#campaign rehash

[undead-knick-knack]

Bells Hells continue to push Percy to his fucking limit

[utilitycaster]

perhaps unpopular but while I do agree the EXU interlude likely killed some of the momentum, I also...don't mind that the party didn't talk much this episode? I feel like the start of the episode created an opening that not everyone took, though we did have some good moments, but also, for all I adore episode 2x30 and 1x69 re: wake of a character's death, and i do think 3x92's first half was very strong, it feels very right and in-character that Ashton isn't ready to talk about it (and that Dorian isn't really talking yet either).

[papirouge]

"#freepalestine is just a trend 🤪"

they say while reappropriating (pro Palestine) TRENDING hashtags hoping they would go as viral as them lmao

#freepalestinefromhamas

#metoounlessyoureajew

#fromtherivertotheseaisraelwillbefree

#jewishlivesmatter

....but yeaaaah you guys totally think making a cause a trending # is cringe, right?? 🤡

IDK in what world you live, but in the world of warm blooded humans, being against war and genocide will always be a fairly popular opinion. Such causes becoming viral and trending totally makes sense and only blood thirsty heartless warmonger would have a problem with it. Seethe & cope 👋🏾

[thebathtubkeeper]

I made a map!

I’m pretty happy with how it’s turned out, I have never edited a map like this before. Hopefully I’ll improve the more I do this lol

The general setting is the (fictional) town of Pinecust, it’s kinda based off the town I grew up in. It was a small logging town out in the middle of the Pacific Northwest forest that had kinda lost a lot of it’s bustle decades before I came along. I’ve had a lot of fun kinda planning everything out and making little pieces(such as the map).

If you have any deeper interest in Pinecust feel free to ask. Or if you have any advice or anything like that for a baby Keeper :))

[arabella-strange]

there's also this interesting comparison to World Beyond Number recently, where the very aggressive and very defensive wizard Suvi (played by Aabria Iyengar) gets very cold and guarded whenever her long-dead parents are brought up. And Aabria herself said after one ep that this is largely because for Suvi, people invoke the names and lives of her parents -- beloved people who she lost traumatically as a small child, and so did not know -- to corral her, to steer her, to influence her.

Orym recently had a vision from a God who told him a few things:

Fight Predathos -- here's a Vestige 2.0 sword, blessed by me, to fight with.

Predathos is a horror the likes of which will haunt your soul -- here [because you failed your save] is a vision of that howling void, that all-consuming maw of oblivion, just in case you start to forget what's at stake.

My realm is balance, not peace nor passivity, so if you are about balance, we're aligned for now -- Bonus: here's a brief visit from your beloved dead husband, who because of his love of nature and the world and balance ended up in my eternal care. [Cf. Suvi.]

Now, the ep previous, Dorian had pointed out the terror of being without a stable, sufficient moral compass when the stakes are this high. He underscored how scary and desolate and immobilizing it is to not know what will have been the right answer until after it's done.

For me, the meeting with the Arch Heart was -- as Liam said! -- such a gut-punch that fucks Orym over and sets him back so many steps is because of how these threads converge. Suvi, Wildmother, Dorian.

To wit: Orym had one brief glittering moment of feeling empowered to make a right choice, a choice based on a renewed intuitive sense of what "right" means so that the fewest people are hurt and the fewest decisions have to be in their hands (balance). And ~ten seconds~ later, he has to reframe that whole interaction as yet another way that Will's death is a source of ongoing pain and loss. Loss this time not just of Will himself and the love and the life they shared, but loss now also of that same certainty of how to know, deep down, what right even means anymore. On the one side, the howling void of Predathos; on the other, the desolation of separation from love, from certainty, from inner self.

So when Orym said, hollowly, "I don't have a God," I don't think he was lying or rolling back disingenuously. I think he was underscoring why this continues to be so brutally, cruelly painful for him. Because he came into this as an Ashari fighter with a lil touch of druid, not a paladin or a cleric. He didn't start with a God, he didn't become devoted or have a change of heart -- he was looking for the God that spoke to his heart and matched his goals. A God he could -- however briefly! -- trust. And now it seems like that's all gone, all over again.

ORYM IS NOT PRO-GOD.

ORYM IS NOT FIGHTING FOR THE GODS, HE'S FIGHTING FOR THE PEOPLE.

ORYM IS FIGHTING SO THAT THERE CAN A TOMORROW.

ORYM DOES NOT WANT TO FOLLOW THE WILDMOTHER, HE WANTS TO WORK ALONGSIDE HER.

ORYM IS NOT ON A REVENGE QUEST.

ORYM IS FIGHTING TO HONOUR WILL AND DERRIG BECAUSE HE KNOWS THAT THEY WOULD BE FIGHTING ALONGSIDE HIM IF THEY WERE ALIVE.

ORYM IS TRYING TO BE A SHIELD FOR EXANDRIA

[technofeudalism]

i've got one more wall of text in me for today. i'm sorry, but hopefully this helps more people than it annoys.

i understand the concerns people have about social media being captured to technofascist oligarchs and i share them.

however, and you can call me a boomer for this if you'd like, i am way more worried about the fact that we are watching a scarier replay of the 2016 hyper-normalization of Donald Trump already being carried out in mainstream/establishment news outlets.

Some political operatives on the right, who saw mainstream media coverage of Trump’s first term as overly hostile, say the way the press covered Trump’s first term unwittingly did him a favor.   “I do expect that the media coverage will be a little different in tone,” one national Republican strategist told The Hill this week. “Not because the media is all of a sudden planning on being more objective and less biased, but because they probably finally recognize that their over-the-top hysterical coverage has done nothing but help Trump politically.”  

there are many reason this freaks me out worse, but i can sum up a couple of them.

the rhetoric this time is a magnitude more insane and suddenly alarmingly expansionist. logic would suggest this would justify an even more critical evaluation from the media that they are seemingly neglecting to provide.

the public, thanks to total dereliction of duty by the Democrats, are far more geared up for fascist shit than ever, but are totally ignorant to how this is going to happen (concentration camps)

speaking of the Democratic party: following a series of humiliating, high profile L's, the party finds themselves leaderless and less popular than they've been in 30 years at the worst time. when asked to name the leader of the Democratic Party, 49% of registered voters couldn’t name a person or said “nobody.”

before i continue, i know that there has been a dramatic decrease in people who get their news from traditional media and instead rely on social media, podcasts and the like. that makes sense. people aren't watching cable news anymore, chiefly because fewer and fewer people under the age of 30 even have cable TV and they definitely aren't paying for a New York Times subscription.

but what people fail to consider is that the "news" people consume via social media is often rehashed or half-baked, word of mouth versions of reporting conducted by the mainstream media or the journalists who work for them. there are still journalists working for these publications who take advantage of the increased exposure podcasts provide and go on them to talk about their writing.

people hear the same stories at the end of the day, but the way the issue is initially framed when the story first "breaks" and how it is approached by other outlets who follow up on it is significant. it's a lot less work to have to clean up and suppress news on your platform when the news is already favorable to your cause.

think along the lines of a massive disinformation campaign emerging from one outlet, social media being thrown into a complete frenzy and the only journalist who knows the truth from another outlet hesitating to speak out because of threats from his publisher to keep outrage revenue high or, perhaps more ominously, to directly serve the interest of the fascists in charge.

the US media has always been servile to whims of corporate interests because... well... they are owned by the corporate interests.

but up until today, i was holding out some sliver of hope that even if the NYT, for example, wasn't taking up antifascist actions, they would hold onto a tiny bit of reliability as a further watered down version of itself. an increasingly rare, delicate weapon against misinformation on social media, as opposed to being another tool wielded by fascists on aforementioned social media to grow legitimacy and manufacture consent.

then i saw this. my feeling is now that if the New York Times can't even write a headline - with THAT photograph underneath it - that says in plain English "Elon Musk Makes Nazi Salute Twice at Trump Inauguration," then there is going to be a frightening decrease in quality journalism being funded by mainstream outlets coming.

if you are not sure what to do and you want to be well informed, i have two suggestions. the first and most important, most difficult one that is a skill hard to master, is to develop decent media literacy and an ability to derive context from history.

the second is to build a network of trustworthy local, national and global sources that you can count on. ideally, they would be completely independent and free from editorial oversight or corporate control.

here are some of my recommendations. all of them are flawed. never rely on one source. do not immediately accept something as the truth from any single source. everyone is capable of accidentally getting a detail wrong, or even deliberately misleading.

Dropsite News - ran by Ryan Grim, Jeremy Scahill

The Intercept - sadly running out of money, alleged CIA ties

Democracy Now! - more center-left, better domestically

Jacobin - wide variety, sometimes shitty takes, Alex Press is great

The Grayzone - this one is controversial (mainly just to liberals) and they make no qualms about being committed to reporting from an anti-imperialist view of the world

Black Agenda Report - perspective from Black leftists. founded by Glen Ford (RIP), a Black Panther and accomplished investigative journalist

Hasan Piker - hate him, love him, neutral, doesn't matter. he's the largest independent political commentator on the left (by far), covering news and misinformation 9 hours a day. you can think he has shit takes, but he's still a reliable source and has been insanely accurate with his opinions

The Majority Report - been around forever, Sam Seder & Emma Vigeland are amazing, once home to the incredible Michael Jamal Brooks (RIP)

Breakthrough News

Labor Notes

Ben Norton @ Global Political Economy

Caitlin Johnstone (AUS)

these are just what i could come up with but there are many more if you do a little bit of digging using these as a baseline. just remember that the source ultimately is irrelevant and will have it's own biases. it is up to you to separate fact and fiction.

[darkmaga-returns]

The MAGA movement has rallied in unwavering support for Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) as he faces renewed smears from the corporate media and House Ethics Committee accusations rooted in disproven allegations.

It is telling that despite a coordinated campaign to isolate and discredit him, the Trump-aligned grassroots base and key leaders in the America First coalition are standing behind Gaetz, further exposing and fuelling the establishment’s desperation to silence one of the most reliable and vocal critics of the D.C. swamp.

The Ethics Committee’s recent, unethical leak of its own report—a rehash of allegations previously debunked by none other than the Biden Department of Justice—was timed to damage Gaetz’s credibility and distract from his effectiveness in holding the political class accountable. The DOJ, after a thorough investigation, declined to press charges, citing a complete lack of evidence to support the claims that have dogged Gaetz for years. Yet the committee, under the false premise of oversight, has weaponized its authority to settle political scores, relying on innuendo and hearsay.

Gaetz, who led the charge to remove Speaker Kevin McCarthy, has long been a thorn in the side of both Democrats and establishment Republicans. His refusal to take corporate cash and his willingness to challenge the status quo has made him a target of relentless attacks.Yet contra to the beliefs of the legacy media, his refusal to bow to pressure has only solidified his standing with the MAGA movement.

This loyalty from the base is not misplaced. Gaetz has often put the movement on his back, staunchly defending policies that are central to the America First agenda, including exposing government censorship and persecution, opposing endless foreign wars, and leading on accountability for the Biden regime’s failures. His successful defenestration of Speaker McCarthy made him a ‘made man’ in MAGA world.

Prominent figures, including Stephen K. Bannon, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, and President Donald Trump have expressed their public support. Greene called the Ethics Committee’s report “a shameless political hit job,” while Trump reposted messages defending Gaetz, calling him a “warrior” and a key ally in the fight to drain the swamp.

The campaign to smear Gaetz is the opening salvo of a fresh round of hoaxes, underscoring a broader trend of targeting MAGA conservatives.

[prokopetz]

The thing that annoys me about the received wisdom of "tabletop RPGs are descended from fantasy wargames, and that's why Dungeons & Dragons is Like That" is that most of the time, when people bring it out they're drawing conclusions by comparing D&D to modern fantasy wargames, and consequently getting cause and effect precisely backwards.

The fact of the matter is that tabletop RPGs aren't descended from fantasy wargames – at least, not in the way that this claim is usually meant. When D&D and its contemporaries came on the scene, fantasy and sci-fi elements were a relatively new (and often controversial) entry to the wargaming hobby; the 900-pound gorilla of the tabletop wargaming scene at the time wasn't fantasy wargaming, but historical wargaming; i.e., re-creations of historical campaigns and such.

Fantasy wargaming and tabletop RPGs are less a linear progression, and more two parallel branches of the same evolutionary tree; they both split off from historical wargaming at roughly the same time, and for much of their shared history there wasn't a bright line between them; many early titles that are classified as fantasy wargames due to their publication history would probably be considered tabletop RPGs by modern standards, and vice versa.

Bringing this back around to my grump about getting cause and effect backwards, one of the consequences of this shared history is that many of the features of contemporary tabletop roleplaying culture that are often cited as reactions against the hobby's wargaming roots are actually directly descended from those roots.

The frequent preoccupation with separating player knowledge from character knowledge, for example? That's straight up an historical wargaming thing. When you're gaming out an historical battle, it makes a big difference whether the players' tactics are informed by contemporary knowledge about the situation, or whether they restrict themselves to acting only upon information which the commander of the side they're playing could plausibly have possessed at the time. Whether there existed an obligation to remain "in character" as your side's commander – and exactly what constituted breaching this obligation – is something people literally got into fights over.

Or the whole "rules versus rulings" nonsense? Arguing about whether it's more appropriate to resolve uncertainty with recourse to game mechanics or by deferring to the judgment of subject matter experts is so deeply embedded in the DNA of historical wargaming that it goes all the way back to the Prussian Kriegsspiel.

Like, I'm not saying that these things aren't worth discussing, but I think we've gotta recognise that when we talk about player knowledge versus character knowledge or rulings versus rules, we're not "evolving beyond" the hobby's wargaming roots; we're rehashing arguments that tabletop wargame designers were having two hundred years ago, in some cases practically verbatim.

[revvethasmythh]

Part of me feels like Bell's Hells just weren't a good match for this campaign but that also feels like cope. I love them but at this point I kinda just want to move on to a new party so we can stop having the same conversation 50 times ;-;

a complete mood. i probably don't have the best thoughts about if they were a good match for the campaign, though i could parrot some of mutuals good thoughts on the topic, but bottom line i think is that it's all been a bit frustrating with the same issues being rehashed over and over again. the end, in many ways, is a bit of a relief. and i look forward to whatever CR does in the future, whether that be a 4th campaign or something different! but yeah, i would not mind moving over to a new party, hopefully one with more personal ideals that drive them purposefully forward. as an extremely decisive gal, that would be great for me, tbh

[bambi-kinos]

Why do you think Paul keeps saying to this day that John was really sweet. He really wasn't. He treated everyone like shit including Paul. Because he feel he has to? Because he was killed and people made him into something he wasn't? I don't blame John for this ). Or but because he was in love with him and that's what he remembers. John doesn"t deserve it. He's even overrated. Both P and G was/is better. I just don't get how someone like Paul who's a better man, artist and person keeps giving J so much credit. I'm not a new fan of the Beatles or Paul. I really can only see it that he was in love with him.

What else is Paul supposed to do?

Idk man I think Paul is just doing his best with what he has. He's never going to get closure on their relationship. He's never going to get an explanation that satisfies him. So he has to work with what he's got.

You have the wrong end of the stick on this, Paul isn't trying to give John credit that he hasn't earned. Paul is trying to move on from what John did to him by focusing on the good moments and remembering who John was before he was brain damaged by heroin and LSD. If your boyfriend has a TBI that changes his entire personality, is that really your boyfriend anymore? Is he really still himself? These are the questions Paul has wrestled with and it looks like he's realized he's never going to get an answer.

So he's focusing on what he does know which is that the John he knew and fell in love with was a sweet kid who sometimes let his insecurities rule him. But he was still a loving person who cared about Paul and was his closest friend for years.

Furthermore: if John was actually the raging dickhead that the internet thinks he is then he would not have had any friends to begin with. People with truly no redeeming characteristics who are assholes all the time don't get friends who defend them even after they die. The truth is that John was not actually a prick all of the time. Otherwise no one could have stood being around him. Paul calls John sweet because he knew the John that was a sweet guy, the guy that Paul loved.

You're also falling for John's own propaganda a bit. John never stopped projecting the image of being a cynical hard bitten street tough that intimidated everyone into submission with his temper. John occasionally admitted that all of this was an act (see his comments at playacting the Teddy Boy image while not actually being a gang member and why he felt he had to do it.)

But the truth is he never stopped projecting the "I'm an asshole you better not fuck with me" thing. All of this "I'm an irredeemable asshole I hate George and Paul!!!" is pure fakery. The very qualities you don't like were fabricated in large part by Yoko as part of a propaganda campaign, and from what I've read in the Dakota Years memoirs, this propaganda was out of John's control from the moment he started the Lennon Remembers interviews. John is just as much a victim of information warfare as Paul is, he just reacted to it differently and used it to barricade himself away from Paul.

That doesn't mean you have to like John or feel sorry for him or agree with Paul's decisions to try and leave the damage behind. You are reacting to the fact that Paul is visibly in pain when he talks about this stuff. He's bleeding in public and there's nothing no one can do to help him. The wounds are permanent. It is, in fact, rage inducing. John isn't here to speak for himself and try to explain. What else can we do as observers except be angry.

But Paul McCartney is 82 years old.

He's close to the end.

He doesn't want to do that, doesn't have time for it, doesn't want to spend his last years rehashing this shit.

Is there an alternative for him? All he can do now is try to make peace with it while he's alive and then he can finally get closure with John when he moves on to the next stop.

Paul doesn't call John 'sweet' for the sake of John's image. He does it to remind himself of the boy he fell in love with in 1957. Because he doesn't have a lot of time left and he wants to spend it being in love with John, not being angry at him. Paul is doing this for Paul. Simple as.

[undead-knick-knack]

Cerkonos the moment he laid eyes on Lieve'tel 😍

[utilitycaster]

feel free to ignore if you feel like it's too theoretical/parasocial/etc. but: I see how the campaign as a whole is off because of how lack of prep influenced the cast to create somewhat unfit characters, but as someone who got immensely annoyed by this episode, I'm wondering why has that throughline carried out for so long. why haven't the cast decided to start playing their characters in a way that leads to a more cohesive and satisfying story? is the hesitation and bizzare opinions on gods a very dedicated RP choice or do you think the players themselves are also at a loss? I'm honestly very confused about that, given how driven and decisive they played VM and M9 during their oneshots. I don't want to feel like I'm singling anyone out to hate but e.g. the way taliesin plays caduceus vs ashton is particularly puzzling to me.

Hey anon,

This is all highly speculative (as, to be fair, was the original idea the cast was given very little information, and that turned out to be right) but I think it's the far-reaching consequences of that initial lack of prep combined with the fact that it's been a very central-plot focused campaign that failed to allow the characters to develop into more decisive people. It also, I think, centers the Ruidusborn such that I suspect a lot of the rest of the table is taking their lead.

The Mighty Nein, we know, involved a lot of prep with Matt specifically offering feedback and vetoing certain aspects. Every character came in with pretty clear goals, and because it was a character-driven campaign we got to see those goals change as they learned more: Caleb and Fjord notably abandon their original goals in favor of new ones. Veth and Caduceus achieve theirs; Jester as well, and she develops new ones as she becomes less sheltered. Beau and Yasha's exact goals were much more nebulous, but they have the opportunity to confront their pasts at length and find new purpose and peace throughout the narrative. I don't think it's productive to rehash everything every time but: lack of pre-existing long-term relationships and more work on the short-term friendships that existed, the fact that Beau and usually Molly due to Yasha's absences (and later Caduceus) were free agents who didn't know anyone prior to their meeting, and the fact that the party had like 2 gold to their name and had to double up in odd configurations plus their willingness to engage in conflicts led to a fairly quick and deep bond, which also influenced their goals and dynamics.

Vox Machina were initially very generally sketched out characters, but after they began doing more there was a similar effort put into to backstories, and I think going back after they'd already played a bit meant they knew more about who they wanted these characters to be. The pre-stream plot, as we can tell from the origins comics, was also heavily backstory focused; the Briarwoods arc is when most people feel the streamed campaign really takes off.

We have seen the backstories of the characters of Bells Hells, but a lot of them are deeply tied into a long-running main plot that doesn't really allow for the same development over time. Like, Percy, for example, actually does his "plot" about quarter of the way into the campaign; but this kickstarts his development. Fjord is rather similar; he learns the source of his powers quite early on, but grapples with them until the halfway point and then the rest of the campaign is him embracing something new. To compare, I suspect Laura envisoned Imogen's story as being not dissimilar in the sense of "learn what my powers come from, find a way to better control or perhaps get rid of them" and so upon finding out this is the lynchpin of the entire plot, Imogen never has that post-resolution time to cook, essentially. Even for those who had slightly more rewarding plot beats they kind of felt like "let's address this problem so we can get back to the moon stuff" (Chetney, Laudna) and in some cases, I think it felt to the players, rightly or wrongly, like those plots were actively rushed to the point that they couldn't explore them (I suspect this happened for Ashton during the solstice split). There's been a hurry-up-and-wait sense of urgency over the whole campaign because it's a plot that was introduced very early and has never let up. There's been no "what do we do" type breaks and I'd be shocked if there are. We've sort of run out of plot because we've speed run everything that would have been a plot in a different campaign.

So I think the players don't know how to evolve their characters because there's been no in-world impetus to evolve, really. Now, as someone who prefers to play people who are already decisive, the fact that most of the cast went for kind of indecisive/impulsive types isn't my bag, but that is valid; but it means no one's really had the chance to organically move from that.

I also think that the fact that there's one big plot that really centers the ruidusborn is another factor. Even if Orym, for example, were the type to shut down the party, what is one person who can't reasonably stop two spellcasters from going into the Hallowed Cage going to do? I think this post makes a good point; I think putting the pressure very heavily on two players who (very understandably! for a number of reasons!) are among the most averse to making a hard and potentially alienating or unpopular choice has sort of prevented anyone else from taking a wild swing. The other campaigns had a much more even distribution of who could make decisions within the party, and I think that reflects that. I also think this is uniquely an issue for longform campaigns; I haven't seen this hesitancy from Laura nor Ashley in Candela, Downfall, nor in the various Daggerheart one-shots and miniseries, since you have to swing big there.

I do want to cover one point specifically, which is that I actually find Ashton to be one of the better played characters. I disagree with them, to be sure, but like, Caduceus is a character who can be arrogant in his fairly limited worldview, but who is also consistently very empathetic and kind. Ashton has that arrogance, but without those priorities. Caduceus isn't really invested in hurting those who hurt him; he's interested in stopping those who would hurt his home, family, or friends, and if that requires hurting them he's okay with that. Ashton really does want to beat up those they deem responsible for their own pain, justified or not. I think taking the shard was a great move and stand by that [though, admittedly, it and the bit about Predathos needing a vessel just now have me like. the consequences have been conveyed in a crystal clear manner to ME and somehow the cast is not getting Matt flat-out saying in game THIS IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN, so idk what's up with THAT.] and my issues stem specifically from his decision to claim to speak for the weak and then immediately accept the titans saying that a remade world in which only the strong survive is fine. Like, I don't think there is a problem in how Caduceus is played vs. Ashton, in that I think they are both internally consistent as characters; I think it's just. Caduceus is someone who tries to make decisions that minimize broad harm to that which he deems good, and Ashton is often, by their own admission (episode 78), selfish and conceited. Like, Taliesin is just. Playing someone who is often not a great person this time. And that's a valid choice. But I think it's in a narrative that didn't really permit enough time and space for characters to change meaningfully so Ashton is a bit stuck there whereas, while Caduceus didn't have nearly as much of a gap between who he already was and the hero he needed to be, he had far, far more room to grow.

[melljam]

it’s unhinged long post time again! and this one’s about gitae kim >:)

so its assumed that gitae holds some form of resentment over his absent father, gap … (since he did vaguely murder him with james after all)

… but there seems to be some subtle hints that gitae might have also idolized gapryong kim

-> first up: gitae’s pipe being engraved with gapryong kim’s name in chinese (金甲龍) 「link to my post that goes more in-depth about gap’s chinese name」

as i mentioned in the linked post, it seems like that smoking pipe belonged to gap in the past and gitae somehow got ahold of it

so why would gitae keep a piece of memorabilia that belonged to his absent father if he only held resentment for the man? it might have some sentimental value for him, especially since he chose to bring it back to korea with him.

perhaps the motive behind gitae’s possession and usage of gap’s pipe could be comparable to jake deciding to don gap’s gloves

the two of them both hold resentment for gap as a father, while also selectively admiring and emulating aspects of him as a gangsters

-> secondly, on the topic of emulating gap …

jake seems to unwillingly (or subconsciously) follow in his father’s footsteps through his passion for protecting people (which is the symbolic reason he wears gap’s gloves), but he also inherited gap’s moral compass. jake dislikes unfairness or ‘cheating’, just like how gap could never “ignore any kind of injustice.”

also the way that gap is mentioned to never be able to pass by someone in need, while jake constantly gets involved in other people’s business for the sake of helping them (showing up to save victims in 3a and his entire dynamic with xiaolung lol)

by all means, minseon was correct (ofc she is <3), and jake takes after gapryong kim’s ‘good side’

and in the same vein, following in minseon’s words, gitae takes after gapryong kim’s evil side.

he’s selfish, he’s power-hungry, and he has the raw strength to do (or get) what he wants

all of which are also traits belonging to gap, shown through his cheating, his (failed) political campaign, and his strength making him the ‘legend of the pre-generation’

no one truly aspires to be any of the first two traits listed, but what about the third?

to be a legend, in terms of strength (which is very, very important as a gangism lookism character whose ability to succeed is correlated in their ability to fight …)

wouldn’t that certainly be appealing to a selfish, power-hungry man?

and it seems that it indeed was very appealing to gitae, since jinyoung alludes to gap failing to mimic gap’s fighting style in the past

-> “no matter how hard you try, you’ll never be gapryong kim.”

perhaps this was just a one-off comment about gitae attempting to mimic gap’s fists, but it could be indicative of another facet of gitae’s admiration for his father

gitae might have admired the idea of his father being gapryong kim, korea’s strongest gangster, to the point of idolization (which sounds a lot like a certain someone samuel hahah … )

if so, then he might have become obsessed with following in his father’s footsteps and attaining power as a gangster, especially if he lived in poverty as an abandoned child (just like samuel)

perhaps, in a similar manner to samuel, gitae might have grown up viewing himself as needing to be worthy of being gapryong kim’s son, needing to live up to his father’s name.

but is ptj really going to rehash the same backstory for gitae? there’s a possibility, but ultimately, i don’t think so. gitae seems like he’s driven by something different to samuel, something a little less insecure hahah :)

gitae may have found himself obsessed over another aspect of gapryong kim, something distinct from the validation that samuel craved, something like:

-> the identity of gapryong kim

the legend of the pre-generation, korea’s strongest gangster, an all-around powerful man

someone to admire, someone to idolize (only for these guys that is, jake is right in hating gap lol)

what gitae wanted was to be ‘gapryong kim’.

maybe not in a literal sense, but rather to have the power as a gangster that gap held during his heyday, to be a legend in his own right

gitae wanted to lead the life of glory that gapryong kim did, but might have felt ultimately limited by only being an illegitimate son of his

admiration, idolization, and obsession

gitae could have been obsessed with everything that gapryong kim represented, and the tortuously resentful ache of being unable to claim legitimacy to gapryong kim’s name might have driven gitae to commit his ‘ultimate sin’

perhaps gitae figured that the only way to ‘get what he wanted’ out of his life as an unwanted son was to murder his father and idol, gapryong kim, and thus allow himself to create his own legacy, one that eerily mirrors that of his deceased father, gapryong kim

-> additionally, as stated by minseon, gitae went to mexico because he ‘got what he wanted’

it’s very interesting that gitae went to mexico (since lookism takes place in south korea lol), and i think the reason that gitae decided to start a gang in mexico is an extension of his character motivation of power

gitae might have wanted to leave south korea because he was unable to attain the power that he wanted there, to build a legacy separate from gapryong kim’s, but very similar in nature

immediately after gapryong kim thwarted the ‘great threat’ that south korea faced in the past, he went into politics because he realized that was the only way for him to gain true power in korea

gitae didn’t want to follow in the path of the disgraceful politician gapryong kim, but rather the powerful gang leader gapryong kim

in mexico, the magnitude of the crimes, the underground businesses, and the authority that gangs have all fit someone like gitae better, someone who craves greater power and control

-> and to tie it back to the beginning of this post, gitae’s bitter obsession with gapryong kim might be why he keeps his pipe, or why he values that coat so much (since it likely belonged to gapryong in the past)

it’s a little morbid, especially if gitae gained access to gapryong kim’s belongings during or as a result of his murder, but gitae seems to cherish his father in his very own, twisted way

(gitae’s line about the coat being worth a life takes on a whole new meaning if he took it after murdering gap lol)

also, is it just a coincidence that gitae is currently dressed in a similar fashion to gap in his prime?

slicked back hair, black pants, a red shirt, and a black coat (possibly the same coat?)

anyway, thanks for reading my insufferable ramblings !!!

very excited to see what ptj has in store for gitae’s character now that he’s finally back :3

[ghirahimbo]

Okay, so I am probably going to get hate for this, but I voted for Trump, and I am shocked at how upset people are about his re-election. As a Republican, we have constant allegations of being racist, homophobic, xenophobic, fascists, against women (the list goes on and on). We have been silenced and abused for over a decade, and yes it hurts. I am genuinely curious how Trump is any of those things listed above, despite there being no evidence shown through his actions, besides clips spread by the left-wing media taken out of context or a joke being blown way out of proportion. (Building a wall to keep millions of people from pouring into our country illegally without any screening not counting as racist). It's clear his personality isn't for everyone. His rhetoric is masculine, he obviously is not sensitive, politically correct, or polished, but despite this, millions of other people from all walks of life support him, including MILLIONS of people from so called marginalized groups. I highly doubt that over half of the people in this country are filled with hatred and violence. If anything, I have felt physically unsafe as a conservative around far leftists. (For example, once at a music camp I heard people say that they would volunteer to shoot conservatives into a ditch like the Naz*s did to the Jews, and everyone was like "YASSS QUEEN.") They thought it was hilarious, but I was terrified. Another thing that I noticed was the only concrete thing Harris really talked about in her campaign was abortion. I think it should be available for incest and rape, (there is also so much you can do before it gets to that point too, unless you're a helpless child, like go to the hospital for plan B) but I find it sick how that was basically the only thing focused on in the Harris campaign. I highly doubt that anything will change as far as "women's rights" since it's up to the states now to decide their abortion laws. It's obvious that many people certainly felt scared during his first term, and I am not denying that racism sexism etc. does exist, but to me, it's evident that the scale of the fear had completely been blown out of proportion. There were no wars, no boys in girls' sports, transgendersism being preached to underaged kids in school, and the prices for everything were better during Trump's first term to name a few things. I certainly felt happier and safer. I was scared of my brother being send overseas for WW3 if Harris was elected, so I am very relived. I don't know your personal beliefs, but why do you think so many people are hysterical about his re-election? I really admire you and your work, so I say this in all respect.

For context, I received this ask a few days after the election, and worked on my response off and on over the next few weeks before dropping it altogether because rehashing it all was putting me in such a bad mood, and then honestly… I forgot about it. Having rediscovered this in my ask box, I figured I might as well post what I’d already written since I really did put some time into it, and then try to wrap it up with some sort of ending. It’s long. Here goes:

Hi! You seem to be reaching out in good faith, so I’ll do my best to respond in kind. There's a problem in this country where people seem to be experiencing two very different versions of reality, and I've been grappling this week with the question of how to break through the cycle of outrage and fear that so many of us are trapped in. Maybe this can be a start to that. 

I can also speak to you from the perspective of someone who grew up conservative and shifted drastically leftward throughout my 20s, and who remembers struggling early on with some of the same things you're struggling with. Particularly, I remember grappling with the accusations that people like me were racist/homophobic/etc. because I didn't feel any such way.

With that being said:

When you speak of feeling unsafe, this is due to beliefs that you hold—and beliefs, while an important factor in determining who somebody is, are subject to change over time on both the small and large scale. If your social or political beliefs eventually shift, you will no longer feel threatened in quite the same way. When marginalized communities describe feeling unsafe, this is due to something intrinsic to their nature, whether that's gender or sexual orientation or the color of their skin. There is no way for them to alter themselves in a way that will make them “acceptable” to those who already hate them for who they are.

This is not to argue in favor of belief-based discrimination or to excuse the kids in music camp—young people exist on both sides of the political spectrum and they’re gonna say shit, and I heard the same or worse from people in my grounds crew in college targeted towards a more liberal population—but it's important to recognize that not all beliefs are created equal. Some are straight up incorrect (flat earth theory), some come as a result of undue influence (cults), and some beliefs are flat out dangerous (white supremacy). Where one person's beliefs interfere with another person's rights is the point where most people start to take issue—and all of that is to say that the beliefs of Donald Trump and his party trample on the rights of marginalized groups and others, and whether you personally align with every one of those beliefs simply doesn’t matter. Whether you personally think of yourself as racist, xenophobic, or anything else, by supporting Trump’s presidency, you signal your acceptance of everything that comes along with it, and those who feel threatened by that support won't care whether your acceptance comes out of ignorance or malice. You're going to face, and have already experienced, a lot of animosity due to your support of those harmful beliefs.

Of course, this is the point where we’re going to have to backtrack because you've already mentioned not understanding how Trump is anything negative other than rough around the edges. As bewildering as that statement is when held up against my own experience, you're not the only person I've seen saying something similar—but then, our country's perception gap (how people from each political party view each other) and the effect of echo chambers and algorithms on the information we're exposed to are both well-studied phenomena at this point. You also stated that Trump's first term as president was fairly positive from your perspective—no wars, a stronger pre-Covid economy, and a general feeling of safety. These two points seem related to me, and I’ll address them together.

I guess first of all, whatever information you've been exposed to thus far, I do want to assure you that Trump has clearly demonstrated the content of his character beyond the need for embellishment or anything pieced together out of context. In fact, the old classic “grab ‘em by the pussy” is made much worse by its context: “I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.”

I just… simply don't have the energy to pull up all the receipts on Donald Trump of all people, but if you're inclined to do some research, look into all the contractors Trump stiffed in previous construction deals, causing bankruptcies and destroying small businesses in the process. Read up on the scam that was Trump University and the predatory tactics used to sell expensive “courses” specifically to vulnerable people. Consider whose best interest Donald Trump has ever and will ever look out for. All of this was well known (I think?) during the 2016 election, but not enough to keep Trump out of office, which is maybe why it's simultaneously treated as common knowledge and never brought up anymore.

Leading into Trump’s first term, I think it’s fair to assume that neither you nor I are in a demographic that was most obviously affected by the worst of Trump’s acts as president, but I do still remember the Muslim Ban: straightforwardly xenophobic, promised first on the campaign trail and then later put into effect during his presidency despite findings from the Department of Homeland Security itself that people from the seven nations affected by the travel ban posed no increased terrorist risk. It sure did fan the flames of hate among those who were already afraid of our Muslim population, though—and consider that according to an FBI report, hate crimes rose by 20% during Donald Trump’s term as president. Consider the wave of racially motivated harassment and texts spurred by the most recent election and realize that whatever Trump’s own views may be, he has always emboldened and empowered the worst of us. I don't care if Trump is personally racist when his policies and rhetoric directly affect minorities. I don't care if he's homophobic when the politicians he places into power alongside him specifically and explicitly want to dismantle hard-won rights for LGBTQ people.

I remember the nuclear pissing match Donald Trump got into with Kim Jong Un on Twitter, and the fear of World War III that lingered for weeks after—a fear famously memorialized in John Mulaney's “Horse in a Hospital” bit which, if you watch it, might explain exactly how that first Trump presidency felt for many Americans. Did that not seep through to the right wing media? 

More than anything else, I remember the “zero-tolerance” anti-immigration practice that came in the form of the child separation policy—and yes, I remember the wall. The wall that Mexico was going to pay for, though of course only US funds were ever used for its construction. The wall that research from the Department of Defense determined would not prevent a substantial portion of immigration—but it sure did make a handy mobilizing symbol, didn’t it?

The lies. There's just something different about the way Donald Trump lies—something that makes you feel a little crazy. Most of them are just so easily disproven that you wonder how he could possibly get away with it… but then he doubles down, and his rabid fan base believes him without question, and the far right media treats it as fact, and suddenly you have to treat his most ridiculous statements seriously because they have serious, real-world consequences (I think I’ve seen this described recently as “sanewashing”). Donald Trump says with no basis in fact or reality that Haitian immigrants are eating your dogs and cats, and a woman in Springfield calls the cops on her Haitian neighbor because her cat has gone missing.

And then poke around a bit. Look up some facts. Research. You've asked me to help explain why so many people are scared of Trump’s re-election, and I've already put literal hours into this response because I'm hoping it might do an ounce of good and I don't know what else to do… 

In fact, do me a favor: go to the Wikipedia article titled “False or misleading statements by Donald Trump”, really internalize this warning:

…And this is where I lost steam when I was initially writing this response because honestly, there’s an essay that could be written to refute every point you’ve made, and I just can’t do that. Political analysts across the country have tried to take apart and analyze voting demographics and campaign strategies and just about everything else related to the election, to varying levels of success—so I’m just gonna wrap this up with the strong suggestion that you can’t see the racism/xenophobia because it’s coming from inside the house, and a plea to you to recognize why you are being led to fear the “other.” 

Transphobia, for example, is not only written between the lines of your ask but soaking it all the way through. I saw enough political ads leading up to the election to know that “transgender panic” was one of THE issues pushed forward by right wing media (right alongside immigration), and if you’re pretty young, which I think you are, then you might not realize how much of a recent development this is culturally? Not transphobia in general—not at all—but the panic part. When I was roughly as old as I suspect you are, it was gay panic, and “think of the children,” and the reaction against Proposition 8 and “I don’t care if they’re together, but why do they have to call it marriage?” And before that it was the satanic panic, and woven all through our country’s history is anti-immigration rhetoric against various groups and ethnicities, because demonizing the “other” keeps your focus off the people who are actually, tangibly making your life worse through the corruption and policies they enact that you don’t notice because they’re pointing the finger elsewhere. It's an old song. And I just scrolled up to look at your ask again, saw that you’d written that “it's evident that the scale of the fear has completely been blown out of proportion,” and burst out laughing because that’s what it is! 

And like, I could link you to some sources that I think do a good job of debunking everything that the “trans panic” is built on (there’s an episode of the podcast Maintenance Phase that has some of the best gathered research I’ve found so far), but you probably wouldn’t find it particularly palatable—and that’s part of the problem, isn’t it? 

Anyway, I don’t think I can stomach reading all this through again right now, but I do wish you luck and a happy new year. I hope this response did any good at all, and I hope my fears for the upcoming presidency prove to be overblown. Can’t say I’m feeling too optimistic, though.

Peace ✌️

[windywallflower]

HEY FOLKS. HAPPY NEW YEAR.

We're gearing up for not 1 but 2 campaigns launching January 23rd!

Does that seem a BIT nuts?? Yeah. But the thing is W & W is SPLITTING UP--(fortheseprojectsonly)--because we're BOTH a part of Backerkit's PINTOPIA this year and collaborating with friends to bring you up to FOUR freebie pins if you play your cards right ;>

HARPY's Project... YOU GUESSED IT-- A buncha lil harpies, called LIL' HARPIES

HIVVER's Project is going to be a REHASH & SIZE-DOWN of his Greek Mythology set, called ANTIQUITY:

We're trying to get both these pages up to 100 followers before the 23rd of JANUARY so if either of these seems interesting to you.... ;> check 'em out.

You can click through the images to find out who we're partnering with and give them a follow too~

[wearepaladin]

Notes: Enjoying the recent trend of actually enjoyable Dark Paladin types that are enjoyable excercises in exploring the archetype and not just a rehash of Vader and other monsters so lost in their pain that it’s the only way they can be. Whenever I manage to actual play in a campaign again I want to explore more of it. I had a lot of fun playing a one shot of Fabula Ultima with some friends and I have a craving for it.

Note 2: I have an idea for a new Homebrew Paladin Subclass called the Oath of the Revelator. Revelators are lorewise their to both solve and create mysteries, warrior prophets who are often the tip of the spear for a new or revitalizing faith, unveiling a truth lost to the world. Mechanically they’re my answer to Inquisitive Rogue, paladins geared to be insightful and perceptive, their divine sense sharper than other paladins, not only identifying greater varieties of extraplanar beings and monsters, but magics and mysteries that they can provide greater revelation.