#death by hubris

[chenziee]

Me: oh i have a whole month to do these things, that's like a thing a week, no problem!

Also me: ehhhhh i still have a monthhhh, there's still timeee

[ph-cutie]

making an artfight

[chloesimaginationthings]

Why did William get FNAF springlocked? Is he stupid?

[hinamie]

unconditionally

[7pleiades7]

The Death of Icarus (19th century), (detail), by Alexandre Cabanel (French, 1823-1889), oil on canvas, 44" x 31.5", Private Collection

[balleater]

i've already made posts about this so many times but every time the raven queen's ascension gets brought up and its talked about like she did it for immortality or purely for power it makes me go a little insane because the story of her being a follower of the god of death before her and taking his place specifically because he didn't respect death is one of the best things about her lore in my opinion. that one of the biggest differences between her and those who failed attempts at ascension is that she did because of faith and not to spite it.

[nellasbookplanet]

In the wake of FCG' fate I've been thinking about death in ttrpgs, and how it kind of exists on three levels:

There’s the gameplay level, where it only makes sense for a combat-heavy, pc-based game to have a tool for resurrection because the characters are going to die a lot and players get attached to them and their plotlines.

Then there’s the narrative level, where you sort of need permanent death on occasion so as not to lose all tension and realism. On this level, sometimes the player will let their character remain dead because they find it more interesting despite there being options of resurrection, or maybe the dice simply won’t allow the resurrection to succeed.

Then, of course, there’s the in-universe level, which is the one that really twists my mind. This is a world where actual resurrection of the actual dead is entirely obtainable, often without any ill effects (I mean, they'll be traumatized, but unless you ask a necromancer to do the resurrection they won’t come back as a zombie or vampire or otherwise wrong). It’s so normal that many adventurers will have gone through it multiple times. Like, imagine actually living in a world where all that keeps you from getting a missing loved one back is the funds to buy a diamond and hire a cleric. As viewers we felt that of course Pike should bring Laudna, a complete stranger, back when asked, but how often does she get this question? How many parents have come and begged her to return their child to them? How many lovers lost but still within reach? When and how does she decide who she saves and who she doesn’t?

From this perspective, I feel like every other adventurer should have the motive/backstory of 'I lost a loved one and am working to obtain the level of power/wealth to get them back'. But of course this is a game, and resurrection is just a game mechanic meant to be practically useful.

Anyway. A story-based actual play kind of has to find a way to balance these three levels. From a narrative perspective letting FCG remain dead makes sense, respects their sacrifice, and ends their arc on a highlight. From a gameplay level it is possible to bring them back but a lot more complicated than a simple revivify. But on an in-universe level, when do you decide if you should let someone remain dead or not? Is the party selfish if they don’t choose to pursue his resurrection the way they did for Laudna? Do they even know, as characters, that it’s technically possible to save someone who's been blown to smithereens? Back in campaign 2, the moment the m9 gained access to higher level resurrection they went to get Molly back (and only failed because his body had been taken back by Lucien). At the end of c1, half the party were in denial about Vax and still looking for ways to save him, because they had always been able to before (and had the game continued longer it wouldn’t have surprised me had they found a way). Deanna was brought back decades after her death (and was kind of fucked up because of it). Bringing someone back could be saving them, showing them just how loved and appreciated they are. Or it could be saving you, forcing someone back from rest and peace into a world that's kept moving without them because you can’t handle the guilt of knowing you let them stay gone when you didn’t have to. How do you know? How would you ever know?

[shrugsinchinese]

Comic panel redraw because this Hob makes me laugh every time

[antimonys-stuff]

anyway what I'm saying is BISEXUAL Icarus who in his mortal life fell (quite literally) for the splendor of Apollo in his chariot, and in his death falls in love with the princess of the Underworld, who also shines in her own way

[corviiids]

ok but . . . . . . . Could YOU be kira and win?!

based on how light formulated kira, it's impossible for kira to win. kira's 'new world' has no win condition - light never cleanly defines what criteria he would need to satisfy, so the new world is inherently aspirational, because deep down, light doesn't want to win at all, he just wants to play.

social reform via mass murder, especially in the way kira formulates it but really in any way, is also not only (obviously!!!) deeply, deeply unethical, it's also just fundamentally impossible for myriad reasons. again, kira can't win.

if you found the death note in real life, i would heavily advise against using it. i personally would not use it. aside from, again, the obvious ethical ramifications, it's just too fucking risky!!! the parameters of how the note functions, the potential consequences, the rules, the terms of the 'contract' you'd enter into by using it - all of these are unclear, even if you knew about death note the series. furthermore, even if you had access to the rules, which you don't, the rules explicitly state that the shinigami don't have to explain everything to you. not even the shinigami can access all the rules (only the shinigami king). and based on the a-kira short story, the rules can change and apply retroactively at any time. even if you didn't know all that, by choosing to use it, you would be submitting yourself to all sorts of unknown supernatural and non-supernatural risks. it's just not a smart thing to do. leave that shit Alone

kira is a hubris trap. the death note is designed to appeal to all the most unstable parts of a person's psyche. it's especially good at targeting one particular vulnerability in humanity, which is that people are generally much worse at considering how they would react in a hypothetical scenario than they think they are. anyone who thinks they could succeed in using the death note, even with a better formulated plan than light yagami, is falling victim to that trap.

yes

[acepalindrome]

No one should be obligated to feel sympathy for a bunch of rich people who are probably dead after spending a grotesque amount of money doing something stupidly risky for no practical reason but that they’re rich and bored,

BUT

I do think it’s fucked up that some of you guys seem to think it’s a moral failing to feel anything but glee and delight at a bunch of people, one of which is 19, suffering one of the most horrific deaths imaginable that I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy.

[sourdough-seal]

imagine falling in love so hard with someone that you think you can run a small business with them

[totallyboatless]

i hope we get the gag where ed and stede make up and make out and it's emotional and passionate and then they pull apart and we see that stede's mouth and chin are fully smeared with charcoal

[crimson-nail]

mistletoe KLR Numero DOS??? 🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺

of COURSE

i didn’t feel like thinking too hard about designs so i stole darth’s baker piercer au ❤️❤️❤️

[harlequinalis]

Going stir crazy theorizing about what the theme will be for this year's dlc so it seems I'm back on my eso bullshit 🤡

[7pleiades7]

The Death of Icarus (19th century) by Alexandre Cabanel (French, 1823-1889), oil on canvas, 44" x 31.5", Private Collection