loss of his brother. he fell in love as the world ended, and is still trying to sing the songs of the people he loves because he wants to bring people joy and bring them together. he’s invested in stopping predathos because of his friends, but also to avenge loss, and to protect the people of his homeland and take up his responsibility as heir to the silken squall.

it took a paragraph. but at the table, even when he was with the crown keepers for a few months, he fits right in. he’s had growth while keeping true to his core.

i’m not going to get into the rest now but there’s a definite element of throwing shit at a wall and seeing what sticks.

anyways, beyond the difficulties of backstory, they’re not super optimized. i’m of the belief that optimization works in tandem with roleplay—the characters are growing and changing over the course of the story, and having the mechanics trace that and make choices impactful is a big part of the appeal of the game.

watching vox machina and the mighty nein fight is a treat because not only are they level 20 and therefore godlike in power, their mechanics support interesting combat where failure hits hard because they’re built to succeed. when someone fails a save or misses it means something. they have options in their wheelhouse but they’ve found their niches and know how to play to their strengths.

bell’s hells is playing high level combat right now, but they have middling stats: lots of dump stats, 10-14s in the middle and some attacks/spell saves that aren’t as high as you’d expect of level 15 characters. they have several characters with perhaps too many options, and have made some weird strategic decisions. they’re indecisive. in combination with fluctuating luck from the dice, there’s times where they can wreck house, but also times of them failing saves, missing on full turns, losing resources, and overall failing more than they succeed.

also bell’s hells don’t make big decisions in combat unless they’re absolutely forced to. in the last arc pre-final battle, the big battles were otohan on ruidus, dominox and ludinus in aeor (+delilah), zathuda and the unseelie in the feywild. with otohan, they were dying all around until fcg’s sacrifice. literally end of the line. then in aeor, they fought to end dominox, got whammied with downfall, and then had the delilah fight, but then her sealing came later. they fought in the arch heart’s temple, but the big revelations came on the heels of that, between the arch heart themself and then zathuda being strung up on the loom.

but of a tangent: i don’t think naddpod and critical role can be fairly compared, because they’re different in tone and telling very different stories. i relistened to naddpod c1 recently along with the last few episodes of c3 as we approach the finale, and while they have gotten more creative on the character building side, the story is still well done and combat is fun to listen to. they have had moments of deep tragedy on naddpod. they’ve had cameos of old characters, and even had one of them as a pc for a full arc mid-campaign 3. they’ve explored the future of the world of bahumia after the events of c1.

and while the story is satisfying and fun, the combat is also satisfying and fun. not just because murph is really good at building combats that are interesting in theater of the mind, but because the characters are built to be good at what they do. and when they go down, when they miss, when they fail, it hits harder. but they bounce back and keep going even when the circumstances suck. and they make narratively important decisions during combat.

with bell’s hells, i have often noted a split between their combat and roleplay. i like matt’s combats. i think they’re fun and make good use of a variety of enemies, terrain, and complicating factors. with vm and mn, it makes for really engaging episodes of combat, where they make use of the environment tactically and get to discover elements of how the field is set up as they go. i’m using the recent examples, which are not entirely inclusive but generally reflective of their combat trends.

vox machina fought their way off an airship, onto a chaotic battlefield, and then stealthed up to the malleus key, where they proceeded to defeat ozo cruth, break the bloody bridge, and get vax out of imprisonment. the mighty nein stealthed around kreviris, met with the volition, zip lined to and blew up the arx creonum, and then snuck through to meet the weave mind in combat. i can recall fun details and clutch moves, big risks including characters dying, and overall, battles that had character interaction.

as i’ve talked about before, bell’s hells gets whomped. they swing for the fences on some things, but when it doesn’t pay off it’s not just a missed opportunity, it’s often an active barrier or a loss of valuable resources that drive them closer to crisis.

imogen’s whirlwind, laudna’s disintegrate, and dorian’s forcecage were all great moves this episode. it also means they’re down some of their highest level spells before they actually face ludinus and/or predathos. granted they have the orb. but whether they can use it will be variable.

[chocostrwberry]

Sentimaggedon!!

Sentimonster designs I came up with bc I was thinking about Argos’s debut in my AU! Bc I’m dumb and I haven’t thought too deep about him as a character to the story yet-

They were originally suppose to all be based on the seven deadly sins, especially Gasumptious (gluttony) and Elvy (envy). But I also wanted to branch into maybe Felix’s other hidden emotions, like his deep love for Kagami and his fear of being replaced by Adrien (Bride and Athazagora).

Argos becomes an official enemy when Dragonbug tells him they need to be destroyed. He defends them, saying they’re just “infants” and can learn how to behave properly with time. But a frustrated and exhausted Dragonbug she tells him they aren’t like humans and are created for one purpose: to serve and destroy. This hits home with Argos, and he develops a fear and hatred for Ladybug and swears his loyalty to Madame Morphisa afterwards in order to take her down and prove just how monstrous he can be.

I’m still kinda trying to find a way to make this concept work in my au. He promised to serve her in exchange for the peacock miraculous, and she wants him to use it to take Ladybug’s miraculous. In a novice attempt, he might have just starting creating multiple sentimonsters that he thought were harmless enough (something she did NOT expect), but they quickly spiraled out of control. It’s much easier to make sentimonsters based on others emotions, because you can predict which one you will create it off of. But instead, he chose his own, which makes it more difficult to tell how the sentimonster will act. I think it would show the aspect that these creatures do have a mind of their own, compared to previous Mayura sentimonsters who were easily controlled by their akumas!!

Red Moon

Red Moon is obviously already canon, but her power is instead hypnosis. If you get caught in her light, you stop whatever you are doing to stare at her. The streets of Paris become like a statue exhibit: countless of unlucky citizens are bathing in her glow, staring at the beauty of the red moon.

Gasumptious

As he devours, Gasumptious grows bigger and bigger. He’ll eat anything, so beware! After finishing most of the city, Gasumptious sits atop the Eiffel Tower and gnaws on its metal posts.

Elvy

Elvy lives in the sewers. She can control water and uses it to drain you of happy memories, which she keeps in floating green orbs and guards for herself.

It’s so silly to me how the manifestation of Felix’s jealousy of Adrien is fought and defeated by Chat Noir, who is Adrien ehehehheeh.

She also sounds like a Pokémon!! Probably like a Lapras, or the one that trills really pretty

Athazagora

A timid creature, Athazagora took over the catacombs, and hides in the shadows. You can hear the creaking and rattling of its wooden limbs in the dark as it stalk you. If you can’t escape, it envelops you in its cloak of darkness, never to be seen again.

Bride

The supposed advisor of Argos. She never leaves his side, and is always whispering something in his ear. To protect Argos, she showcases her ability to turn her arm into a long spear/sword, incredible strength and mobility, and that her body is made of an indestructible crystal.

Plus, he can make multiple sentimonsters bc he’s a sentihuman himself (Other people can’t. You can only make one, kind of like how the Butterfly miraculous can only Akumatize one person at a time, unless they share an object. Current excuse I’m going with that makes semi-sense HEHEHE) . So Lila totally wants to use that to her own advantage!

Ofc he fails, but she’s impressed with his resolve (and the lengths he was willing to go, albeit unintentionally), especially after sharing her goal of destroying Ladybug. Lila was feeling the effects of unification and now has a willing minion to do her bidding whenever she pleases.

If I decide to go with this plot, Lila has to end up forgetting Felix because of the curse. But she doesn’t care: all she really needs is Argos. I might need to retcon her revenge against Felix because of this but idm! It wasn’t very important to the plot anyways!

I was considering having Dragonbug in this episode, since she could use Perfection to snipe Red Moon out of the sky! The lucky charm would be like a wand that creates a sticky translucent web to keep the sentimonsters secure so they can go find their amoks.

And a sentimonster I never ended up including, Ava. I just didn’t have a reason to put her in there but I liked the yin and yang style of her design!!

[galedekarios]

i need to get this off my chest. this is a personal vent post so please don't jump down my throat, but a thing that makes me feel some kind of ways is just how much bg3 is being viewed now through rose-tinted glasses in order to dunk on veilguard. i've seen this happening on most platforms tbh.

and sometimes i remember for a brief moment what larian did before the release (much of this in the last few weeks before release no less) and after the release of the game:

-lied abt the your race having consequences throughout the story (saying that drow being feared in act 1 and persecuted in act 3 and it then... just not happening at all. drow walking around on the surface is just fine now ig. again it still boggles my mind how drow are allowed to roam around in baldur's gate without consequences considering that they are known to be responsible for kidnapping duke ravengard but i won't get on that soapbox again.)

-lied abt the upper city being available in act 3

-lied abt romance progression & how romances would play out in general prior to release (pfh + release trailers and promo)

-game-breaking bugs

-romance-breaking bugs for months (gale and wyll)

-one companion who has a third to half more content than any of the other companions and who was heavily favoured and focused on during development to the detriment of others (with the narrative design lead even admitting to this)

-was missing an actual ending that they only added months after release

-was missing the evil path that they actually promised prior to release

-offers quite little in the way consequences even now (not giving karlach upgrades for example has zero bearing on her and she still survives to make her sacrifice on the pier, ethel coming back no matter what you did, downgrading gale's need for actual artefacts of power bc ppl can't part with their loot even for narrative reasons, etc.)

-lore-breaks + poor research on established lore (the whole timeline with mystra, minthara using an eilistraeen endearment, etc)

-massacring returning characters like viconia and sarevok

-constantly changing dialogue around / scrapping old ones / adding new ones depending on fan demand

i could go on, but it's... a lot already.

i obviously love the game despite its many flaws and it's done some other things wonderfully - just like veilguard. the unique body language of the companions, the animation and creativity, the voice acting, the music, act 1 overall and parts of act 2, etc. it's one of my most played games and one of my most beloveds (mostly bc of gale, my ocs and friends' oc).

all these game have flaws. the one difference i see is that bg3 has been given the benefit of the doubt and overall an abundance of good will (generally speaking) and veilguard hasn't been.