#i think there's a lot to say about how intended themes of a campaign will differ from the end result

[silkywishes]

i think maybe somewhere there is something in between "you're not allowed to voice negative opinions on any part of D20's story bc it's all improv!!" which feels like a blanket excuse to bulldoze over any and all opinions you dislike, and "disparaging the cast and crew bc these fictional characters didn't get treated like actual irl human beings"

[utilitycaster]

Hi, would just like to say thank you for writing up so much meta on campaign 3, it is keeping me sane seeing similar thoughts to what I’ve had written down coherently.

The last couple asks you’ve answered have got me thinking about how campaign 3 ended up like this (indecisive characters, weird nonsensical themes, only setpieces and maybe a ship or two being memorable) and I remember hearing that c3 was described by Matt as ”Pulpy” and I keep coming back to that and thinking that there was never even meant to be a big decision. From what I’ve read of old pulp fiction dnd novels it's pretty much “here’s the big bad go defeat/seal/slap them on the wrist, have fun on the way there with several cool setpieces and romance!” and I wonder if there was even meant to be a god debate at all or if it was just picked up in the middle of the story by the cast. It could explain why the characters wouldn't fit the story if this wasn’t meant to be the story.

Cause a character who goes with the flow is fine in those books and a character who only looks into what is thrust upon them works, but it feels like somewhere it tried to be more and just fell apart.

Because even now the story does feel pulpy but just held down by a narrative it isn’t handling well. 119 was a great episode and having the Raven Queen show up in the middle to give boons is an incredibly cool beat that would be memorable as hell but for it to end up as another god debate just sucks. But the rest of the campaign sort of does that with cool beats that end up dragged down in one way or another so its not unique I guess

I know you talked about the “pulpy”ness of c3 a while ago and was wondering if you had more thoughts now that we’re in the endgame for the campaign

I do - this is all rather speculative but in some discussions with other people one possible explanation that's come up is that Matt genuinely didn't expect the characters to be so hesitant to save the gods or stop Ludinus or sympathize with the the Vanguard, and has kind of pivoted to make a campaign that accomodates those doubts...but in doing so sort of fucked his end premise of "we must deal with Predathos". Which, you know, makes a lot of sense! What if Hearthdell was intended as a glimpse into why people might join something like the Vanguard to introduce an element of complexity to a party that (quite reasonably I might add) had said "these people are a fucking scourge on Exandria" but instead served to fan the flames of "well the gods didn't give me things when I asked so yeah we should let them be eaten"? What if the fetch quests to the Shattered Teeth or the scouting mission were like the quest for vestiges - something that the party desperately wished to do to achieve a deeply felt goal - and not something they had to be nudged along to do every step of the way? What if the party went into the final confrontation with any consensus or intention? Because then yeah a pulpier "you're taking on the Big Bad Ultimate Threat...but your MOTHER is on THEIR side" a la vintage superhero comics plays out much more coherently. I cannot stress enough that the cultural touchstone Matt brings up about the campaign is the 2012 Avengers film. Regardless of some posts I've seen (which tend to assume anything the cast has ever read/watched/played is an influence, which is. incorrect) that is your starting point.

The thing about all the "take a third option" and "status quo" talk surrounding this campaign is...this post is actually a good description of how it plays out in real life. Like yeah there's a lot of political constructs within the world that are stupid and unjust! However it is unproductive, naive, and idiotic to act as though just because you don't like them they aren't part of a complex system that needs thoughtful dismantling (at least, if you place any value on human life) or worse, that they simply don't exist because they shouldn't. Sometimes you genuinely do have two choices and neither is ideal and if you do not choose between them because you're holding out for a better option the choice is made for you, and often, it's the worse one. Sometimes there is in fact a problem caused by something stupid that you cannot undo in time to solve said problem, and it is selfish and childish to say "well I think this shouldn't be a problem" and leave it at that. You will fail in your endeavors if you do this. People will see that's your approach and stop listening to anything you say.

Bells Hells feel like that to me and it's not even entirely their fault. I think because Matt had such a clear endgame in mind in the sense of "face off against Predathos" and the party was so ill-suited, and the early pacing was genuinely already bad, he's sort of tried to pivot away by following every dumb idea Bells Hells have to perhaps funnel them towards that endgame. And this is a problem too, because it means the plot doesn't push back on them and they do not grow as people, which means that a lot of us are getting tired with their shit. It's telling that most of Bells Hells' loudest defenders are the "well, if you're traumatized, you're excused from all responsibility for your actions ever :)" types within the fandom because like, part of why people are sick of Laudna's shit (for example) is that it's like ok I agree you shouldn't have an evil wizard in your head but you do, so like, what are you doing about it. And because she hadn't done anything about it and because they had to get to Predathos we had our Deus Essek Machina situation, which to be clear, not mad about, but it also means Laudna never really learned or grew from this. And to be clear she's not alone; part of the frustration around Ashton is it seemed like they DID have a revelation around shardgate and then immediately discarded it.

There's many more factors I'm sure but just to sum up:

Matt has a very clear overarching plot in mind [and, also, probably was creating a campaign for characters who see point 3 had more realized worldviews and goals and investment in their communities]

Matt does not give the cast much guidance in creating characters for that plot; "pulpy" is really tonal and not even genre

Cast, having played characters specifically designed for the "complex and morally gray and must be from the continent the campaign is set on" campaign last, turn to wacky and go-with-the-flow types

Overarching plot kicks in; characters do not behave as expected

Matt tries to embrace/encourage this by getting the party to follow what they want to do

Go-with-flow/take no responsibility party doesn't know what they want to do

endless loop of a DM trying to adjust the direction of flow to a directionless party instead of imposing a direction/Cast trying to take direction cues from a DM who keeps throwing more options at them in the hopes one will appeal to them which turns into a "what do you want to do" "I don't know what do you want to do" situation.

[rebelspykatie]

Soulmate AU Part Five - The Final Part 

Part One | Part Two | Part Three | Part Four | Alternate Ending 

There’s a display of dnd handbooks and supplemental materials right beside it. Beyond that, Eddie spots a fantasy section overflowing with worn paperbacks that he can’t wait to sort through. 

Steve follows Eddie around, pointing out all the things Dustin loves, listening to Eddie ramble on with a fond, soft look on his face, and carrying everything Eddie has expressed an interest in around the store, including a brand new set of black and red dice. He never looks bored or disinterested, just patiently sits beside Eddie as he goes through stacks of paperbacks, nodding along to his stories and flipping through a magazine he found.

When they get to the counter, Eddie doesn’t expect Steve to whip out his wallet and pay for everything Eddie has so much as even touched, but he’s brushed aside and knows better than to look a gift horse in the mouth. He’s not going to let Steve pay for things all the time, but it’s a nice surprise that he’s willing to shell out for all of Eddie’s nerdy little treasures. 

When they climb back in the car, Eddie mutters, “Thanks, Steve. This is the best date I’ve ever been on.” It’s the only date he’s ever been on, though, so perhaps the sentiment doesn’t count. 

“It’s not over, yet.” Steve’s smirk is mischievous as he backs out and gets back on the highway. 

They end up at a tavern a few miles away. It looks like a cottage from the outside, but inside, the staff are all dressed in medieval themed attire, lots of tunics, capes, and leather straps. It’s not quite accurate, but it’s probably the best they could do on a small town restaurant budget. The patrons are a younger crowd, which leads Eddie to believe this is typically a family spot intended for kids. It reminds him of Wayne doing his best to play dress up with Eddie for his birthday as a kid, just trying to make Eddie happy despite not understanding any of it. 

A warmth that’s starting to feel like home is resonating in his chest, wrapping around his heart like a hug, a tether to the boy beside him. Steve endeared himself to Eddie with one perfectly planned date, crafting the entire evening around Eddie’s interests. It loosens the last thread of doubt he had about Steve. He’s doing everything in his power to prove that the universe didn’t get it wrong.

The conversation flows easily, the two of them getting to know each other beyond surface level rumors they picked up in the hallways of Hawkins High. Eddie learns more about the rocky relationship between Steve’s parents and how that affects the way he views the soulmate bond. Steve gets a detailed reenactment of a recent campaign, tugging on Eddie’s shirt sleeve to prevent him from climbing on the table. Eddie learns more about the hoard of children Steve babysits and how awkward it still is seeing Nancy every time he drops off Mike. 

At some point, they spot a table with supplies for kids, coloring sheets and paper crowns. Eddie grabs a crown and places it gently on top of Steve’s hair. He makes a cheeky joke about King Steve, making sure Steve knows he’s joking. They have a foam sword fight in the play area while they wait for their dessert, chasing each other around until Steve’s crown is crooked and they’re laughing so hard their sides hurt. 

It’s the most fun Eddie’s had in a long time. 

When they get back in the car, there’s a quiet calm that settles around them. Eddie ends up dozing off along the way, jerking awake when Steve shakes his shoulder after he turns the car off outside of the trailer. 

Rubbing the sleep from his eyes, Eddie says, “This was perfect, Steve. I know the universe magically knows that we’re made for each other, but I think this is the first time I really believe it.”

Steve grabs Eddie’s arm, fingers running over where the band is resting, covering up the mark on his wrist. He doesn’t even know why he put it on earlier, maybe just habit, or maybe he was still waiting for Steve to change his mind. He glances up at Eddie’s face before returning his gaze to the band, undoing the clasp and letting it fall away from Eddie’s wrist. 

Eddie wants to memorize the look on Steve’s face. The awestruck wonder that takes over when he sees his name for the first time. Fingers trace over the lettering, soft whispers along Eddie’s skin. It’s the first time anyone has seen it besides Wayne, who held him on the night of his eighteenth birthday as he cried himself to sleep and bought him the band the next day. 

“I believe it, too,” Steve whispers. And Eddie doesn’t have time to think about anything else before Steve tugs on his arm to pull him closer and kisses him. It nearly knocks the wind out of him, a mixture of surprise and joy bubbling to the surface. It’s chaste, just a soft press of lips together, but Eddie has so much pent up energy he’s grinning against Steve’s mouth, practically vibrating out of his chair.

He wants to crawl over the console and press Steve into the seat until they devour each other, but Wayne is probably waiting up and will knock on the window and shine a light in like a cop or some shit if Eddie takes too long. Especially since he’s wary of Steve after the whole crying on Eddie’s birthday thing. 

A first kiss seems like a great place to end the night anyway. He pulls back, resting his forehead against Steve’s, basking in the moment. “I’m going inside now, but next time, I’m planning the date, okay?” 

“Deal. Thank you for the flowers. I feel pretty enlightened after this, so I think your mom was right about them.”

“My mama would have loved to meet you.” Steve squeezes his hand. “This is as close as we’ll get, but I think she would have approved of you.”

“You think so?” 

Eddie nods. “She approved of anything that made me happy.” He kisses the tip of Steve’s nose, then climbs out of the car. “Now let me go grab your flowers and I’ll be right back.” 

He brings them back and kisses Steve one last time through the open window of his car. “Get home safe, sweetheart.” 

He waves a final goodbye as Steve pulls away, that giddy feeling resurfacing. He can’t predict the future, but he knows that the feeling he has right now, knowing that Steve is on the same page, is the best feeling in the world. 

💜💜💜

Thank you all so much for reading this!!! I hope you like this ending and get some joy out of this because I had so much fun writing it. I’ll be posting the whole thing to AO3 this weekend once I clean it up.

[antimony-medusa]

As we all engage with the Egg arc on QSMP, I know we're all having a fun time talking about how emotionally devastating it all is, but I have seen some concerning takes about this, so I want to also reiterate that it is fiction. It's not real.

You can have real emotions about fiction (talk to any D&D player whos run a long campaign about this), but it is essentially fake, it is something you can box up and put away. And if you think you can't tell the difference between a fictional roleplay and real life child death, you need to step away.

Cause like, I have been seeing people comparing egg deaths to real life tragedies, and like. Guys. That's just offensively disrespectful. I do not want Chayanne to die. I'm team "storm heaven and get all the eggs back". I want the happy dragon ending. I have also had real life children die in my life and equating a pixel egg despawning to that makes me actually mad. We can have fun with it but this is fiction and you need to be clear to yourself that it is fiction. The QSMP admins are not "responsible to give you a happy ending" because it is essentially not real, they are ethically responsible for how they treat people in the real world (the players and the admins) not for what happens in the story they are telling.

There are two aspects of this that are important. The first is the most basic. Fiction is not real. It's lies we tell ourselves recreationally. No real people were harmed. No one actually died. The egg's admins are fine and now playing league of legends on stream. You can have real emotions about fiction, but you can also take comfort in the fact that the bad thing didn't actually happen. This allows you to engage with topics that you would never want to happen in real life (horror media, for example), in an entertaining way. Fiction is a safe spot to explore really concerning topics, whether that's something you're afraid of, something that has happened to you, or something that you'd never want to see happen in real life but it scratches that brain itch. And that isn't intended to say that you have to be comfortable with every topic in fiction. Suicide themes even in fiction are too close to real life for me, so I stay away from them. You get to set your own comfort levels with what fiction you're comfortable with. And that leads into my second point. The essense of fiction is that you are opting into it. Except in vanishingly rare cases, if you are engaging with something fictional, you are giving ongoing consent to engaging with the story by continuing to watch/read/listen to it. At any point you can tap out and step away, back into real life. You have the power to control your experience and say "yes I am watching this" or "no I do not want to engage with this actually". You can take the headphones off. You are an active player in how you deal with the fictional story, and if it gets too much for you, you get to step away. You get to write fanfiction and it is just as real as the original. If someone is dying in real life, no amount of blocked terms and telling your friends not to discuss it is going to keep it from happening. It is inescapable. It happens to you, it is enacted on you, you are a passive figure and you have no control. The only thing you have a control over is how you react to it, and this is why a huge element of grief is the powerlessness.

You have power over fiction. You can opt out of it. And if you can't tell the difference between a fake story and real events, a) you need to do work on that, because there is a lot of really upsetting content in fiction that is going to fuck you up, b) you need to step away from the fake story that is doing harm to you, and use that power that fiction gives you to opt out of it. Block terms. Unfollow people. Go do something in real life. Fiction is not real.

[clownsalot]

im very normal about fuuta in general but i dont think im ever going to emotionally recover from his fire motif and what it represents for his character and how he reflects the greater theme of justice so that means i must rant about it

(more under the cut because this got longer than i expected whoopsies)

so anyway fire is pretty obviously supposed to be symbolic of his passion for justice right? that fire is all over the place in bring it on. he's wielding it to take down enemies, his signature weapon is a flaming sword. it's what he uses to lead the campaign against the people he's after, the people he's deemed in the wrong.

it's a fucking flaming sword, it's badass as hell!!!! it's what a hero of justice, a knight, would use!!!! it's cool as shit, it's his symbol of justice.

that's how he sees his justice in trial 1.

he's righteous, he wants so badly to believe he was a hero, he was doing it all for a good cause, for justice. his passion for justice was a tool he used to meet those ends, to be a hero, to wave it valiantly in the face of enemies.

the fire, however, is conspicuously absent once he's noticed the blood on his hands

interestingly, despite backdraft as a song title being much more related to his fire motif than bring it on, fire is actually surprisingly absent from the mv's visuals. fire, as in actual orange burning fire, doesn't show up much at all in backdraft except for when both fuuta and his victim begin turning to ashes, and a short bit near the end right after the last chorus when the spraycan explodes in fuuta's face. you know what the mv does show a lot of though?

smoke. and ash. the byproducts of a fire, the byproducts of fuuta's passion for justice.

bringing it back to firefighting for a moment: as many people have already pointed out, backdraft as a firefighting term refers to when a fire that has consumed all available oxygen suddenly explodes when more oxygen is made available, such as when a window or door breaks. the thing about fire hazards, though, is if the fire and the heat don't do someone in, usually it's the smoke. the smoke inhalation causes breathing difficulties and suffocation, making it even more difficult for a person to escape the fire.

in backdraft, instead of fire itself, what we're shown is these byproducts of a fire. the smoke is damaging to human health, and the ash shows that the fire has burned things up and caused destruction, in this case killing someone. all we're shown is the negative results of a fire, in sharp contrast to its badass, positive portrayal in bring it on.

hell, even fuuta himself starts turning to ashes and the spraycan explodes in his face, showing how even he is experiencing the negative results of a fire that has gotten out of his control, how even he has gotten burned by his passion for justice. or, is it es' desire for justice?

translation of fuuta's t2 vd by onigiriico

Me, too! I was like that, too! I also didn't think it'd turn out that way!

You and I are exactly the same breed! The only difference between us is the clothes we're wearing.

fuuta's justice and es' justice, it's all the same in his head now, he directly tells es that they're the same, that we're the same. it's all the same hunger for justice that ends up causing harm even if that wasn't the intention.

you know that saying that fire is a good servant but a bad master? i think that's pretty applicable to fuuta's situation. his passion for the pursuit of justice was great when it was still a tool, a sword he could wield, after all he did manage to shed light on some people's wrongs and bring them to justice. but once it exploded, when it became a backdraft that even he could no longer control, it did more damage than he intended.

it burned even him, it killed a middle schooler. and he recognizes that in backdraft. he only shows us the ways fire that becomes a hazard can go wrong.

translation of fuuta's t2 vd by onigiriico

What did I do? All I did was say that what's wrong is wrong! I was just going off at a bad person online!

I didn't think they would die! I just thought that wrong things are wrong, and that a crime is a crime! You get that, don't you? See? Aren't we the same?

it's just. fire is such a good metaphor for the message of fuuta's character and his arc. it's an amazing illustration of how dangerous it is when you feed a desire for justice too much, when you forget to put a boundary on how you handle that fire. eventually the fire spreads just like how passion for justice becomes zealotry, until more and more things fall under what you consider to be 'punishable' by your standards and goes out of control to hurt people that probably didn't deserve it. it's a warning to set proper boundaries on our own definition and desire for justice and what's 'right' so the good intentions doesn't spiral into harm. it's a reflection of our attitudes towards milgram as the audience responsible for their justice and forgiveness. it's amazing i love it i love fuuta's fire symbolism i love fuuta's character arc and i love milgram's writing so so so much

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

I forgot where I read it but there was a tweet circulating back then that originally Savannaclaw was meant to be the 6th dorm to be introduced, making Octavinelle the 2nd. This would explain why Azul and Riddle was shown more prominently in the prologue, and Diasomnia's introduction in episode 2. The plan was to involve a conflict between two princes in episode 7.

>.> Which would kinda explain why episode 2 feels very rushed?? Idek But, I do wonder what would've been the change had Savannaclaw's episode became 6 🤔

I believe you’re referring to popular fan speculation (based on the order the dorms were revealed back in 2019). As far as I know, none of those plans were actually confirmed in official TWST materials.

For those who may not be aware, TWST had a whole marketing campaign the year before the (JP) game launched. Part of this involved introducing the public to the dorms one by one on the socials/the official TWST JP website. The order of reveals were as follows:

Heartslabyul

Octavinelle

Scarabia

Pomefiore

Ignihyde

Savannaclaw

Diasomnia

As you'll notice, Savanaclaw was the sixth dorm shown, NOT the second (which is the order that its book is in the game). This is the only dorm "out of order" with TWST's main story. This led to some fans theorizing that Savanaclaw was actually intended to be the sixth installment in the main story, NOT the second, which aligns with some details in the plot (ie the Riddle-Azul emphasis in the prologue, implying that Octavinelle would follow Heartslabyul; the introduction to Diasomnia in the Savanaclaw chapter). I’m guessing that “the plan was to involve a conflict between two princes in episode 7” mentioned was a reference to how the previous episode’s characters would return to help with the current episode’s dilemma, thereby resulting in a clash between Leona and Malleus. Again though, none of this has been confirmed.

Some have also suggested that the noticeably poorer writing quality of The Usurper from the Wilds may be attributed to this theorized “last minute structural change”. Do note that Savanaclaw was released to the public on July 29th 2019, and the game itself officially dropped March 18th 2020; that’s roughly 7.5 months. I don’t know about the intricacies of game development, so I can’t say if that’s a sufficient or a realistic amount of time to rework and/or to rewrite a script to insert it earlier than intended, but this time is worth considering when thinking over the speculation. Consider how much they could have cut out of 2 (The Usurper from the Wilds) and how much they would have had to add to 6 (The Watchman of the Underworld) in this time while also preparing to launch.

Regardless of whether or not the theory is true, I do feel like episode 2 could have benefited from more time/parts to explore its ideas and themes. I'm not sure what else might have happened (in terms of plot significant events), since its events would be contingent on what came before it (and who knows how much of the main story was rewritten or redone), but 🤡 Savanaclaw could have definitely been a lot better than what it actually ended up as...

[foxtriestobiteandmaimandkilland]

Hi hello spoilers for the ENTIRETY of riptide (specifically episodes 78, 93, 110, tho the entire campaign ep1-ep115 is talked about here) and also. A read more since this is a very. Very. Long post. And i dont intend to colour of the sky you <3

Yknow im just thinkin like ik the common theory is that chips the nameless prince and im still pretty in agreement but im also. Thinking.

Bc i relistened to episode 78 where goobleck finds the book on the nameless prince. (32:35ish) And id basically entirely forgotten abt it until i relistened to 93, heard charlies sparknotes version n wanted to listen 2 it for myself. And like.

Im pretty sure, unless im interpreting grizzlys words wrong, that the nameless prince is whatever entity was mentioned in the 110 prophecy ?

Tho its hard because. He gave a summary of what the book was about since goobleck didnt properly read it i think he just kinda. Skimmed. And he started by saying that the book is about a prince, a self proclaimed prince at that, but mostly just an entity born in the abyss. So im not sure if that entity is the same person as the prince or if theyre two different people ???? But for the sake of Thinking ill say theyre the same bc i dont see why they wouldnt be.

But he goes on to say that this book talks about this abyss entity, and how it became obsessed w spreading corruption in a world of mostly peace. And how it wants to learn about the inhabitants of this world (?) And then the book ends in chaos and tragedy, where the entire world falls to corruption. The entity destroys all living things ("this race of living creatures") and then consumes even more worlds by spreading its abyss corruption. And how its also almost. Parasitic.

So. This sounds a lot like the 110 entity.

"An entity threatens world stability / caged in the deepest layers of infinity [...] forboded calamity, the chosen is warned / the shape of all life shall take a new form / its choice to be made with no time to mourn"

Definitely sounds like this entity is the same, it threatens world stability by spreading its corruption, and this infinity could be the abyss. The shape of all life line draws my attention tho bc of how grizzly described the entity as destroying "this race of living creatures" and like a parasite.

Althoughhhhh i will have to relisten to. The just rolled for episode 93 because i think it was then that the 3 players made their guesses as to who the guarding giant, nameless prince and unborn kings are and grizzly said One was correct. I know they guessed arlin as the guarding giant and i think niklaus chip or rose's kid were other guesses perhaps ? Tho im not sure as to Where they fit each.

[HI HELLO i have now relistened to the rolled for 93. Condi guessed Arlin as the guarding giant, Chip as the nameless prince and Rose's Kid as the unborn kings. Only 1 of these is correct]

Ill also have to relisten to the stone age what if. Because even though that what if probably doesnt contain much thatd be important since. Its a what if. And it was back in the desire arc. The ending of it reminds me a bit of the nameless prince section where the entity destroys more worlds by spreading its corruption. Andddddd yea if that what if means anything at all then that could suggest niklaus as the entity or the nameless prince ?

Something else that gets me though is the legend lore scroll itself. We all know about the guarding giant nameless prince and unborn kings but. What i keep thinkin on is the beginning and end:

"A map that is a guide and a key / passed around the hands of destiny / it leads to chaos infinity / beneath the seas / the guardian giant / the nameless prince / the unborn kings / all wait to be inevitably free"

The very end with the "inevitably free" sounds like. One line of the 110 prophecy ("its release in time an inevitability" IT being the entity) and niklaus' greatest desire: freedom.

There is a consistent theme of freedom throughout riptide - or instead, a need/want for it. Gillion and jay both work towards freedom from the elders and navy respectively, islands (and casinos) early campaign all wanted freedom from various curses, pirates strive to create freedom from the navys rule, navys claim to strive to create a world free of "chaos".

However, across the nameless prince skim read, the legend lore scroll, and the 110 prophecy, there are manyyyy many parallels between them. Parallels, which i spent about 2 hours brainrotting about yesterday

It has been a couple days since i have made this biggg graphic and ive had a lotta time to dwell on this all and think. Because there are definitely many reasons why chip could be the nameless prince - and like a lotta other people i Know he has a bigger role in the world of mana than it seemed at first. However, i do feel like that role isnt the role of the nameless prince.

I mean, i probably have forgotten some evidence since i havent rewatched the ENTIRE campaign in a littleeee bit, just random episodes i think would have points of interest. But so far, we dont exactly know a whole lot about the nameless prince, only that whoever it is, is waiting to be free, could be whatever entity these poems and texts talk of, and has links to the hole in the sea. There were also a lot of details in the hole during episode two of the oneshot, which could be linked back to the prince. Lemme justtttt. Get the notes i took during my rewatch of it.

So, on the staircase where the three had their flashbacks, there were a few engravings in the wall. Some were words in abyssal primordial which read "what do you desire", others were depictions of humanoids with gems and coins, some were depictions of slavery + power. However, one stood out to finn since whilst the others repeated, this one was unique and singular. And it was the mountain with a crown above it.

This ofc could be passed off as mostly unimportant since it appeared so very early in the campaign, but we all know grizzlys dming and worldbuilding style isnt like that - everything thats been mentioned so far has been important in some way or another, and events from incredibly early episodes still affect the present day.

Although, unfortunately, i am Not Smart. And dont really know what this could Mean.

Weve seen a few mountains throughout the campaign, and none that instantly feel connected to that. Theres the mountain they all climbed in 111 of course, but that just housed those ice pirates, not anything much to do with a prince. It did also make me think of edison kingdom, since that has a monarchy and is a stacked city, howeverrrrr i doubt it would be that since. I dont see the relevance.

The crown is of course the only part here we can really connect to anything, that being the nameless prince. Since, they are a PRINCE afterall (although i do think these names are more metaphorical than literal). There ARE other places throughout the campaign crowns appear (once again, edison, and queen) though i doubt the edison kingdom would be so important to what feels like personal riptide pirate story, and queen didnt exist much as a character until they were introduced in episode like. 80smth. And their name is only queen bc charlie started the bohemian rhapsody bit.

SOOO yea basically. Summed up. Shits addin up. And also not addin up. I have lots of thoughts on this stuff, howeverrrr like ive said before im. Not very good at analysing. And also not the most articulate either. All in all, i think chip could possibly not be the nameless prince, and whoever the nameless prince IS could be whatever entity has been mentioned around a lot. The end. Goodbye. Thanks 4 readin. Love u.

[noatpad]

I've been rather busy with grad school projects lately (and it'll probably last a bit longer), but recently a friend surprised me with some gift art of my dnd lad and his own. Since the campaign has been put on hold (and also wanting to scribble another idea related to it), I had an itch to scratch.

This is a "what if" redesign of my boy, alongside some of my personal scribbles I've done of him over the past few months that I'm still fond of

So a bit of exposition!

I say "what if", 'cause Tint here is a special case where his design was intentionally left untouched, or well, intended to keep his outfit and general look the same as my art style matured. Reason why is that I wanted to keep it consistent with his ongoing campaign, and I found it fun to draw things as it developed. So any different takes of him I did (which there is at least one of, that being his Metronome look) was like an AU or was what actually part of the campaign, which you'll see with all the scribbles below.

Though the thing was that back then, I made Tint as more so a one-time, hypothetical character. At the time, I actually didn't think I'd ever get the chance to play dnd 'cause of constraints I had (how wrong I was). But hearing a couple of friends talk about how fun it was for them, I basically made him just to imagine that "what if" (just noticed that that first sketch was actually posted here, and yeah I even said it was a hypothetical on the canvas, hah).

Because of that though, I went for a rather basic design: purple tunic, round glasses, long scarf. Fun fact: foxfolk was picked mostly just because I was comfortable drawing it after scribbling Note and Clef so much (and magic seemed rather fitting for a fox given the ethereal side of folklore involving them). I still like him since I grew attached to playing him, don't get me wrong! But now that I know a good bit better on anatomy & character design, and Tint's story took shape, I figured it'd be fun to explore what he'd look like if I were to redesign him.

As a tangent, gosh it's so surprising to me how my ability to do anatomy and structure on a character has grown in just the past couple of years. Not to say I dislike it, but I conditioned myself to only be capable of drawing that style consistently. I think I only could've had this growth because of the friends and inspirations I slowly learned from.

And yeah! There's a lot more intent on his palette being themed around light or radiance (and I've been informed it looks reminiscent to the colors on Isaac from Golden Sun, which is a funny coincidence), and hopefully he looks more adventurous yet studious type of mage!

[sapphire-weapon]

Hello!! So I was reading your meta analysis on Leon deciding not to pursue Ada in RE6 and tbh never looked at RE6 as a resolution to Aeon. They were acting too married in my opinion, there was a established intimacy between them idk, and he has her phone number. When Leon demands answers from Ada, he's never harsh or angry, he believes her even before she answers bc he knows her. I think it's poor writing bc there are a lot of holes to fill and it's really annoying bc she sounds like a hotline operator, she does "good things" but she still has these corny lines and won't explain shit to anyone, not even to Leon after he went through all that trouble for her. But his letting her go felt like an "ok you'll go figure things out and I'll see you again soon" which is really fucking unhealthy but that's always been them.

But after reading your post I was like... did I missunderstand the purpose of that scene or did the game really gave closure to their relationship? Bc it feels like no one else in the fandom feels like that was the end lmao, Aeons or not, they're still waiting for the resolution to their relationship.

Do you think that if the game had been received better, Capcom would've continued with the whole cat and mouse thing between them or was that really their intended resolution for Aeon? Bc Vendetta, ID and DI feel like a really hard attempt to appease that response and not like a direction they were planning to take originally. And at this point they don't know what to do with Ada so it really proves she was just an accesory to Leon and when they couldn't fit her into his narrative anymore they were like welp.

Sorry for the long ask and I hope you have a great day 🧡

dude the whole point of leon's RE6 campaign is that leon thinks he knows ada and doesn't. like he watches a video of carla being hatched from an egg, legitimately thinks it's ada, and then just rolls with it because that's how little he knows her.

what people pick up on in these stories is fucking wild, to me. y'all miss the forest for the trees. "omg he has her number" HOMIE HE THINKS SHE'S PART DINOSAUR OR SOMESHIT

like one of the biggest themes of RE6 is "chasing after an illusion." jake spends a significant portion of his story chasing after the ghost of wesker, chris spends a significant portion of his story chasing after ada thinking she's carla, and leon spends a significant portion of his story chasing after a woman he thinks he knows but doesn't. ALL OF THEM ended up being wrong in the end. jake was wrong about his blood ties informing his future, chris was wrong about ada killing his men, and leon was wrong about the many assumptions he made about ada.

if anyone's sitting around waiting for closure about aeon, that's their fucking fault. because at the time that RE6 came out, a good chunk of the fandom went "okay resident evil can end now, RE6 feels like a conclusive end to the story" -- which is also an incorrect takeaway to have, but it goes to show how much people's memories get warped over time and influenced by others.

and no, i don't think that they would've continued the aeon story if RE6 had been received better. the original version of RE7 that was scrapped following the RE6 post-mortem was a leon and sherry game -- that says, to me, that they were always intending to pivot leon's story towards his relationship with the government and away from ada.

[mortheim]

Experimental USSR - Victory over the Sun

As much as I don't like the history of the 20th century (basically anything after WWI), I think stating that the early USSR was one of the most interesting countries in history wouldn't be an overstatement. One of the first countries that legalized gay marriage (taken away by Stalin later), literacy campaign (from 56% in 1916 to more than 80% in 1937), legalized abortions (undermined by Stalin), legalized divorce, providing maternity leave, equal rights, NEP... It was a bloody time, but a lot of things changed for the better for most people. I don't like the later USSR, but even then it still tried to provide good living conditions to most people. Central heating, housing, bathrooms in apartments, etc. Obviously, we can say a lot about how bad it was (for example, peasants didn't have passports until 1974, making the USSR a state with serfdom). But looking only at the bad things won't show us the full picture. This is why I want to talk about some experiments in the Soviet Union -cultural, social, and maybe even scientific. Today we will start with a play with costumes by none other than Malevich himself...

Victory over the sun.

"Victory Over the Sun" is an experimental opera staged in December 1913 at Luna Park in St. Petersburg. It was the result of collaboration between key figures of the Russian avant-garde: poet Alexei Kruchyonykh, composer Mikhail Matiushin, and artist Kazimir Malevich. They called themselves "budetlyani" (people of the future). The production was rooted in futurist ideas of radical departure from the past, a rejection of traditional art forms, and a drive to create something entirely new and unconventional.

The opera’s text was written by Alexei Kruchyonykh in a so-called "zaum" (smart-ass) language - a unique blend of sounds, words, and symbols meant to express new meanings detached from the logic and grammar of a conventional language. The Zaum language was intended as a way to break away from old literary and artistic canons, embodying the Futurist ambition of freeing art from its historical forms.

Mikhail Matiushin’s music was equally unconventional, far from traditional melodies and harmonies. It featured complex, dissonant, and unpredictable musical forms that challenged the audience's expectations of what an opera should sound like. The experimental use of dissonances and rhythms created an auditory landscape that heightened the futurist themes of the production. In this video, you can hear how it sounds.

Kazimir Malevich’s set designs and costumes became one of the most iconic aspects of the opera. Drawing inspiration from suprematism, Malevich rejected traditional depictions of space and reality. His stage design consisted of abstract geometric shapes that starkly contrasted with conventional theatrical art. The costumes were cubist and rectangular constructions, symbolizing mechanization and a rejection of the human figure.

Not only that but decorations were destroyed during the play. They were part of the play - not just a scenery. Here are some of the sketches of the costumes by Malevich. You can find more examples in this Wikipedia article.

The plot of Victory Over the Sun symbolizes futurism and modernism's triumph over the old world. In the opera, the Sun, representing the established order, is "captured" and caged by futurists who seek to destroy old norms and create a new world. The meaning was veiled and ambiguous, sparking debates and confusion among the audience. Some consider it science's victory over nature (you can somewhat compare it to a Dyson Sphere), while others thought that it dismantles the "Sun of Russian poetry - Pushkin.

The first performance caused an explosive reaction. The audience didn’t understand what was happening on stage - the libretto seemed absurd, the music cacophonous, and the set design too radical. The response was mixed, ranging from admiration to outright rejection. It was one of those moments when art challenged its viewers, offering a completely new aesthetic.

Victory Over the Sun had an impact on the development of avant-garde art, especially in Russia. It was during the work on this opera that Kazimir Malevich created the first version of his famous Black Square - a symbol of suprematism.

[secretsnowclub]

TTRPG School: What is an RPG? Or, Defining a Quasi-Text

 This was written recently for the new edition of .dungeon, but I wanna share it with y’all.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cameron Burger (@camcamburger) coined the term “Quasi-lore” to talk about the worldbuilding of Minecraft. Quasi means “almost” or “resembling,” so, quasi-lore is not-quite-lore, just hints and clues that motivate an audience to come to their own conclusions about a fictional world. 

I want to go a step further and say that an RPG book is not a Text in the sense that it gives you the proper and complete instructions, rules, and information. An RPG book is, by design, a quasi-text, giving hints, clues, and advice about play that motivates the players to then produce play between each other.

I like to think of it this way because there is no way for an RPG book to hold every possible challenge, and every possible solution to every possible challenge. It can’t hold the answers to every possible question. It can’t account for every possible person who might want to play. And that is not a downside, it is a benefit.

Part of the beauty of role playing games is that there are no limits to the things that can happen. There is no computer with a set amount of power or a planned series of events with a predetermined solution to its contrived problems. It’s a collaborative effort in a way most other mediums aren’t, limited only by the people who are playing together at the time. 

A lot of words have been written about this. Crack open any RPG book and it will most definitely have a “what is an RPG” section. But the main thing this phenomenon has led me to believe, is that our language alone isn’t enough to convey or define the totality of collaborative storytelling or playing. And because of this, a very important part of an RPG cannot exist inside of a Text. It can only be created and sustained while playing.

A quasi-text doesn’t force people to see it or think of it a certain way. It’s quasi-nature allows it to be used to tell a million different stories, by allowing the players to discover or create connections between the incomplete ideas and rules presented by the text. You, the reader, or your fellow players, can peruse the book and use what’s there to think of new concepts that fit nicely inside the book’s themes, while still leaving enough, or even creating more, quasi-lore for everyone to build on.

This is what makes rpgs so collaborative. It’s in the limitations of language and definition. It’s in the limitations of the individual to cover all possible avenues. As a game designer, I can only ever hope to create a quasi-text that inspires people to Play. .dungeon is my attempt at that. There are rules and lore that this book cannot give you. There are things purposefully left open or nebulous, and not “because of vibes,” but because I simply cannot know. 

“Connection” is the biggest example and one I got a lot of questions about when people read the first edition of .dungeon. This book will not tell you how long a campaign of .dungeon should last, or how much Connection you should lose every session. Each group that sits down to play will have a unique experience with Connection . Some campaigns will end quickly, others will go for much, much longer. 

That is intended. 

You won’t know when you’ll get a “game over.” You can’t know what random encounter or boss battle will be your last. Which adventure you’ll go on last. You won’t know how many people you’ll meet, or who will be important to you in the end. The text of the book knows how to measure this and can tell you what happens when it’s gone. But what it can’t tell you is how it will happen or when. 

Your duty as an RPG player is to meet these unknowns with confidence, because your answer will be unique to you and the other players. It will be unique to this particular moment of your life. By design, there are no wrong answers between the gaps of a quasi-text. There are only your answers.

[utilitycaster]

Do you think Travis will keep Chetney for the whole campaign? I think there’s definitely themes he wants to explore plus I’m sure he loves being a blood hunter + werewolf so I could see him playing Chet for a while. What makes me wonder is the way things with Bertrand went down, how they’re both previous oneshot characters, and how many jokes are made about Cheney going “any day now” since he’s so old. He has a lot in common with Bertrand in that way, so it makes me wonder if he’ll follow that formula to introduce another character later on once he’s satisfied with Chet’s story.

Hey anon,

Much as I do try to ask myself "what do I want" and "what is actually going on" and "am I just irritated at bad fanon and malformed theories surrounding a potential avenue of story, or is it legit just bad" in my consideration and predictions, I cannot be objective about predictions whether or not Chetney will leave. There was so much idiocy (to be clear, not what you're doing here) surrounding Chetney not being Travis's "real" long-term character from people who just...refused to take him seriously in any capacity and would not put in the most basic work to engage with him as a character. So I truly don't know, and any internal plot compass re: Chetney leaving or staying has been permanently fucked by the strong magnets of whatever stupid shit people were on roughly a year ago.

With this said: I think the context of the current moment is highly relevant: even with the assistance of Beau, Caleb, and Keyleth, Bells Hells is going into a really dangerous scenario and Chetney is a tank who's lived a long life and had some meaningful plot beats already. I don't think this means Travis intends to play a different character - honestly, Chetney still has several compelling plot hooks that haven't been explored - but I do think that Travis has one of the stronger senses of narrative and likely outcomes among the cast, and is just...well aware that character death during the solstice is on the table and Chetney might be the one to die (and that it would be narratively fulfilling for him to make a sacrifice to allow someone else to live, should it come to that). I think the jokes are probably just jokes and perhaps a bit of defusing the tension.

I should also note: Scanlan left and came back in a very serious and thoughtful plot beat but one that I'm not sure anyone foresaw, and character death is always a possibility so even without the weird history of how the fandom has responded to Chetney, it is particularly hard to have a meaningful answer. Which is a long way to say "¯\_(ツ)_/¯".

[thetownwecallhome]

Halloween Town 2024 -big UPDATE, please read-

((OOC:

Hello tender lumplings.

Well I'll get the 'quiet' part out of the way. In spite of what a few naysayers may say, this blog is still a Nightmare Before Christmas fan comic blog, despite it's recent up-tick in fundraisers you're seeing. It is STILL going to be open. It is DEFINITELY going to have comics. So why all the donations? Besides the moral reasons of me wanting to get the word out and help save innocent people's lives, I think some people are under the impression that, when this blog's in it's 'inactive' periods; Late Jan - August, it just is tnbc themed only. That's....not what I ever intended for it.

I generally try and make it a place to promote myself, my friends, important campaigns and more. TNBC and Burtoneseque/Selickism musings are a give-in, but I want to try and help out myself and fellows artists and bloggers. My blog is followed by some wonderful people and a lot of fellow TNBC-ish mutuals who like the same things I like. I want to get them their traction to. I support who I want and, yes, I'm open to @s far and wide from smaller blogs wanting some eyes on their work, not just dire campaigns. As for the blog itself, for one, YES I'm going to still be reblogging and sharing updates on Palestine fundraisers throughout September - November. If that's awkward amidst my kooky comic updates than that's on me. Keep in mind I myself am not a vetter-organizer or officially affiliated with any organizations that help people in Gaza. I follow resources (namely @90-ghost, @el-shab-hussein and others) made by blogs who are better than me at this and try to get those stories out. My own financial situation is all fraught right now, so I'm out of donation-money I set aside for month. But again, that's why I'm doing with the reblogs.

As for comic news:

This blog and my original characters @odditiesnoctobermidnightroad are both turning TEN YEARS OLD this year. Ten years. That means three years left to make all the comics I've wanted to make for this blog, but also that this particular year is going to be something special and something I hope to have out sooner than later as it will be going on till Halloween Day (thurs Oct 31st)!!

The 'Halloween Mailbox' will not be open this year for Halloween itself on account of how much time the new comic will take, but things will settle down in time for Xmas, where I hope to have a bit creative fun with the mailbox.

Anyway, you're getting updates on that AND my "Mouse the Witching Cat" 2024 rerelease news. Hoping to launch a few more sellables on Redbubble, Etsy and InDeed.com this year!

Now, what will the comic be about? Well... all I'll say is there will be a crossover element to it with another Tim Burton-property but I won't say what...

You're not getting any less octoberling goodness at all this year, folks. Swear to it.

[thrown-away-opinions]

Just revisiting these thoughts (and also correcting typos)

Two things about people saying "Capitalism (derogatory)" hit me like nails on a chalk board.

That anyone doing it is more likely than not describing something that government is doing or was only made possible through blatant corruption, probably thanks to government interference

That when they blame capitalism for all of the world's and humanity's problems, they are tacitly saying that if we just did a big ol' marxism/communism/socialism that these problems wouldn't occur or that they could have been stopped.

Both things are frustrating, because as we know from history and our everyday lives, the more power any government amasses, the more it will abuse that power and the more things will worsen. Likewise, no economic system is immune opportunists, power-hungry psychopaths, or greedy liars from achieving power. It's not a thing caused by capitalism.

Greed and maliciousness have always exists. One of the most important things we can learn from human history is that centralizing power will always bring out the worst in people and attract the worst kinds of people who will do whatever it takes if it means they get to sit on that proverbial throne.

All this "JRPGs where you kill God are actually about Japan's contentious relationship with Capitalism (derogatory)" drivel bothers me on so many levels because it takes a universal problems of power, greed, malice, opportunism, and selfishness, and handwave them away as alien entities that were foisted upon Japan and the rest of the world.

It comes with this ham-fisted assertion that no one would be greedy or otherwise feel incentivized to abuse everyone's trust or lie in the name of amassing wealth and power if the False God of Capitalism hadn't forcibly invaded and corrupted the minds of people all throughout history. Least of all, the noble and peaceful Japanese people who just got done with several centuries of brutal warfare over who has the divine right to rule over their tiny island nation... and then followed with even more warfare and civil unrest through the 20th century.

If there's a real message intended by the creators of these games, it's that you should be wary of those trying to amass power over you, deny them power, and in extreme situations, you're probably going to have to kill them... or at least you probably should if they're actively about to destroy the fucking planet.

Protecting the planet is another common theme in a lot of games and that can be read as environmental protection, prioritizing humanity's connection to nature, or just not wanting to die horribly. If anyone thinks that is directly about capitalism, they've mistaken industrialization as something unique to capitalism, but also ignored how disastrously bad communist and socialist governments are at taking care of their own lands. (Don't ask Maoists about the Four Pests campaign)

And on top of all of this, I don't think Moon Channel (the guy who made the video) has played many JRPGs to begin with. Sephiroth, Jenova, Lavos, Yaldabaoth, Kefka, and the few other examples he gives are not actually Gods in the eastern or western sense, beyond a few giving that title to themselves out of ego. Nor are they corrupting society with promises of "conspicuous consumption" and endless economic growth and prosperity. Their agendas are quite openly destruction, control, and megalomaniacal abuse of power. They are various flavors of direct danger and/or oppression. All of his examples are either blatantly wrong to begin with, or they are directly about corrupt governments, sometimes aligned with out of control corporate agendas, abusing their power over the people. And the only defense he has to insist that it's actually about the alien invasion of capitalism from the west is "deep cultural context" that literally no writing, interview, or commentary from any Japanese creator has ever hinted at.

If there's anything to take away from this, it's that you should ALWAYS be wary of anyone who seeks power. Many smarter men than me have said many more succinct and insightful things about tyrants and authoritarians and the unworthiness or men to lead others, and they've only been proven more true as we trudge along through history. Money and industry and free trade between consenting individuals is not the root of all evil. That evil exists within humans and it is one of the most important lessons to learn, because failing to recognize that eternal truth is how societies fall to dictators, despots, and authoritarians making promises of a greater good that will eventually pay off and make all the abuses worth it, but never materializes.

Watching "Why Do You Always Kill Gods in JPRGs?" and I am in awe of the stupidity on display.

>45 minutes of rudimentary Japanese/eastern history in broad strokes > glosses over the fact that Japan has basic capitalistic free trade and business for its entire history >no, fucking seriously, Japan had industry, independently owned businesses, the general free exchange of goods and services... otherwise known as capitalism. >Japan underwent a post-war economic boom >Some people get very rich and powerful during this boom primarily due to controlling the banking system with backing from a corrupt government >"Their new religion was... CAPITALISM." (paraphrased) >youtube essayist proceeds to explain at length the ways that forcibly aligning culture, religion, and government with private corporate interests is a bad thing (which it is, but it's not capitalism) >... but still constantly invokes "Capitalism" being forced on Japan from the West ("The False God") as the true evil in this narrative >Points to various examples in games where the bad guy is literally just the government and politicians, corrupt megacorps, giant evil monsters, and/or overt oppressive authoritarianism and tries to frame them as symbolic representations of western culture and Capitalism (spoken of as an evil ideology that makes people evil) >At no point do any of these stories (FF7, Persona 5, Chrono Trigger, Earthbound, etc) present the idea that anyone except the already corrupt and evil are in favor of oppressing/destroying/enslaving all humanity and the planet in the name of endless economic growth and power for power's sake. >Several examples are literally evil entities that demand destruction for the sake of destruction and say as much directly >essayist's explanation for why none of this seems obvious and so far detached from the far more clear messages in their stories is because Japan speaks in deep contextual code so as not to offend anyone >aka, essayist gets to assert his beliefs and you can't tell him he's wrong because you just don't get the triple-secret encoded message hidden under all the deep cultural context clues that only a true Japanese audience (or foreign weeb, apparently) would understand >his western examples of Capitalist metaphor are the Outer Worlds and Bioshock Infinite... games where corporatism and an overt pseudo-religious authoritarian are the villains >this guy is a goddamned lawyer, apparently.

This is so fucking stupid. I should have checked out the moment I detected that hint of venom when he named capitalism as the culprit, but morbid curiosity got the better of me. For a bit there, when he was talking about the economic bubble and the lost decade, it seemed like maybe he wasn't going to be totally retarded, but he sure proved me wrong.

The message behind the JRPG genre is often that protecting the world is good, amassing power for the sake of power is bad, and that with the power of friendship and grinding side quests, a ragtag gang of spunky kids can save the world from malicious extraterrestrial entities that aim to mindlessly consume.

And also that the SMT series and many other pieces of Japanese media invokes western religious iconography, names, and symbols because it sounds cool and mysterious to Japanese audiences. That's literally the direct explanation given by nearly every single game and anime writer when asked about all the obtuse and confusing mythology and symbolism in their games.

[hayleysayshay]

so I went on the cr subreddit (again. I need to block it.) and there was a hot take post (never a good sign) I saw a few ppl say they thought Talesin was an edgelord player who played edgelord characters. I can’t speak for his play style because I haven’t seen enough, but on characters:

A) yes Taliesin made Caduceus quickly and so maybe he didn’t have time to develop the backstory to be dark but he played a non edgy character for like 120 episodes and didn’t bring in any edgy character beats as the campaign went along and Tal could have if he wanted

B) I won’t speak for Molly as he died before he really got going (some people love him, some say overrated and dislike him), but for me, Percy and Ashton are kind of similar but mostly opposites. For me, Ashton isn’t actually that edgy. Sure they have an incredibly abrasive personality and talk about how much they don’t get along with people, but in the campaign proper they’re actually not that edgy with people. They’re sweet with FCG, they get along well with everyone in the group… their story, though ongoing, is actually quite simple imo (and I don’t mean as a negative).

Whereas Percy is like, wrapped up in themes of karma and making the world worse for the sake of revenge and if you can really atone for that. Lots of edgy themes that are at odds with the other characters in Vox Machina. You can argue if that’s a bad thing if you want. I also generally think although Taliesin’s likely original idea was that Percy would die, Percy living wasn’t forced upon him and he was fine with playing him to the end of the campaign.

I think Percy differs from Ashton because he doesn’t appear to be edgy personality wise (stuffy noble with sad backstory) but actually is, whereas Ashton appears to be edgy but actually isn’t. I don’t think it’s because Taliesin fumbled the roleplaying for Ashton and didn’t make the character as dark as he intended: the non-abrasive side of Ashton had always been there from the early episodes. Honestly Ashton isn’t any more edgy than the other characters of Bell’s Hells, they’re probably just the rudest. Like yeah going off pure personality alone maybe Ashton is an edgelord but it’s such a surface level reading of them it just doesn’t seem like they have looked any deeper than Ashton saying fuck all the time.

Idk. Cant get Taliesin’s supposed edgelord characters out of my head.

EDIT take with a grain of salt of course, Ashton could have a dark backstory where he ate babies. But from what I’ve seen, Ashton doesn’t actually feel like a dark character in the same way Percy was.

[esther-dot]

i don't understand why people say dany burning kingslanding is misogynistic. we've seen her burning people that has gotten in her way. her dragon even ate a child! was fine with drogo saying he'll have his people r*pe their enemy's women.

i am honestly confused. can't women be villains as well. no one takes issue with cersei as a villain. heck a lot of people demonize catelyn and even sansa (who i think has yet to do anything that's i consider terrible in canon aside from telling the lannisters about ned's plan but like, was it her fault that ned bit more than he could chew?)

I didn’t like how they wrote Dany’s massacre and death in s8, but her villain arc as a concept isn’t inherently sexist. How D&D did it in s8 felt sexist to me, but Dany was always going to burn KL and a lot of BNFs now admit she will too, they just don’t think it makes her a villain. 😬 So, really what people are objecting to isn’t a woman committing atrocities, they just don’t like us saying that makes her a bad person.

Personally, I like a female villain. I really enjoyed show Cersei, so I'm with you. It bothers me that so much of the conversation was not "did the show do a good job progressing Dany to her inevitable end?" and instead, "it's sexist to make a woman do this." As you point out, there were things to indicate it early on and if anything, D&D backed off and tried to make it a more sympathetic version of her ending than they had once intended.

I don't find fault with Sansa going to Cersei behind her dad’s back because no one cares when other characters are willful and perfectly obedient children aren’t characters we uphold as ideals or favorites. I can’t stop them from blaming her for her father’s death, but in doing so, they’re acting as if she were supposed to know that this time, there would be dire consequences to disobedience when her entire childhood and several times in AGOT, her sister disobeys and doesn’t suffer. That’s the context for her choice there. And Sansa is linked to the innocents suffering due to the decisions of the powerful, so I also think in the process of misinterpreting her they’re missing out on important themes. The fact that people include Sansa alongside Dany as both victims of misogynistic treatment by the fandom, as if they’re on par morally, as if we didn't end the first book with Dany personally burning a woman alive, as if we didn't watch her threaten to burn cities season after season, as if in the books she didn't use forced labor or profit from the slave trade etc really bothers me. Sansa had no reason to believe the family that was meant to become her family by her father’s choice was evil, but Dany saw the cost of war and decided it was all worth it. Childish naïveté isn’t the same “crime” as accepting the rape, enslavement, and death of others as the necessary cost for a pointless conquest. It’s reasonable to point this out and take issue with Dany’s choices.

The fandom pretends it’s all awash for their own reasons, but it’s ludicrous to think that Robb (who initially had a justified war) was punished by the narrative for not choosing peace when he could have but the story will reward Dany’s war campaign. It isn’t sexism that Dany dies too after doing far worse than Robb. It’s thematic consistency. And considering how many male characters we have who are cruel and evil intentionally, I don’t think we can argue that having female villains as well is sexist. There are just a lot of bad people in ASOIAF. Some of whom you know upon meeting are evil, others are sympathetic but gradually do worse and worse things. I understand she isn’t thinking she will intentionally do evil things so book fans ignore what she does, but that’s their choice. Dany orders the death of children, and the fandom actively defends (or did at one point) her for it. Why were they fine with the kiddie killing but not the massacre of KL? How can they act like her burning KL is totally ooc as if when it happens in the books they won’t do the same shit they currently do and defend all her other mistakes? IMO, their issue isn’t that D&D had Dany do a bad thing, Dany has done bad things all along. It’s that this time, there was no way to defend her actions, no way to pretend it wasn’t what it was. Their objection is to other fans saying if you do villain things it makes you a villain. We can criticize certain aspects of the writing without going wholesale “female villains are sexist” and I wish that’s a distinction fans could make.