#i usually do like morally grey villains where

[insurged]

just some random thoughts and rambling on explaining ascended! astarion because i find him interesting.

his humanity, it feels like in visual terms, has been dropped into the middle of a vast and infinite ocean. he's trying to stay afloat but he can't as wave comes after wave. and in very rare moments, he resurfaces and that tiny glimpse of the person he was before is visible before it goes back under. i think it's fair to say that vampire lords are slaves to their vampiric instincts that naturally eats away at the remaining bits of humanity that vampires have left but on a stronger scale than that of spawns. i think it also amplifies his negative traits: aesthetic beauty, envy, jealousy, rage, it's almost as if he can't control these emotions at all and he has outbursts of one emotion to another. he is much more venomous and extremely arrogant, looking down on everyone whether they're his friends or not.

ascended! astarion also seems to have a different... laugh ? than astarion. it's deeper, hollow, and almost empty, as if he's at a wealthy party, just forcing out a laugh to fit in. i'm not sure he even remembers what genuinely laughing feels like anymore. 😭 ascended astarion in his modern verse is similar to his modern day verse, as an actor with a lot of power and influence who have changed other people in power to be his vampire spawns. unlike his normal modern verse, he is not under the control of cazador but he is cold and terrifying. i won't write this version of astarion unless specifically asked for, since he has all the red flags of a toxic relationship, whether it's platonic or romantic. he'll be condescending, bitter, cruel and controlling and i'm not going to hold back on it. he's terrible and awful but it's interesting to explore considering the possibility of him ascending. i've also decided that modern verse or not, i won't change the way astarion speaks. :)

[brucewaynehater101]

I think it would be really funny if Tim kept up one very specific connection he made during Young Justice. One that no one but Tim and his team know about. One of the most dangerous beings in all the Universe.

Lobo The Space Biker.

The Main Man Himself, who has either tied or beaten Superman in a number of different comics *and* shows. When he showed up during the Justice Leauge Animated show, the entire JL (minus Clark) had to work together to just *barely* keep him in line and even *then* they did not command full authority nor respect from him. He is a top tier threat almost everytime he is spotted.

And I can only think of one person who he canonically will do basically whatever they say.

Tim Drake.

Tim managed to reign Lobo in multiple times during their adventures together, and no I don't mean the weaker clone. I mean The Real Actual Lobo (who had been turned into a teen by Klarion at the start of their friendship but *still*) does what if asked of him by Tim Drake, up to and including *walking away from unfinished fights*. Evidence by the time Tim got him to not fight the Space Cops right before The Baseball Game and got him and Big Bear to stop fighting when both wanted to continue.

All this to say, some kind of all hands on deck happens and the JL needs some back up for some kind of invasion and Tim says, "I have someone who owes me a few favors and it pretty strong." And makes a phone call. All the JL can hear is Tim as he says, "hey, Lil- I'm cashing in a favor... Yeah there's an invasion about to happen... Yes, you are the first person I call for Cracking Skulls, of course.... yes well, with or without you it's happening in an hour. Get here sooner and after we can have an extra meeting... of course I'll make the usual tea, plus Lavender and Rose cookies~... yes I know you very well.... see you in 25 minuets Lil." And he hangs up.

30 minutes later, Lobo breaks into the Watch Tower and the whole JL is like "WE DONT HAVE TIME FOR THIS DAMN IT." until Tim walks past them saying, "Lil! I got some cookies, they're chocolate chunk." And Lobo simply replies, "you know me so fraggin well, Runt."

Tim gets placed on Lobo's shoulder and they start talking about where Lobo will be so he can Crack the most skulls.

I don't know enough about Lobo (so thank you for the explanations), but I am all for Tim's friendship powers.

I don't know how he does it, but he's constantly nestling himself into villainous or morally grey characters' soft spots. Is there a list out there of folks that, for all intents and purposes, shouldn't like Tim but got bedazzled by his friendship charm?

Anyways, I'd love a 5 plus one fic of Tim being like: "Oh? We've got this problem? Hold up. I know a guy." Then he just calls up someone he definitely shouldn't be friends with. They act like the best of buds, too.

[roseworth]

what direction do you think they should have gone in with jason? as in where should he be now in terms of people and what he's doing

i think winick had it exactly right green arrow #69-72 and batman & robin #23-25. he was a villain but he had a Method and a Purpose. and usually that purpose was just to fuck with batman. i loooove it when hes a villain and hes very clearly doing bad things, but hes not just indiscriminately killing people. hes doing it for a reason, hes still doing the same thing he was doing in utrh by controlling the drug trade, and even when hes doing the right thing hes being an asshole about it

i especially love the ga issues because jason doesnt even talk to batman but bruce KNOWS what hes doing and he knows its about him. i love the bruce & jason post-utrh dynamic where they've both pretty much said everything they have to say and neither of them is changing their position, so now jason is just starting fires to get attention. "ok bruce you dont want to talk to me? thats fine. ill just follow you to star city then psychologically torture a teenage girl then blow her up in front of you" icon! i forgive him! i think its so fun when red hood is a member of batman's rogues gallery and bruce feels bad every time he fights him but also he kinda cant stand him since he knows jason is only doing it to mess with him and its working. but also jason is a Greater Good person so he DOES end up working with the bats sometimes just because theyre also working on the good side

anyways the ideal bruce & jason dynamic to me is "the love was there and it made everything so much worse" because jason is doing everything for bruces attention because he loves him and wants him to care about him but hes not willing to budge on his own morals and neither is bruce. and bruce loves jason so he doesnt want to arrest him or put him in danger but also hes killing people and doing terrible things and bruce is batman so he feels obligated to. yk. stop him. and as much as they both love each other they do not like each other at all

in my mind jason doesnt really care about any of the other bats besides dick & babs just because he knew them before he died so hes willing to hang out with them but they Do Not want to see him. like in brothers in blood when jason goes hiiiii dick <3 lets hang out <3333 and dick is constantly suppressing the cain instinct. he never really talks to babs pre52 i think theyre interactions would be very similar in that jason goes hey babs ur so cool <33 and she says jason get the fuck away from me or im activating the bomb in your helmet <3

but also with steph even though he didnt know her pre-death,, i think he would like her. i can imagine him doing something very similar to what he did with mia, basically finding her and going "quit your vigilante career. join my emo band" but i think she would end up being a lot more receptive to it than mia was ! like im thinking batgirl 2009 era steph so she would not be on board with the idea of joining him since things were going well with team batgirl, but i also think that any interaction between the two of them in that era would go well and end with them getting along :)

as for everyone else. i dont think he would care about any of them. theyre just kinda collateral damage in his war with bruce. like he gets involved with them sometimes just because of their proximity to bruce, or like i said earlier that he works with them sometimes because he cares about the greater good so is willing to help them when necessary. also honorable mention to aoifa's headcanon that jason doesnt actually know tims name because he just does not care. thats canon to me

so yeah in conclusion: he should be a morally grey villain that does what he does either for the greater good, or to fuck with batman, or both. and he has complicated relationships with all of them bc he likes bruce dick and babs but also kinda hates all of them and they like but also hate him too. and the rest of them he doesn't really give a shit about

[extremely-judgemental]

Subtext is completely lost in this fandom. I partly blame SJM for it. This is a rant from both reading and writing standpoint and leans towards the characters since I like to psychoanalyse them.

The one thing that tired me the most in these books is the excessive narration. I don’t mean the wordy description to support world-building but the never-ending monologues. SJM takes ‘show, don’t tell’ advice literally with the visual cues when it should apply to the characters and their personalities as well. Where subtext usually exposes depth of these characters and lets you decide who they are, SJM strips away that chance by writing it down for you word by word. The reason so many are going with 'in the book' argument is exactly this.

Here’s what I mean.

In real life, people don’t think linearly. They have an idea about themselves as much as they have about everyone else around them. There are self-imposed restrictions on their thoughts based on who they believe to be and who they strive to be. And it shows in their interaction with outside world. Say, when someone is ashamed of their actions, they will deny it for as long as possible. Someone who regrets something, they will sugarcoat it.

But in her books, her characters think clearly—way too clearly so that you latch onto the ideas she perpetuates. You don’t get to know them based on their thoughts, words, and actions, and see how these three support each other. You don't get a chance to draw conclusions as to if they are the hero/villain and good/evil based on their actions. If their behaviours match their words or if their choices are acceptable. Because SJM sets it in words for you. The characters come with a label beforehand. (Feyre, Rhysand and Inner Circle are good guys. Tamlin, Eris and Nesta, sometimes Lucien are evil.) It's why so many toxic and abusive themes are dismissed because it’s the 'good guy' or the 'morally grey guy’ who does it.

And so, her lead or ‘good’ characters fall flat since they have everything figured out. They know themselves inside out. They are never wrong about themselves, there’s no part they hide from themselves or the others. There’s nothing for you to read and identify the beauty or ugliness in the character. There’s no depth in them because they don’t contradict themselves, they don’t struggle to be someone they always believed to be. They don’t have to prove anything to themselves or others. They say what they think and they do what they say. They are very aware of their shortcomings and they all seem to know the exact consequences of their decisions.

Feyre doesn’t change in the three books. Her ‘rags to riches’ story doesn’t lead to much character growth. She starts out as an adamant, reckless child and ends up being arrogant, reckless woman with a crown. She doesn’t undergo a shift in personality but climbs up the social hierarchy. And that’s considered character development. Rhysand remains the same throughout. He starts out as a villain but later revealed as a good guy playing bad. Instead of growing into a hero—given his crimes, his ill deeds are negated with sympathetic backstory. And from there, it’s a flat line. There’s no growth.

In the end how does the character change in the aftermath of the events? Which of their beliefs are shattered and rebuilt? What is the emotional impact on the other characters? SJM does offer some closure on these regards but they are solely focused on a list of traumas and specific reactions set by SJM herself. And so readers refuse to think for themselves how these scenarios may play out and take the words relayed through the unreliable narrators who are essentially preaching SJM’s biases. Also, when they are so explicitly written down, there’s not much room for subtext. After going through pages and pages of justification, it tires you from using reason.

Even if we get past this (writing) flaw, there are other major issues. Story telling is a way of experiencing life. It helps build empathy, compassion and understanding of the world. Even in a fantasy book, when that world doesn’t exist, when the characters aren’t real, their journey are drawn from real life experiences. Relating to these characters is subjective and solely depends on the reader, but determining the rightness of their actions is not. This too is warped as SJM dictates which behaviour is acceptable and how far through her lead characters(Feyre vs Nesta imprisonment). Instead of allowing you to judge the choices, the verdict is spoon-fed through the ‘hero’. If the characters are forgiven, it’s not abuse. It’s a simple mistake. (It’s a mistake if it happens once and if there’s a changed behaviour after the apology.) If the characters are happy in the end, their acts are admissible. Unless SJM stamps the word ‘abuser’ and ‘bad guy’ in block letters herself(Tamlin), it's not even considered a possibility.

In short, in this fandom, ‘reading between the lines’ is acceptable as long as it supports what the author preaches. When it contradicts ‘it’s in the books’. Logic is valid only if you use it to justify the fan favourites and applaud them. Empathy is conditional. Compassion is conditional. Critical thinking is so discouraged that it’s pitiful.

[enemywasp]

Alright so someone on tiktok sent me a link to a compiled list of arguments against proshippers and so I wanted to put a sort of brief response of my own thoughts of each point.

Long post warning!

"Proshippers are non-offending minor attracted people in a fresh paint of coat"

What a start, am I right? Okay so first off this is a huge generalisation, not every proshipper engages with or is even comfortable with anything that sexualises fictional children, or ships them with adults. And of those that do ship adult/minor ships, it doesn't always mean they're attracted to the character themselves or gains any sexual pleasure from that.

They then went on to say that although they might be non-offending, they still fantasise about and romanticise children- in the case of proshippers by creating art and stories. And I am not personally educated enough on how people's minds works to go in depth here, but I do know a lot of pedophilic thoughts can be intrusive and unwanted. And I would much rather people engage in this and deal with their thoughts through fiction where no actual children are harmed, than actually go touch a real child or engage is any form of CSEM.

“People can draw and ship whatever they want!”

Here they went on to say that surely to ship and create content you must justify these things in some capacity regardless of them being fictional. And immediately I'd argue, the justification it that they're fictional. And that sometimes you want to read about things you'd never approve of in real life, it's a natural curiosity. And again, regardless of what the dark content is I would take someone engaging in fiction over harming a real person any day.

They compared this to alt-right groups and dark humour justifying racism and transphobia, etc. And whilst I think something we should always be aware of in fiction is stereotypes and how we may be representing people. Youtube videos like this are usually a type of propaganda that AIM to change people's mindsets and turn them against groups. Whereas fiction tells a story, some may have meanings and connections to real life, be a political piece, etc. Not everything is that serious and has a clear distinction from reality.

Think for example, reading/watching about murder and gore. More on that in a second.

"Fiction doesn't affect reality!"

I'm going to be honest I rolled my eyes at this as their main example was slenderman. If you don't know about that, those girls were schizophrenic. Anything could of set off and caused delusions, it just so happened to be fiction. Those girls needed help- not to just read purer content. They also basically brought up propaganda again, which is again deliberate and designed to warp peoples perceptions. Its based of lying and spreading misinformation and passing it as facts. The only thing I strongly believe can be directly harmful is stereotypes if not handled with care. But I think that's something for anyone who writes and consumes content should be aware of regardless of their stances.

Again here they implied that all proshippers are peodophiles. And that they normalise abuse of children. I'd also like to point out that most proshippers I've interacted with online have age boundaries to avoid interacting with minors depending on how graphic or sexual their content is.

"What do you think all stories about murder should stop existing?"

Here they basically argued that killing in media isn't the same as its not romanticised or condoned. YA Novels disagree- mafia stories being the most immediate example to spring to mind. Furthermore, morally grey villains. One of my favourite films is Mr Right. It's about a hitman killing people. Anna kendrick falls in love with him and its framed as a romantic comedy. Funny how its only fanfiction that's criticised like this? I actually have more thoughts on this if anyones interested.

Again they bring up kids not knowing adults pursuing children is wrong, and I'm questioning why children this young are unsupervised on the Internet. How young were you when you were allowed to watch anything with graphic blood or violence? This content isn't made for kids! Especially not anyone so young they can't seperate fiction from reality as most sites have a specific age you have to be to join. And I'm sorry to say it, but on websites and social media where adults can interact with kids, anything can be used to groom kids. (The real thing you should be mad about here is how there's no websites aimed just for children and safe spaces on the Internet anymore cause it can't be monetised as easily)

"Artists are allowed to draw and write about dark people"

They basically said, yes but it's not the same as promoting. Writing something under a romantic light and not saying "Don't do at home!" Isn't promoting. No ones encouraging these things in real life. Or rather, if they are its not because they're a proshipper but rather who they are as a person and their intentions.

The trans example they used is very extreme and honestly something I agree with a little more, fiction can definitely be used as an excuse to say and act out hateful and discriminatory things. Whilst I do think it's something we should discuss and unpack more, I'm not certain of my view on how I would fix this without risking silencing people talking about their experiences.

"Its not my responsibility to look after other people, just block me and the tags"

Here they threw all kinds of accusations. And says that we're making traumatised people jump through hoops to avoid getting retraumatised. I hate this argument, you know people have actual triggers they may not be able to avoid in real life? The world can't bend around you. And I am very sorry if any content online is traumatising to you, but someone could also be traumatised by a certain breed of dog and not want to see it. Should no one post dogs online ever again? A bald man reminds you of an abusive ex? Bald men get off the Internet! You see how this thing can just keep escalating? The tags and warnings are important because they're the best you can get. You can't control the world to protect everyone from everything ever. No ones forcing you to interact, and if you're on any algorithm based content that will encourage that content on your for your page more.

The only thing I think we should take from this is the reminder that warnings and tags are always important.

"You only care about censoring creativity"

Here they defend themselves that oh wouldn't you want freaks out the community! Which again immediately makes me lose respect for you, if you're just going to brand us all as freaks as an argument and generalize us.

No comment on that first line when you can easily argue antishipper do the same.

"Proshippers are not remotely innocent of targeted harrasement" Neither are antis. There's people who take things too far both sides and I'm not going to defend either for that.

"Real kids get assaulted and all you care about is censoring people online!"

Here they shout "oh I can care about both!" But what I don't think they realise is censorship can make it difficult for kids and to learn about how to speak up and to look for signs, or to speak up about their experiences. How do you plan on removing the topic from the Internet whilst also letting victims speak up? And people may want to write fiction based off their experiences. Who are you to go through it and proclaim what is too far, what romanticises it too much? More on this later.

"Antis are reducing my trauma"

They compared this to saying "date rape victims are reducing my trauma because they weren't taken advantage of in the same way as me" which is a disgusting parallel?? Date rape is still rape. Someone writing about something isn't the same as it happening. Although it can be used as harrasment, grooming, etc if directly addressed to you or being constantly sent to you, written about you. But the content existing in general? No.

"I'm coping"

Compared it to self harm, and such. Poetry and diaries are also used to write about your experiences and unpack trauma. Some of which may write it in an unrealistically positive light cause that's how they want to unpack it or explain those thoughts. And yes these things get posted online.

I can't imagine a single therapist or professional psychiatrist of any kind disapproving of creative writing because, again, it's much better than any alternatives of doing real harm to yourself or people around you. Although I do agree that if something is traumatising for you to read about and just upsets you further, be aware of your own boundaries but not everyone is the same so how are you going to police people's own thoughts and emotions.

Also I can't remember who or where as it was years ago now, but I have heard of people who actually realised they were being groomed or abused and just how bad it was through reading about it in a fanfic and seeing it in an outside perspective.

They also say to do it in private, but doesn't everyone on the Internet now have an understanding of finding a community and looking out for eachother and sharing experiences?

"There's more nuance here than just calling proshippers peodophiles"

Here they say no matter what it still comes down to whether it's ever okay to sexualise minors in certain contexts. And again, not every proshipper does this or is even comfortable with engaging in this kind of content. And further, no one is sexualising real minors in this context.

"I'm a proshipper and a minor tho!"

I'd agree minors should be wary of the spaces they're in but proship spaces aren't always necessarily sexual, graphic or 18+. Saying they're being groomed feels like you're watering down that term. I was a proshipper at age 13, I didn't interact with anyone online about it though, I didn't even know that was the term. I just came to the conclusion that it's just fiction all on my own. Minors aren't idiots.

At then end they talk about their own experience being groomed and I'm obviously not going to nitpick or criticise their experiences. I will point out that one person being bad and taking advantage of you and using content to do so doesn't mean everyone is like that. I am sorry to anyone who has been taken advantage of by someone who claims they're a proshipper though. There are people who have turned out to be horrible on both sides.

I am ill and it's late but I want to get this up sooner rather than later so please ask for clarification on anything. I'm always up for a discussion on this topic as I do believe some of these points do have merits at times and that this whole topic is not black and white

[ceoandslutler]

a short analysis on the theme of kindness in kuro, in defence of the morally reprehensible protagonists.

i previously spoke about sebastian pulling a "not like other humans" line on ciel but the things he's actually saying in this chapter are crazy...

chapter no's and pages in alt text!!

media illiterate (most kuro fandom antis') logic is that ^this guy's^ the big bad villain of kuro, there's so much to analyse about the theme of kindness and humanity in kuro but ultimately people are blind to it because sebaciel are not the kind, happy-go-lucky type of protags many people are used to and people struggle to purify them. there are so many people in this story "more innocent" than them and less morally grey which makes them look like worse people but the fact is that they are the "worse" in a world full of the "worst". they're there to show you how despicable humanity can be but they have their moments of 'good' (otherwise they'd be lacking in likability), especially moments like this can be quite odd in this story about corruption and evil because in those pages, these two do not seem like the deplorable, manipulative and conniving characters we often see them as. this moment reminds me of another very dear chapter to me which two volumes comes after this.

this is such an interesting part of the manga (it's why the blue cult arc is my favourite arc of the manga despite all the popstar/idol shenanigans that threw a lot of people off). the way these two behave in this arc is not normal, they do not need to go above and beyond for these people. it is not necessary for sebastian to go this far for ciel AND his tenants (who it is important to note he has no contractual obligation to care for, especially not to the extent of giving them the "time of their lives") and it is certainly not normal the way ciel treats these people with zero contempt even when they 'disrespect' him as a noble. these two are genuinely weird for their time, blue cult arc also gives us an unforgettable seb moment (link).

this chapter also serves as part of the transition between the blue cult arc and the blue memory arc which is also...

one of the most intriguing parts of the manga... what's interesting here is that ciel HAS kept his tenants happy as proven by the halloween chapter (the page below from this same chapter talks of infrastructure needs having to be met and we read that ciel has fixed the roads since becoming earl and even an old donkey can transport milk from across them- that's how good the quality of the roads are). however, what i want to focus on is undertaker previously saying ciel, despite having phantomhive blood is not like his predecessors. in fact, the flashback chapter shows he's not even like his own identical twin brother!

i really wonder what exactly undertaker meant by saying that right as ciel saves joanne in the school arc and also what vincent was thinking about his sons in this flashback sequence. did vincent think o!ciel is different too? and what is it that makes him so odd? or rather, what makes him an exception in the phantomhive family? i look forward to whatever yana has in store for us and hope to see where these wonderful characters with such bizarre morality (or lack there of) end up.

i will talk about this theme more in the future but if anyone has something specific to add, please do. and even if it's not too detailed or you're unsure, feel free to tell me what you think about the use of 'good' and 'evil' for the main characters of kuro overall! some things to consider:

fundamentally why are ciel and sebastian the way they are? and more importantly, do you think yana intended either of them to be read as strictly "evil"? a lot of people make the case of the fandom purifying them but i never see that these days, usually it's only ciel that's sanitised of all sin and sebastian that is demonised (although occasionally both are demonised as solely "bad guys"). i joke about them being narcissistic and not the nicest people (which is something i genuinely believe) but i do not think they are the root of all evil; which is a take you can have without absolving them of any and all misdeed they may have committed. i think what i'm really getting at is that sebastian is not ""evil""? and he's not innocent either. but he's a force for "good" in the story. he works for the phantomhive estate and the people living on that land more devotedly than a demon with a 3-clause contract with the master of the land should and he shouldn't be excluded from the phantomfam and only seen as horrible/evil but nor should he be solely seen as a silly little cat loving parent. and you don't need to ship sebaciel to see him this way, just read the source material with your eyes peeled, really think about what sebastian does and says. he's so interesting and he's so much more than the fandom makes him out to be. but interpret him however you want, i guess.

[starzzmissthesun]

Hi!!! I'm back with another mini rant for you guys. This is about the problems in our fandom relating to (mainly) the deatheaters. So I've been seeing two perspectives about barty, reg, and evan that I neither agree with. Before I start, just be kind and respectful to everyone with these perspectives, because we're all too mean to eachother and divided in this fandom. The first is kind of applied to every character which is, there's "no canon personalities or reason" behind these characters, and that everyone should be able to characterize however they want. I completely disagree with this, in the books we have SO MUCH content about the characters; ESPACIALLY barty, sirius, remus, james, lily, and reg, all of whom have canon characterizations. The others DO have stuff said about them, and we can use that stuff like we used to. With all of our characters, we must analyze them and think about how their actions reflect their personalities, beliefs, morals, etc. The main frustration is with (aside from wolfstar, but thats a whole other can of worms) the death eaters (barty, reg, and evan). People have characterized them as if they were FORCED to join and that they were secretly really good people. This brings me to the second perspective of this, people have been saying that we should absolutely HATE the death eaters and that it's stupid that they're popular. I think maybe these people are more (rightfully and I would agree) that people make them seem 'good' and specifically the whole issue of how out of character james and reg is. This is totally valid to be frustrated with the mischaracterizations of these characters and how it affects The Marauders + Lily. It's very annoying how people have turned reg into a second Lily, and then pushed Lily out of the way, when she makes SO much more sense. BUT BUT BUT, if these people are mad that characters who are villains and are HORRIBLE people are popular, I just have to ask if these people have been in other fandoms before? I just say that because villains are usually fan favourites in most fandoms. People like villains because they like that they do bad things, that they are morally grey, and literally just because it's fun. sometimes, it's annoying to like characters who are always good, and to characterize them other ways would be weird (im not talking about james being a bully or whatever, I'm talking about CRIMES). I don't think it would be a problem for our "villains" to be popular, as long as they ARE BAD. Stop making them babies who do no wrong. Stop pushing the main female character out of the way, for a ship that is out of character to the point where youre just making one character like another, (people make reg like lily, or james like barty, its weird)

I don't know, i just don't agree with barty, reg, and evan getting hate, when theyre not even being characterized right. The larger problem this stems from is just people making all of our characters OCs. Anyways, please everybody just be respectful to eachother, the block and uninterested buttons are right there(even though they can be quite stupid) I understand it's very very frustrating, but that's no excuse to be mean. And for those people who just characterize however they'd like (in the way of forgetting about things we know about them canonically because we "have no canon") please re-read the books or even watch the movies, and if you still don't care, please tag "out of character". I think it's really fun to interprate different, just not so much the character is unrecognized.

[shorthaltsjester]

honestly as someone who has been in various fandoms for a long time now and who also watched campaigns 1 and 2 without really getting into cr fandom it isn’t Shocking but it is annoying how often people will look at the stories that cr tells and make absolute claims about the goodness of characters (goodness here meaning Moral goodness, not I Like This character and think it’s well made goodness, which is a separate post entirely). particularly regarding the gods and pc parents. and honestly like, typically in fandom i get annoyed by people bending over backwards to woobify characters who are active in their choice to be unkind and generally horrible but in the cr fandom it’s tended to be the opposite where like. a character is just. a human being (in the sense of being Average not in the sense of Fantasy Races) and huge swaths of the fandom act like that’s the most unforgivable thing someone can be. and maybe it is, but one of the most powerful things about fiction is that it tends to encourage people to expand their empathy and exercise their ability to forgive. because fictional characters, no matter how much people like to project onto them, tend not to cause anyone harm, so it’s easier to learn how to forgive and accept things you don’t understand without also villainizing them.

this is mostly prompted by the recent 4sd and the fact that matt’s response to what’s up with the dawnfather was a very insistent “He’s not bad!” and also seeing the online reaction to the mention that the matron would punish vax for saving keyleth that has taken the as usual completely bonkers tune that the raven queen (Who When Met With A Brother Asking A God To Kill Him In Favour Of His Sister, Gave Him A Job, and Later Extended His Natural Life To Help Protect The World And Have More Time With His Family And Allowed Him To Visit His Sister On Her Wedding Day) is a horrible evil abusive bitch of a god. like. can we grow up? can we understand the world and fiction that represents the multitudes of experiences found in it in shades of grey? is that too much to ask (i know it is).

but also specifically the like Extremely Adamant way that both matt and laura were like no no no no relvin isn’t Horirble he’s average. he’s not good he’s just. he’s A father, not a good or bad one. and on the surface it’s hilarious that they’re both so like. enthused to point out that he’s Average because typically when people respond to a claim of a characters badness with the level of immediacy they both did it’s a rebuttal of “no, this character is good actually.” but it was just to affirm that relvin did harm imogen, but not because there’s some aspect of his character that is inherently cruel or especially Bad. and like. yeah actually. yeah you should react like that to a claim that this average person who Has hurt someone, the way that nearly every single person has hurt someone in a way they cannot repair, with immediacy to say this person is a Person and thus imperfect and capable of great harm, but that isn’t some all encompassing judgment on their morality or capability to also do good or be fine.

anyway this is kinda just a rant post but also is just me saying i’m very grateful that when surrounded by a fandom that tends to paint characters as Good or Bad and even while using a game that can encourage that with its alignment system, cr has always told stories that see goodness as a persistent choice that might sometimes falter and that can be chosen even after a lifetime of Badness. i can’t remember exactly what the quote was so forgive me if it’s incorrect but when jester is talking to caleb after he claims he’s not a very good person and she says “good people do bad things sometimes. even bad people do good things.” that’s it! that’s one of the most consistent themes across campaigns. and yet.

[live-from-flaturn]

Here's How Kim Theerapanyakul Qualifies as a Greek Tragic Hero:

I accidentally came up with this thesis statement while chatting with @shou-jpeg (as per usual) and they encouraged me to expand on it... so here's the outcome of my academic fandom ramblings!

From page 17 of “The Poetics of Aristotle”, as translated by S.H. Butcher:

1. A perfect tragedy should, as we have seen, be arranged not on the simple but on the complex plan. It should, moreover, imitate actions which excite pity and fear, this being the distinctive mark of tragic imitation. It follows plainly… that the change of fortune presented must not be the spectacle of a virtuous man brought from prosperity to adversity: for this moves neither pity nor fear; it merely shocks us.

Layman's Translation: The perfect tragedy is complicated. No matter what story is used, the main emotional payout should be pity and fear for the Hero. In order to achieve this, you cannot simply punish a good man for no reason. Shock will not induce catharsis [emotional release].

2. Nor, again, that of a bad man passing from adversity to prosperity: for nothing can be more alien to the spirit of Tragedy; it possesses no single tragic quality; it neither satisfies the moral sense nor calls forth pity or fear. 

Layman's Translation: A bad man cannot receive good fortune. That goes against the entire point of tragedy and will only frustrate the audience further. 

3. Nor, again, should the downfall of the utter villain be exhibited. A plot of this kind would, doubtless, satisfy the moral sense, but it would inspire neither pity nor fear; for pity is aroused by unmerited misfortune, fear by the misfortune of a man like ourselves. Such an event, therefore, will be neither pitiful nor terrible.

Layman's Translation: The story cannot end with the downfall of an obvious villain. It satisfies the audience’s desire for justice but doesn’t leave them pitying the Hero or fearing the story’s eventual outcome. Once again, this ending would be void of catharsis/emotional release.

4. There remains, then, the character between these two extremes,—that of a man who is not eminently good and just,- yet whose misfortune is brought about not by vice or depravity, but by some error or frailty. He must be one who is highly renowned and prosperous,—a personage like Oedipus, Thyestes, or other illustrious men of such families.

Layman's Translation: 

A good Tragic Hero must: 

Be royalty or nobility (he might also come from a well-known or wealthy family).

Be morally grey (if he is too Good or too Bad it will prevent the audience from projecting onto him and achieving catharsis). 

Cause his own downfall or “catastrophe” by making a mistake (an extension of his Hamartia, or “error” / ”inherent flaw”).

So how does Kim fulfill the requirements of a Tragic Hero?

He is from a well-known family and has an image to keep in check. Because of his role as Wik/an idol, Kim must present himself as a kind or at least pleasant person to the general public. Much like Oedipus or Electra, Kim has an outward persona whose specific responsibilities play a role in his fall to hubris. 

a. As Kimhan Theerapanyakul he is required to do his father’s bidding on some level. We know he’s at least somewhat beholden to Korn from the scene with Tankhun screaming, “I don’t know where they [Porsche and Chay] have gone!”

2. Does it get any more morally grey than a guy willing to kill a dozen men in cold blood (with his bare hands) to protect his pseudo-ex-boyfriend? Or date an underclassman fanboy only to commit minor felonies against him/his family? Or go against his father (rebellion against the family is a BIG no-no in Greek Tragedy!!!) and attempt to escape the fate of his bloodline? 

3. I doubt this part really needs explaining… But trying to protect Chay by lying to his face and destroying their relationship, only to turn around and beg for Chay’s forgiveness via blatant musical plagiarism, is probably Hamartia at its finest.

4. It's Kim! He is "a man who is not eminently good and just,- yet whose misfortune is brought about not by vice or depravity, but by some error or frailty". His greatest loss is brought about by his own poor decision making and furious need for freedom/independence. His determined self-flagellation only ever hurts the people around him while we as the audience scream for him to stop. He qualifies for the Tragic Sadboy Squad!

[grimgrinningghost456]

✨Random headcanons that popped into my head, Hazbin hotel edition✨: Part 2 Electric Boogaloo

So today I decided to do the Eden trio and perhaps either Lute or Michael. I’ll decide for which angel when I get to the last person. Anyways, here we go!

Starting off with the literal man, the myth, the legend, the dick-master himself, Adam.

Adam🌿🍎🎸🪽: So Adam bounces around as far as roles go for me. I enjoy the idea of past Adamsapple/Guitarduck for an extra spot of angst. I kinda have Adam with the same loud and lewd attitude by the time he’s the head of Heavens army, but I gave him a little extra oomph. I headcanon that Adam has some ADHD and can’t sit still for two seconds and also can’t stop talking either. (Lucifer found it adorable when he and Adam first met) Lucifer was Adam’s pansexual awakening. While sometimes i feel like legit villain Adam is a toxic straight kinda guy, my take of a more morally grey burnt out Adam who fakes it till he makes it as a literal dick master. If it f*cks and it’s not somewhat morally ambiguous as far as what kinda creature it is, (demons, angels, (monsters?)) he probably has, will have, and will continue to have said person or creature race in his bed. He’s not really picky. He was actually in a polycule with Eve, Lilith, and Lucifer before shit hit the fan. It was nice but there were times where someone would fight the other to get a partner’s attention (mostly occurred between the humans trying to get Luci to pay attention to their little creative projects) Adam is a bear. You’ve seen my post, said post is true for my depiction of Adam and I’ll die on that hill. Usually he calls Lucifer as Helel, which was Lucifer’s name before the fall. The reason why he continues to call Lucifer by his original name bounces between, disrespect, spite, nostalgia, respect, (yes, he bounces between respecting and not respecting Luci) hatred, and love. It’s very confusing and Adam doesn’t wanna think about it. Sinner!Adam in my take is a goat-like sinner, but has some snake attributes such as a forked tongue, scales, and more personal additions I’ll let you freaks imagine. He is a little self conscious of the weight he gained over the millennia, but he gained the weight from the stress of hiding the exterminations. The older he gets the less he cares. Adam was actually allergic apples and pork when he was alive. It was an unsaid punishment after Eden. Now that he’s dead he can indulge and he DOES. I’ll end this with saying Adam either doesn’t know how, or physically can’t tuck his wings. So he has to apply deodorant onto them where they support his armpits or his wings reek. Especially after rock performances.

Now going onto technically the next two, the mother of earth, the root of all evil, Eve. (For this one, any headcanons and details on Eve will be green, her manifestation as Roo will be red. Please ignore the Christmas vibes :) )

Eve🌿🍎🌸🌼/Roo🍎🥀🔪🖤: So with Eve, I see her as a very shy woman. She still loves Lucifer, having been infatuated enough with the man to bite the apple. She has resentment towards Adam for sending Luci and Lilith to Hell, and she does have guilt for being the replacement for the first woman of humanity, so she sought Lucifer and Lilith out and became involved. Adam was involved as well before he felt betrayed. She loves to plant and actually has a good talent for making medicine from herbs while Adam took to hunting easily. This connection does bleed into the idea of hunters and gatherers for early existing humans. Eve is allergic to be stings after being kicked out from Eden. She could never really hate Adam but does hate the turn he’s taken personality wise. Roo absolutely hates Adam. She’s not a split personality of Eve so much as she’s the corruption that took over. She was always there in the back of eves mind, but their personalities and thoughts merged after Death. She still has an infatuation concerning Lucifer but it gets into the concerning side of things after rotting in hell. Potentially Charlie’s biological sire, not Lilith. She resents Lilith for her active role as Queen and movements against Heaven, resents Lucifer a tad for not making her his Queen, and hates Adam for blaming the apple thing on her. She proceeded to try to force feed him an apple so he’d go into epileptic shock. There was mixed results.

Ok, moving onto the Queen of hell and Lucifer’s top, Lilith Morningstar!

Lilith🍎🐍🐐🌙: Lilith never really hated Adam but the man would never let her top. Lucifer let her top all the time so that’s a plus right off the bat. I bounce between Lilith being an evil bitch who left Lucifer and Charlie, purposefully driving a wedge into a family, Lilith being head over heels for Luci and leaving to protect her family and hell from Adam and his girls, and being a sort-of friend with Luci who understands their love died long ago, but sees no point in having beef. And we have the version with radioapple in progress when she gets back. I do have the idea that Lilith has Alastor’s soul, so whether she has a positive or negative reaction to Al dating or being married to or screwing Luci, shit hits the fan regardless. Lilith is cold and calculating when she needs to be as well as promiscuous. She and Luci typically have an open relationships in the plots in which they’re still married but has a multiship going. Any version of an open relationship with Luci and Lilith is healthy and supportive in my book. She is actually Charlie’s dad (or is she?) on technicality. Luci carried Charlie. No matter what role Lilith is when she gets back to hell (villain, anti heroine, good guy, morally grey guy) she always wants to drag Luci to bed. Because she hasn’t seen her bottom in 7 years. Deer doesn’t appreciate this. (Luci may or may not appreciate it)

Anyways that’s all I got, I’m going to add an angel to this post but you can decide who

As always questions, comments, and thoughts are appreciated. I love discussions and debates as long as we’re polite and respectful of each others opinions!

[cringefaecompilation]

not to dunk on junior year again but i am noticing a pattern here with the treatment of certain storytelling elements here.

both bell’s hells and the ratgrinders were pcs that gained sapience. the difference is that the ratgrinders were villains and the hells are heroes.

one of the most love-it-or-hate-it aspects of campaign 3 is that it does not only focus on the main 7 or 8 characters and everybody else is tossed to the wayside unless they benefit them like usual. all npcs (with downfall, that's including the gods!) deserve a chance to have their story told and they are all written to be that. the generic runaway prince you have to help escape to a life of freedom! the cute little helper robot npc! generic spooky evil minions based on public domain monsters! the quirky quest-giving fae! the rough and tumble hired goon! the brave captain of the guard protecting a strong lady in charge!  yes, even imogen, who in any other story would be the sad little abandoned daughter of the bbeg who would mourn the hero killing her mother but understand that the hero had to do what needed to be done.

and again, you don’t have to like it!

but there is a weird sort of thing i noticed amongst all the critical role c3 criticism that reminded me of people defending fhjy. an undercurrent of insisting that all the ratgrinders (who were teenagers. who were groomed and then murdered.) were pure evil spoiled brats and just wanted to be handed everything on a platter because they didn’t deserve what the main cast earned their place as the main characters and made passive aggressive posts saying things to the tune of you know they’re evil right. very Watsonian with a staunch refusal to look at a Doylist explanation. it got so bad to the point where people were insisting that if you liked the ratgrinders and sympathized with them then you were a fascism apologist.

astoundingly enough c3 criticism has only scraped the surface of this sort of overdramatic accusation, but it goes in the opposite direction. if you like where the story is going and how it's being told, then you’re not a real critical role fan. the story should have just been about the characters fighting evil fae or just wiping out the ruby vanguard and everyone in it without all this stupid introspective discussion on power because it’s retconning the gods being bad guys! grey morality sucks, why can’t good guys just be good? they all feel like npcs except for imogen because she’s the only one with a chosen birthright!

(of course, if they say that last part out loud, that might not look so good for them)

 yes, we know the gods are imperfect. that’s what we’ve been saying this whole time. but all these passive aggressive gifsets of liam-as-orym saying that the gods aren’t pure evil and it’s stupid to think so or laura and matt ooc saying that the gods have a grey area don’t mean fucking jack if you turn around and insist the gods have zero flaws and everything they do is good, actually and Aeor Had It Coming.

important caveats:

the actors on d20 could not react to things they were doing in the moment. they were tired after filiming 3 episodes back to back and wrapped up their season faster than usual to join the sag-aftra strike. i am aware of this.

yes i know that d20 is a comedy improv series! that does not prevent it from having deep themes and character introspection! ayda aguefort and zelda donovan still very much exist and had their own arcs despite being npcs!

yes the ratgrinders were working with a man trying to kill and replace a goddess and yes he is a colonizing twat. however, doesn’t that also make it the fandom’s insistence that liking the kids is bad and fascistic but making ship art of him and the other teacher that killed all of them is totally okay? rules for he but not for thee? 

[amaltheas-garden]

You’ve really put so succinctly why Dany is my favorite despite being a dark Dany believer. I love tragedy I love doom I love when the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Her arc has been set up so beautifully and her peacefully ascending and ruling happily is just something I don’t think George would ever write based on his criticism of Tolkien. George also clearly loves tragedy. It’s a shame that discussing Dany with any sense of nuance and analysis of George’s actual themes has to be classified as “anti dany.” She’s my favorite character! I’m not anti Dany in the slightest! Cersei is also a huge favorite of mine. But people are somehow able to handle nuance in Cersei (well, more than with Dany) and can acknowledge that she’s tragic and sympathetic despite also being despicable and doing unforgivable things

Thank you so much <3 I definitely agree Dany won't likely get a smooth-sailing happy ending on the iron throne. There are so many similarities in how the fandom treats Cersei and Dany! I think Cersei gets a lot more sympathy now than when the books/show started, but Dany discourse sort of devolved into she was always an evil tyrant who loved killing people vs she's the savior who can do no wrong and grrm will make her the god empress of the universe in ADOS after the show fumbled her arc so bad. The most innovative part of Dany's narrative on grrm's part is that we the audience will be more upset when Dany dies despite her, for lack of better phrasing, turning to the dark side. Usually authors who write "morally grey" characters do so in a way where they don't make the character do anything too bad so the audience will stop liking them, or they give a villain a few appealing qualities, while still having their actions be firmly rooted in the "bad" camp. If Dany does burn KL, that action alone puts her beyond redemption, yet we've followed her entire journey and seen the immense amount of good she's been capable of. Dany's death I think is supposed to be the climactic tragedy of the series, in which the most classic high fantasy trope of the good guy defeats the ultimate big bad guy and we all clap and cheer is turned on its head. Grrm does not reward violence, he does not justify revenge, and he makes a point of denying the audience the satisfaction of violence being inflicted onto any character, no matter how deserved we think it is. So even though Dany takes the narrative place of the final villain, her death will be somber and tragic rather than a victorious moment. Someone who tried so hard to be good but was ultimately corrupted the same as everyone else in the endless machine of war, fighting over a throne that everyone hated sitting on anyway.

The anti tag imo is meaningless 😅. It could mean literally anything from "I dislike how the writers handled this character's arc" or "I dont have a problem with the writing I just really hate this one fking character" and of course analysis of a character that paints them in a negative light (with the assumption it was done intentionally by the author) which goes against the popular interpretation of said character. I think Dany is a phenomenally written character, but a lot of her fans don't like the dark Dany theory (completely fair) so I tag it as anti for filtering ease.

[inconspicious-random-thoughts]

I get the feeling that Lilith will be a morally grey character at the end of the day. She genuinely lives Lucifer, Charlie, and potentially her people and wants to do right by them. However, I get the impression that Lilith is of the opinion that she's the only one who knows what's best for her loved ones and as such can be something of a control freak towards her family to keep them on the "right" path. We're getting these hints that Lilith may have deliberately kept Charlie and Lucifer from actually getting close to each other (assuming that it was actually Lilith and not Eve playing the part as others have theorized) to prevent Charlie from inheriting her father's "weakness". I also get the feeling that Lilith's manner of raising her daughter may have stunted her emotional growth and prevented her from understanding Sinners on a deeper level, contributing to Charlie's initial inexperience and naivete when pursuing her dreams. Her intentions are good, but her execution is flawed at best.

Hello again my friend,

I get the feeling that Lilith will be a morally grey character at the end of the day.

I agree. She probably the end justify the means type of gal. She may not agree or like the means but willing to sacrifice to achieve the desirable goal for maximal impact for what believe is good.

I'll be fine with her being a grey character. That's when characters are most interesting. Usually this type is my favorite character beside the anti hero or tragic villain.

She genuinely lives Lucifer, Charlie, and potentially her people and wants to do right by them.

I completely believe Lilith 100% love Lucifer and Charlie. I'm going to laugh my ass off when the fans who think she the worst and suddenly she becomes "best mom and wife" because of season 2. But I understand why fans think poorly of her. She is painted pretty terrible right now but I firmly believes its intentional for the fake out that she, in fact, loving. That her absence is her sacrifice to protect those she love. She may not win best mom and wife but I think she is doing her best with whatever circumstance they are in.

She must be warm and loving. Their are so many family portraits (including the pilot) of them being a happy loving family. Lucifer still wears his wedding band after Lilith been gone for years. Charlie still trying to contact her mom for advice. Charlie misses and wants Lilith back. Charlie willingly following her mother footsteps because she believes in her mother's dream that became hers in her own way. These are fond memories and feelings.

Granted these are not proof. It can be a facade, denial and depression. A desperate grasp to pretend the family is better then fine before accepting its not. But I don't think that's the case, its genuine. No one talks ill about Lilith at all in the show. I do find it odd, Lucifer never talked about her but his appearance is brief. I also think he knows exactly where she is and why she's gone. It was a necessity to ensure everyone safety,probably. As Charlie put it "something important" a greater cause. I know she delivered that line in a hopeful manner, to explain her mother absence. But I think its pretty on par. Charlie just been kept out in the dark about it.

I get the impression that Lilith is of the opinion that she's the only one who knows what's best for her loved ones and as such can be something of a control freak towards her family to keep them on the "right" path.

I get that. I can even see the reasoning for Lilith to be so if that's the case. We met Lucifer, oh, he so silly and loveable! Which, I'm sure Lilith adores about him. (me too) But...he not responsible. He pretty much ignores issues hoping they somehow solve themselves. *cough LocksHimselfAwayInHisPalaceMakingDucksForYearsNotDoingAnythingElseOrMakesAttempts cough* It already said that Lilith pretty much had to step up and take the active leading role of their kingdom. I think its safe to say, it also applied to their family.

I assume Lilith was the responsible one. Especially when it came to Charlie. Lilith was the one that kept Charlie somewhat on schedule with feeding, sleeping, bathing, the one that says no, etc. While Lucifer just was the fun parent, and made messes with her and play with her, share dreams and imagine together. Lucifer just being a big kid with a little playmate.

I can also envision why Lucifer and Lilith believe Lilith way of things may be correct. Lucifer was basically outcasted by Heaven for his creations, soon after, sent to Hell for the apple debacle. As far as Lucifer sees, his choices generally seem to be the incorrect one. Then eons, of seeing the worst product of his choices as they steadily fall into Hell. I can understand if he wants to wipe his hands clean and just let Lilith take the reigns of everything.

I can also understand why Lilith could be a control freak. She was made of the same materials as Adam yet instead of being treated as an equal, she was made to be subservient to Adam. I can see why she may want to be in control when she was pushed towards to not have any. Then she gained the role of queen to fulfill. I don't think she power hungry and wants to be in control, but is a product duty but also of fearing to be treated/becoming inferior when she should be equal or superior. But after being in control for so long, its hard to give up. A lesser version of its her way is the only way. She had things running relatively smoothly. She didn't want something to unbalance it. Especially after multiple thousands of years of effort to achieve it.

We're getting these hints that Lilith may have deliberately kept Charlie and Lucifer from actually getting close to each other (assuming that it was actually Lilith and not Eve playing the part as others have theorized) to prevent Charlie from inheriting her father's "weakness".

I honestly view that scene from "More than Anything" so differently from everyone that I'm sure I'm wrong. But my first take from that scene was...Lilith putting Charlie to bed . Charlies little heart and music note dress look like a nightgown to me. She was peeking at Lucifer to possibly say goodnight. Lucifer use his magic to tell a (bedtime) story and Lilith pulled Charlie away because Lucifer got carried away with his story telling and kept Charlie up longer by that.

But in rewatch it does look like Lilith was pulling Charlie away from a depressed Lucifer. Who knows, maybe there's more context to it because we haven't been given it yet. Maybe, just spitballing here without too much thoughts, Lucifer was depressed because he was weighed heavily by threats on Heaven? Anticipated or actually given already. Charlie looked young in the flashback. Maybe, Heaven had just learn, or inevitable will learn about Charlie existence despite the Morningstar best attempts to keep it quiet. Would Charlie be techanly the antichrist? A child of the devil? Does it matter if she a girl. This universe is only inspired not biblically accurate. Heaven, probably not to thrilled if that's the case learning about Lucifer having a child. Perhaps, even surprised he had one...can angels have children?

Maybe, there was a secret prophecy about Charlie and Lucifer was feeling conflicted about everything. Lilith needed to pull Charlie away from Lucifer so Lilith can raise her properly to fulfill it? Stop Heaven? Defeat Roo? Create a whole new balance between all realms? Lucifer afraid of this and wants Charlie no part of this while Lilith treated it as inevitable so she trying to get Charlie ready vs Lucifer denial about everything.

Who knows. I personally still view it as the innocent, Lilith getting Charlie away from daddy who was getting her excited, to bed :D

I also get the feeling that Lilith's manner of raising her daughter may have stunted her emotional growth and prevented her from understanding Sinners on a deeper level, contributing to Charlie's initial inexperience and naivete when pursuing her dreams. Her intentions are good, but her execution is flawed at best.

Charlie definitely been sheltered, but I think that's more Lucifer doing with his distaste of Sinners and their predicament of Hell. Charlie went to school which was only of hellborn I believe. I think Charlie interaction of Sinners was very minimal until she was old enough to be on her own. Lucifer was probably very protective about Charlie. Charlie isn't fortunate enough to be raised in Heaven or Earth...she get to be raised in Hell. One where she royalty and probably considered a target. Charlies social interactions were most likely very limited in general "for her own protection" and the ones she did take part of, was with families that Lucifer trusted.

Sinners to Charlie was probably how one wants to experience a culture that they admire. Something you can't really truely be a part of but want to dive into.

Her mother is consider a Sinner, and she loves her mom. Her mother wanted to do right of her people. Charlie wanted to follow suit. With Charlie minimal interactions of Sinners she probably figured they are all similar to her mother, who she loves. Charlie starting to be on her own, just simply doesn't know how hard life can be for most people.

I think all the Morningstars are like that. They just don't truly grasp how difficult life can be. They are all powerful with little to fear. They are the tippy top of the food chain. Lucifer can poof anything he want to existence. When Lilith was alive, there was no society. Just Adam then later Eve before being cast down to Hell. Lucifer shutting himself away from most of Hell. Mangling with Hellborne...and I assume thats with "high class" so the royalty and high class demonborn.

Lilith probably has a better understanding as she implied to be more charitable with causes and interacted with Sinners. She probably has some idea with talking and taking in the troubles of Hell as an active Queen. But she doesn't have the experience to know how terrible it is. Like someone saying they have a toothache but not understanding how much they hurt.

That's based on a true story btw. I had someone complain about a toothache but I assume it was a dull ache...but constant. As I never had one before and I thought he was being a big baby. Then I realized how incredibly crippling the pain is when I eventually experienced one. Boy, I got humbled when I reflected back at that moment when I dismissed the other pain.

Anyways, I'm rambling per usual. I think hopeful and dreamer Lucifer is responsible for most of Charlies stunted growth but Lilith also had a role. They both shelter her. Charlie just see mostly her parents who just act lovey dovey with each other and typically happy. So, Charlie really had to base society off of them. Lucifer probably trying to overcompensate by damning them to Hell and use his magic to literally sprout puppies and rainbows and sparkles for them. Lilith was probably more of a realist and down to Earth (Hell?) while probably sugarcoating lightly. Lilith has her own dreams but is probably more sensible and reasonable. Pair that with being warm and loving mother is why Charlie usually seeks her missing mother for advice over her father who not missing but absent.

[parkcivanon]

WORDS CANNOT DESCRIBE HOW HAPPY I AM RN AFTER READING UR SIMULATION FICOMG,,,,,,,,, Like !! After watching mc but it's a simulation, it has been my new hyperfixation alongside park civ but the thing is it doesn't have nearly as much content. God I wanted a fic so bad I literally scrolled through all 18 pages of park civ tag just to find a sim fic.... UNTIL I SAW UR FIC AND I WAS LIKE OMG A SIM FIC??!???? And I didn't even realize you were the park civ anon cuz I was in such a hurry to read and God it singlehandedly became my fav fic,,, like your writing style is so satisfying and the flow is AMAZING BUT my favorite part is definitely your characterization of simEvbo.... He's so angry but in such a evbo way I honestly think this is what he would have been if he had been more fleshed out in canon. The inner dialogue is great hehe I love him he's full of issues and desperately need therapy<3

Also normally im more of a evbo fan than a seavbo but the bit with simSeavbo's dynamic is *chef's kiss* you really scratched the itch I never knew I had in my brain here..

(in the interest of not having this post be unreadably long, the second ask as well as my response is under the 'read more'.)

ALSO ALSO,, I actually read most of your fics so after the simfic I decided to give the amongus au a go since I usually don't read smut but your writing is just so nice I needed more... I loved the setting and the characters esp clown pierce and AJ which is very unusual (I never rlly liked antagonists😭) but your characterization is by far my favorite. I never knew I needed a morally grey villain where they r evil but not in a flat evilevil way ykyk,.. AJ was honestly such a refreshing character since you def fleshed him out from canon! Same goes to clown pierce but he is def less evil and mysterious than in canon since I assumed he and the old man never has a fall out. Tbh I was actually expecting clown pierce to idk.. do something mischievously evil and villain worthy but instead he actually became quite nice?? And sweet?? Ok yea I definitely prefer your choice more now that I think about it

hellooo :). there are more sim fics? i couldn't find any others but i only gave the tags a cursory glance.

thank you! simulation evbo has quickly become one of my favourites because i am a wee bit of a sucker for the evil alternate self trope (as well as some good ol' religious theming...) he should go to therapy, but he'd probably end up giving the therapist a crisis.

i think on some level seavbo has a large impact on both parkour civilization evbo and simulation evbo, romantically or otherwise; seawatt is a significant character in both, to the point where it's difficult to begin to describe evbo without describing him in relation to seawatt (this is more of an issue with parkciv evbo.)

anyway, onto the next half of the ask; the among us au is honestly something i still think about. i think clownpierce's character in canon is heavily influenced by the severe isolation he experiences, and this is represented in the au by his reclusiveness at the start; evbo hardly manages to speak to him until nearly halfway through, i believe.

clown's character is extremely divergent and this is something i'm aware of: i was considering having him be worse, but having him as direct foreshadowing for seawatt's arc almost felt like divine inspiration, as well as having his grief and how he reacts to it be a parallel to evbo's; you'll notice both of them immediately isolate themselves, and both of them fall back on their work as escapism.

i wasn't expecting this response to be mostly about clownpierce, but: you'd be right in assuming they never fell out. their 'falling out' is moreso tied to the old man's literal 'falling out' from life. clownpierce is only an antagonist in the sense that he is intentionally a misleading character: having the main antagonist be one of 'the good guys' is a bit of a red herring, no? :)

aj's character was mostly extrapolation from seawatt's, and he exists as a direct foil to him for that reason. most of what he does is in direct opposition to what seawatt would do, and generally i've characterised him with that in mind. where seawatt would probably go out kicking and screaming he goes with a great deal of grace, and where he is needlessly cruel seawatt is gentle; though they share a good amount of traits too, the most notable probably being their sense of pride.

tl;dr: thank you for the compliments lol... sorry to use your ask as an excuse to talk about among us au's characters and how i decided to develop them in new context, but i'm not really. ty again! <3

[ilynpilled]

im sorry for complaining about this again and im gonna remain frustratingly vague as usual but to me it feels like there are some fundamental misunderstandings when it comes to jaime and some of the things that are being explored in depth in his arc and how, and a lot of that misunderstanding is deflected with the “redemption vs no redemption” discourse where that very concept isnt even meaningfully defined, especially in the context of his story. his character is very often simplified down to an extreme (and also confused) dichotomy that does nothing but force all discussion of complicated characterization, themes, and actual difficult choices being made (and why, and how those choices are restricted by external or internal factors, and what desires of his are selfish or commendable) to a halt by virtue of being frustratingly reductive. like a lot of ppl just dont engage with this character properly because of the “complex asoiaf characters being locked inside of fandom created boxes they dont fit” phenomenon. one of the greyest characters in asoiaf is just not allowed to be grey because of the redemption dichotomy. he either has to be a golden retriever with no agency of his own when it comes to the evil he does or enables who is only making selfless choices since jumping into the pit (as if this kind of simple linear trajectory is a requirement for an arc to be one thats exploring reformation and the struggle with atonement & redemption, among other things) or a morally black villain with all of his redeemable and heroic aspects diminished, whose difficult position of being in the middle of a lot of conflicting oaths that is full of moral grey area (so many vows speech) and cannot be made to compromise — as well as his house (including his 8 year old son) being under existential risk — is just outright ignored, his internal conflicts, guilt/shame, and self reflection misconstrued, his development denied, and everything he decides to do being read in bad faith to neatly fit a specific narrative that actively rejects the questions proposed through his character arc (that the author himself openly talks about in interviews, if you still refuse to believe it is the intention). and please stop acting like george is even trying to give you a straightforward easily digestible and resounding yes/no answer to these questions. like theres an actual allergy to complexity here, and i cant even act shocked when i see some of the most basic aspects of his character being missed. and for me it is especially easy to recognize when certain talking points are being regurgitated rather than actually thought about meaningfully or independently bc ive seen every opinion on him under the sun, and it is really not that hard to spot

[isagrimorie]

I'm a huge Agatha lover, have loved her since Wandavision and one of the things I love the most about her is the fact that she's this charismatic funny tragic evil character. Emphasis on the evil. Or at the very least villainous and moral grey for many, but I thought we all agreed that she was no hero.

So one thing that's been bothering me a bit now and I think has caused many negative reactions to some of the things that unfolded in the show is that for some reason people still refuse to see or accept that part of her. They continue to baby her and excuse her.

Which is the one thing I wish had been more explicit on the show (even though for me it was clear). She's a serial killer, she's a witch killer and she doesn't have any regrets about it. She liked it. I have seen SO many comments after the finale saying how she obviously only killed witches to keep Nicholas alive and to keep Rio happy and then that she did it to keep Rio away from her but hat she always did it against her will and that's why she hates Rio and I'm just here wondering where the hell are people getting these conclusions from?

Is she more complex that just an evil villain? Yes. But c'mon, people can't just come here and try to paint her as the victim of her story. Justifying every single one of her actions and putting the blame in something or someone else. Where's the fun in that?! Her being a big evil mess that's still so lovable is what makes her character interesting and original! Especially being a non straight woman since those traits are usually given to cis white men.

Anyways, I don't even know if you think the same, I just read your tags about her being a witch killer and was so glad that at least someone was acknowledging that!

I think I see what you mean and I sympathize! I also think I know why some people see it the other way because a lot of stories, especially in Marvel revolve around redeeming the bad guy until they’re palatable.

I’ve even fallen for it, even if I love that they never sand off Agatha’s rough edges. I’m actually kind of shocked how much Schaeffer kept Agatha as a bad guy with a heart.

Agatha is someone the Doctor from Doctor Who once described as on a bad guy, who, once in a while happened to be kind.

Schaeffer once said she never really wanted to put a big bad on WandaVision but Kathryn Hahn happened and here we are. I think Schaeffer finally did what she set out to do.

Have the main protagonist be the both hero and villain of her own story. She loves that stuff.

Schaeffer loves herself a complicated morally gray lady.