#interaction: beholdenning

[bxldrsdraumar]

What Do You Have In Your Mouth? Drop It

There’s been an uptick in monster sightings in the Sealed Forest, coinciding with the decline of wildlife in the area. Crest stones found in animals’ mouths and embedded in their skins confirm the Church’s suspicions: bad actors, likely Agarthans, are turning these beasts into vicious monsters. One of the Knights of Seiros has plenty of experience with the Agarthans’ tricks. She’s asking for volunteers to help her gather whatever Crest Stones they can find and put the infected wildlife out of their misery.

(starter for @beholdenning)

He had not been active long before word had begun to spread: there was something wrong with the animals in the Sealed Forest. Or rather, not animals - monsters. Sigurd didn't have much experience with monsters, save those in the hearts of men, but he knew that an upset in local wildlife would very surely lead to an upset with the people, regardless of the cause.

Sigurd had been happy to volunteer his services for this mission - it felt good to be working amongst a group again to achieve a goal, and he was happy to forge camaraderie with his fellow knights in any way that he could. And given his proclivity for hunting when he was a teenager, this seemed a natural fit for him.

He could not say quite the same for his partner, a knight that had worked their way up from the bottom. He had been told that the knight did not speak - much - nor behave in a way that was quite usual. He had been told they were responded to Denning (well, he had been told they responded to anything with appropriate eye contact, but a name was important, he thought).

"Denning, is it?" Sigurd smiled, reaching a hand out to shake. "Well met, my friend. I believe I've seen you about the monastery. It will be good to get to know you as a comrade."

The other knight with them was a woman named Nessie - a friendly knight with her hound Lockie, whom Sigurd knelt to scritch under his chin before greeting Nessie as well. "We thank you for your hard work in this matter, my lady. I should hope that we are able to find a way to rout this issue at its source."

[sayhwaet]

Seminars are encouraged at the monastery. They help others learn from their peers while strengthening friendship at the same time. Well… most seminars. This seminar, on the other hand, is on… the basis of keeping one’s composure? That’s what the paper says, after all. “Learn how to withstand interrogations that may test your emotional and physical strength.” What wasn’t included in the description was that the instructor would attack you the moment you arrived at the meeting place! By their words, they’ll chase you and your partner through a booby-trapped forest to raise the tension, but if you’re caught… Well, they only smile at you and count down. [Grants Sword +1]  (starter for @beholdenning and @fangedjustice)

Well, this was just spooky as shit, wasn’t it? 

He knew this fancy school took its learning more seriously than some, and had the resources to deliver on its promises, but when he'd heard about this composure and survival seminar, he'd been expecting something in a classroom, delivered by one o' them bishops with a stiff upper lip and a stick in his ass. 

Beowolf swiped at the fog before him, frowning a bit before he shifted his weight forward. 

He had not expected for them to be carted to the middle o' damn nowhere in bumfuck Aed, with the mist curling in close to his body and the branches reaching toward him like grasping fingers tugging at his tunic. Truly some bogeyman shit you told a child to keep them from wandering too deep into the black woods alone. 

His partner for the time being was of a hardy sort, same as he – the kinda man who'd taken some licks, but had dished 'em out just the same. Surely didn't need the composure – from what he'd seen, Lloyd was methodical as hell, with them wolf-eyes o' his. 

But their pursuer... he'd seen neither hide nor hair of the thing, man or woman, since they'd ridden into the woods and their mounts taken back to the monastery. Hadn't heard 'em, neither – nor, it seemed, had any of the animals, chittering happily as they did, scattering only when Beowolf and Lloyd moved through the crackling underbush cautiously. 

Beowolf cocked his head, shifting to a crouch and turning so his partner could better see the hand signals he was making – Agustrian, sure, but there had to be some level of universality to the gestures, yeah? 

Scope around, quick scout. Find its location first, then skedaddle. 

Stop Shaving, You Don't Have a Beard

[deepseamuse]

it's kind of funny how I'm aroace and generally avoid romance and sex in fiction, but the first time I really felt connected to a character in an IF he was the horniest I've seen an RO so far

[blaiddllodi]

The motions of the knight were unlike any that Dimitri had ever seen. Guided and stiff, as with a marionette, but instead of rattling, unsteady movement it was rigid, mechanical and…almost graceful. Dimitri attempted to shuffle his cards to mimic the precision of the other, but his clumsy hands were not made for this sort of work.

The cards were shuffled, in the end, and the deck was placed neatly in its allotted slot on the playing field. At the other's cue, he too drew the five beginning cards, and then silence settled upon them.

For half a moment it was the same sort of tension as before a true battle, where the time stilled around them and Dimitri knew nothing but the wind that carded gently through his hair. The calm before the storm, it had always been called, and in spite of the mundane circumstances, Dimitri found his pulse jump.

He coughed, smiling a touch awkwardly. That was silly, this was no real battle. They were merely two comrades, playing a game…

"Er…shall I go first then?" Waiting for a response, Dimitri's hand moved to the top of his deck and he drew another card. A beast card, though alike to the warrior from earlier, it required specific conditions to be called forth.

"I…will set this card down defensively, and then I will set this arcana tool." Not a bold opening statement, but a safe one - if the knight elected to attack his defensive wall, then there may be some blowback from its high defensive power. Or so he hoped.

fym the cards have hearts? // dimitri + denning

[service-animal-shadow]

god. i really am just some little cartoon hedgehog, sometimes.

[maximumzombiecreator]

It's such a shame for the entire TTRPG industry that actual plays are both one of the biggest on-ramps for new players and also such a bad representation of TTRPG playing in general. It makes it so that the hardcore TTRPG nerds are barely interacting with one of the main recruiting grounds for players.

I just feel like we'd be less beholden to Hasbro's shitty monopoly if fewer players were getting their expectations from improv comedians, and more of them were learning from transsexuals with several terabytes of itchio pdfs and strong opinions on which folklore creatures are most fuckable.

[shorthaltsjester]

so, so many thoughts about ashton’s words and position re the gods but nothing really struck me as much as “i’d like to see them pray to us.” (or whatever the exact wording is) because yeah, that’s extremely ashton, that’s the same attitude of a person who has been hurt and broken by life in an unfair manner and tried to absorb a shard because they thought it would fix it, ignoring all warnings that it would make it worse, and then insisting it wasn’t about power, despite the fact that it explicitly was about power — the power to render their life fair. it becomes increasingly clear every time that ashton opens his mouth that, along with being an incisive translation of certain kinds of punk politics to exandria, ashton is more set on vengeance than justice, even if he insists his motivation is that the gods are a source of injustice, it seems more like what he admitted after the shard: he’s spent his life looking for someone to blame, and while he’s happy to hate himself, it took a while for them to realize they were an agent in their own story, culpable for the life they’ve lived. ashton looks at the gods and sees a metaphorical vehicle of all the harm and hurt and pain that’s befallen him due to people in positions of power and cannot (or refuses) to see that a) the gods position isn’t actually all that powerful without the mortals who choose over and over to fulfil divine will for good or evil or in between and b) the gods already have a relationship to mortals that is akin to prayer.

and this is all extremely in character, as much as a lot of ashton’s comments echo many a political stance that makes me roll my eyes, it’s always with an attitude of yes of course ashton would say that. what is mildly more irritating (or perhaps concerning) is the readiness with which aspects of the audience concur with ashton’s assessment, when we have seen countless interactions of gods with mortals that shows us that the gods, though not actual prayer, have a very similar kind of belief in mortals that they ask of those who believe in them. like, vox machina had two episodes dedicated to talking to the gods, where it was revealed that the everlight didn’t just know pike but has beholden to her as the one who brought her back into import. where vex proved herself to pelor not just through completing his challenge but by having long been an imperfect but true source of good for the family she’s chosen that they convinced pelor that vex was a suitable champion by pointing out that she has earned several of their belief, she protects the same city pelor blessed with the sun tree, she’s protective and protected, and her heart and her intelligence are equally sound when it comes to her ability to make judgements, (all things we’ve learned since c1 are important to pelor) resulting in pelor deciding he would also believe in her. where ioun pointed out that while she keeps all stories, scanlan is a storyteller, and what could she possibly cherish more than that.

each god when vox machina spoke to them was quick to correct them when vox machina suggested things like their paths being determined or their lives being beyond their control or the world being down to the will of the gods. vex apologizes to the everlight for not realizing that the gods were really beings and she tells vox machina that she doesn’t ask for the belief of all, only those who wish to give it, as the gods chose to give mortals the ability to choose as they wish upon anything, including their faith in the deities. when vox machina asks pelor to whether they should do something with vecna’s eye, he insists that they make the decision whether they’d like to destroy it or use it — he will help however they decide, but he insists it’s on them to choose the outcome. they speak with ioun, who knows their and every story, and she tells them that the gods do not choose the individual fates of mortals, it is up to every person to choose who they will and will not be, and sometimes that guides them to places the gods have predicted, but never without the choices a mortal makes to arrive there.

the concept of belief throughout the three campaigns has been an complex and ever shifting one — as it deserves. in campaign 1, it’s largely in the context of coming to understand what it means to believe in gods when they obviously do exist, but what are you believing in, and why might you choose not to. in campaign 2, jester’s presence complicated things by pointing out that it isn’t just the divinity of the gods that earns them their power but that belief itself is a kind of divinity and with yasha, caduceus and fjord we see that the role of the gods isn’t just power-granting, it comes to be an essential part of many of those who follow the gods. and in campaign 3, we’ve seen both of those explorations come up but the difficulty is we have none of the perspective of someone who actually believes — even fcg was new to worship couldn’t offer much insight on what the loss of the gods might do to people who believe in the gods not because they grant power but because like jester they were lonely and the found a friend in one, or if like yasha they were lost and were saved by one, or if like fjord the asked for help and were aided by one. to be clear i don’t think this a weakness of the story being told — i think it’s a particularly interesting aspect of bh’s position, but i do think it weakens the perspectives of thinkers like ashton who haven’t even heard what a god means to some people, let alone taken seriously the pain that losing the gods would constitute for countless people.

so, ashton might be particularly charged against the gods — even to the point of being the only one to outright make a noise of disagreement when it’s brought up that while bells hells disagree on specifics, they all agree on saving the gods — and he has plenty of reasons to have that position that can easily result in the audience going, yeah, i understand why he’s made that judgement. but that is not the same as hearing what ashton has said and going (with all the knowledge we the audience have that ashton does not) “he’s right, actually” when there are two campaigns telling you, explicitly, “he’s not.” and this isn’t me saying things can’t be revealed that complicate or recontextualize knowledge from previous campaigns, i’m just saying that, thus far, if anything, campaign 3 (especially downfall) has only cemented the degree to which the prime deities have to believe in mortals.

truly the first thought i had when i heard ashton say his line about the gods praying to mortals instead was the fact that several of his party members received a vision from the raven queen asking for help, that fcg asked the changebringer if she was scared and she said yes, that earthbreaker groon looked at imogen and saw her self-doubt And the belief that bells hells has in her anyway and kord reached through him to tell imogen that she had the potential for greatness and that the gods are counting on her. the prime deities have long been praying to mortals, they believe in the power of mortals (for good and ill) — that’s exactly what downfall was about. the power that gods still have is entirely mediated by the mortals who believe in them, who choose to believe in them. the power of mortals does not have those bounds, and while that doesn’t mean they get to sling 9th level spells at will and multiply their damage by 10, it does mean that, in this particular moment in exandria, ludinus’ power is a much more likely (and, historically and contextually proven) source of injustice than the prime deities.

beyond the magic limitations and considering the ill-fitting metaphor of the gods as being a position of power in a sociopolitical sense, the distance of the gods means that if they want to manipulate people into maintaining their position, it’s quite difficult to do. in comparison with ludinus “cult tactics” da’leth, it strikes me as odd when the parts of the cr audience react to the prime deities doing things like . allowing mortals agency (which, as every existentialist writer ever has correctly pointed, out is both a burden and gift) as if it is actually a long-con manipulation or something.

anyway, TL:DR, ashton is an a interesting character whose beliefs and ideas make sense given his placement in the story and their experiences, but an audience who has seen campaigns 1-3 and says they agree with him with their whole chest should definitely consider either a) rewatching or b) taking a critical thinking or media literacy class

[calderosea]

Seminars are encouraged at the monastery. They help others learn from their peers while strengthening friendship at the same time. Well… most seminars. This seminar, on the other hand, is on… the basis of keeping one’s composure? That’s what the paper says, after all. “Learn how to withstand interrogations that may test your emotional and physical strength.” What wasn’t included in the description was that the instructor would attack you the moment you arrived at the meeting place! By their words, they’ll chase you and your partner through a booby-trapped forest to raise the tension, but if you’re caught… Well, they only smile at you and count down. [Grants Sword +1]  (starter for @beholdenning and @fangedjustice)

The lands in the territory surrounding Garreg Mach – the timbered Oghma Mountains, and the river valley towns that lay nestled safely under watch of the Fodlan Goddess – were quite different from her homeland. Where there her lungs felt flush with the air coming from the sea, here it was thin and tight, as though her lungs were perpetually reaching but could not quite grasp. The sunlight, too, when it shone in Brigid it hit her cheek as though the cupped hand of a friend, of family, the warmth seeping into her heart immediately – whereas here it was bright and distant, filtered through the clouds until it took on a silvery quality. 

Even the woods, though she felt comforted by the surrounding trees, fell still and silent, bereft of the clamor that the lush, dense jungle of home provided. 

Even so, as she moved through the underbrush she measured her steps, each footfall silent but for the barest shift of fallen conifer needles. 

Hunter, now hunted. 

It was a lesson in composure, those in attendance had been advised – to test not only one's ability to keep their wits about them in the blind tension of the chase, but also to remain calm when captured. 

She did not intend to be captured. 

Petra knew that she did not need to worry about her composure, of keeping her head cool in the face of danger – every day in this land was a danger, to her, to her people, and so she learned through experience quickly – and so instead took the opportunity to exercise a different skill she was well-practiced in. 

Wind from the south – birds silent. Laying in wait? 

She cocked her head, squinting through the blanket of fog that had settled heavily in the area, before turning back to the companion that accompanied her for the exercise – a knight, handsome, and with the wary gait of a swordsman. 

She shook her head, jutted her chin in the direction she believed their pursuer rested, unwilling to give the slightest sound. 

if it is bleeding, then we can be killing it

[in-case-of-grace]

Alternatives to "GM" in TTRPGs

Spurred by a recent post from @imsobadatnicknames2 that found its way into my feed by way of @anim-ttrpgs' addition (this post got too big to be a reblog sorry), I've been thinking about the influence of the terms we use for the host-and-narrator role in a TTRPG. Each tends to carry some connotations and implications as to what the role might entail, and these can influence how people play your game.

At best, this may enforce your intended roles for the game, alongside its themeing. At worst, your chosen term for this role may create false assumptions, and lead to people approaching it in a way that makes it unfun for them.

There's also an aesthetic component to consider! Having a term that matches your genre and vibe can go a long way! It's gonna be a balancing act— does the term change how people interact with your game enough to become a problem? Does it match and enforce your themes and aesthetics strongly enough to balance some of those problems out?

Below, I'm gonna go over a couple common (and uncommon) terms for this role and what I think their connotations, implications, and best usecases are here. These are gonna be beholden to my own biases, of course— and you may see different connotations entirely! Maybe it'll help folk think more about what terms they want to use!

---

"Game Master" is very gamey. It implies that this person is setting up a bunch of specific, pre-made mechanical challenges-- like an obstacle course. I will admit that it does have the weakest connotations of all the commonly used terms I'm aware of, though-- simply by virtue of it having become so commonplace across all sorts of games.

I think it works best with chunkier, mechanically heavy games. Due to it having a weak connotation, though, it won't hurt your game if you use it elsewhere, it is kind of the baseline these days, after all.

---

"Storyteller" implies that this person is sitting everyone down and telling them a story. Like putting on a play. There's an implication that they are going to be controlling most of the narrative here-- and that the players don't have as much say in it.

It's also technically incorrect, given that...well, the players are storytellers too! The point of these games is to tell a story together!

It can work for more narratively focused games, it has some lighthearted, cutesy vibes that can be a good fit for some-- but its connotations can lead to this person taking more control than you may actually intend for them to have in your game.

It's one that I don't think accurately fits a lot of games, and is chosen more for its aesthetics and vibes. (Something I have done before, and with time it bothers me more and more.)

---

"Narrator" is the opposite of Storyteller-- it implies, to me, that this person has less say in the narrative than the players. They are there to impartially narrate and describe the world's reactions to what the players do, little else. A passive observer, almost.

I think it can still work fine for plenty of games-- especially those with contemporary settings. It's the sort that, to me, feels more suited to sandboxy games that are more focused on providing a bunch of simulationist tools for players to poke and prod the world with, rather than on telling a structured narrative.

---

"Dungeon Master" is particularly genre-limited. It carries a lot of the same implications that GM does, but for fantasy games in specific-- especially dungeon crawlers.

Only making a special note of it here since it is tied to A Particularly Big Game in the community. Its connotations are much stronger than GM's, though, and it feels out of place in rules light games— unless they are specifically set in a dungeon.

---

"Director" is one that can have drastically different implications depending on the background of who reads it. If they're a film buff, they'll think it implies that this role has final say on everything, and retains high levels of control that the players do not share. Very much akin to Storyteller.

However if the person reading it is more familiar with video games, and the Left 4 Dead series (and games inspired it) in particular, they'll see the Director role as something more reactive and behind the scenes. They may think this person is responsible for improvising and presenting the players with challenges and scenarios that match their current situation— be it narrative or mechanical.

There may have been a specific plan made ahead of time, but it is filled with a ton of contingencies, with an expectation that improv will fill in the gaps.

Though like Narrator, the L4D type of Director implies a somewhat passive, observer role that isn't meant to have a say in the story.

I think most people will see it with film connotations rather than the Left 4 Dead connotations— which is unfortunate, considering that the L4D type of Director is actually really well suited for certain types of TTRPGs. I think "Game Director" vs "Director" may help alleviate this somewhat, but I'm unsure how effective it'd be as I don't think most people share the L4D brain association I do.

---

"Referee," "Arbiter," "Judge," and "Moderator" all share the same problem as Narrator-- but 10 times worse. These are all heavily laced in passive connotations-- and imply that this person is there simply to determine the outcomes of mechanical situations, but has no say in the narrative.

They can work nicely with like, sports or competition TTRPGs in specific, though.

---

"Master of Ceremonies (MC)" implies that you're not playing a game, but that this person is about to lead you through an awards ceremony, drop some bars, or host some stuffy 500 year old regal event called "the Ceremony of the Ballet Fish" or something.

I don't think this one fits in TTRPGs like, at all, frankly. I just cannot imagine someone in that role being referred to as an "MC" unless we're talking about a game that is specifically about a ceremony, or rap.

---

"Caretaker" implies that this person's role is to maintain and care for the world, game, and story. It implies that they not only facilitate the garden you're all playing in, but that they also trim or rearrange it to suit everyone's needs-- including their own.

I actually think this one is very nice. It doesn't imply that they're an absolute monarch, nor does it imply that they're a passive observer. It also manages to encapsulate the amount of background work the role can often require, without taking away their say in the resulting narrative.

A Caretaker has agency in the story, while remaining cognizant and receptive of the players' agency, too.

This works really well for games focused on telling collaborative narratives, but I think it can also work fairly well for mechanically focused ones as well. It feels pretty versatile!

This one is new to me and I honestly might start using it for my games going forward, unless someone knows of a common connotation I'm unaware of!

---

"Facilitator," and "Host" both imply that this person provides the space and tools for the game, and nothing else. They handed the players the keys, told them to lock up after they're done, and left to go do sick flips in their motorcycle or something nerds do.

To me, the term by itself implies this person has very little to do with the actual game. I don't think these work any better than, say, GM, without a thematic justification.

Host could be amazing for some sort of bio-horror game— or for a game show RPG. Facilitator feels DoA to me. Both, however, could work if your game really is set up so the Facilitator/Host just provides tools to the players and does little else.

---

"Guide" implies that this person takes on a fairly hand-holdy role in leading the players through the game and its narrative. Maybe not quite railroading, but they definitely do a lot to keep the players on track.

This one, I feel, carries some "teacher" connotation— as if this person is responsible for teaching the players the rules. It's on them, not the players, to read and remember the actual rules.

I feel that this connotation largely ruins what good this term could do.

But, it can still work well in certain cases. If your game really is meant to have a focused, linear narrative, it can work quite well. The same goes for specific genres or settings— such as anything dealing with camping, national parks, or tourism.

---

"Overseer" taken at face value, actually could be pretty apt. They'd be someone who oversees the game and does what they can to keep things fun.

Unfortunately, due to the word's use in workplace environments and dystopian fiction— it has some pretty heavy cultural connotations that turn it more into a dictator role. They have complete and total control over the game and its narrative, even if the players disagree with their choices.

I think it can work well for games that deal with dystopian or corporate settings, where this person might actually be meant to have more control, or simply for the flavor— but not a ton else.

---

"Producer" is vaguely similar to the film-style Director-- in the sense that it comes from film. However, unlike the Director, a Producer coordinates and works together with the players to tell their story. It's a more collaborative role that shares power and agency more evenly with the table.

This also somewhat accurately implies the amount of work that goes into the role, much like the Caretaker.

However, given its origins, it doesn't imply they're playing a game— I can't entirely explain why, but it feels similar to MC in this sense. The term is very heavily entrenched in its origins, and carries strong film connotations— even though, yes, video games have producers too!

I think it'd be rad to see games using this, though. In time the strong film connotations may shake off! Like Caretaker, I think it's fairly versatile and could be well suited for a wide variety of games.

---

Niche terms such as keeper, warden, overlord, president, deity, and fixer are always worth considering, too! These tend to just be one-offs used in a specific TTRPG, that suit their setting and tone in particular.

Now, each can and does have its own implications and connotations to consider— weigh those against how well it serves the vibes of your game before you lock in!

---

"Host and Narrator (HAN)" implies the same things that these terms do separately-- but combines them to offset (some of) their downsides. This implies that they host and provide the tools needed for playing the game, yes, but also that they actually stick around to narrate and respond to the players.

When Narrator is combined with Host here, I think this also transforms into something a little closer to the Caretaker— as the Host and Narrator both, they have more of an active role in maintaining the space (and story) they've provided.

It feels similarly versatile, as a result. I just made this one up and don't know if there are any games that use it already, it could have legs— it is a little dry and flavorless, though. This may give it a potential leg up on Caretaker, which does have a lil bit of a lighthearted vibe that may feel off in, say, a horror game.

---

Honorable mentions - Scenestress - Conductor - SOUP (Story Overseer United (with) Players) - Their Majesty - MOMMY (Mediator Over Making Mythic Yarns) - JOE (Joe Ojoe Ejoe) - Representative (REP) - Doormat

---

Again, these are all just according to the implications and connotations I find in these terms— you may find others! What you pick is going to depend on you, your game, and your intended audience!

I don't know if perfect terms exist, and it's wise to explain whichever you use within your rulebooks— just to ensure that someone else's biases and assumptions don't lead to them misinterpreting things.

Is there anything I missed? Any terms you like to use? Do you have a vastly different set of assumptions for one of these terms? Please share!

[dekariosclan]

Having watched Gale’s ‘Evil Ending’, read a few spicy takes, and thought about it for a bit, I just want to point something out: every time Gale has any interactions with the Heavens/Elysium/The Gods, be it in-game or as an alternate ending, it’s not good for him, and he’s never truly happy.

Of course the Evil ending is the most extreme version with him straight up hating the Gods and waging war, but in addition, there’s also:

Gale having suffered during his time in Elysium as Mystra’s plaything Chosen

Gale becoming God of Ambition, but losing his family/ Tav

Gale becoming God of Ambition and ascending Tav, but him still being insecure/unsatisfied with himself, and possibly destroying the Pantheon

Gale dying from attempting to be a God and failing to dethrone Mystra

Gale dying after following Mystra’s orders to detonate the orb (causing many to suffer if done in Act 2, the very thing Gale NEVER wanted to happen)

Gale becoming Illithid and then being taken to Elysium with Mystra, in a scene which has which has chemistry lower than the Mariana trench and is possibly the unsexiest thing I have ever seen

So, when people say that Gale should forgive Mystra, become her Chosen again (which is spoken about on the docks in the ending where he returns the Crown to Mystra), and that the Evil Ending shows this is a ‘good’ thing…I’m not seeing it.

In contrast, I could talk about the ending where he leaves the Crown in the river, the orb remains in his chest, and how that works out great—he’s not beholden to Mystra, he’s happy and satisfied with himself/Tav/his life which results in the orb being dormant, then later Mystra cures the damn thing permanently anyway, AND he gets to have a cool scar that keeps his students in check, and also definitely lights up when he’s horny for Tav, etc. etc.

But I’m gonna go one step further and talk about what happens when Gale goes to Hell. Yes, Hell. Literal, actual Hell, the farthest place from Heaven, which is what happens when he is romanced by origin Karlach and he goes with her to Avernus.

Remember how every iteration of Gale in Heaven results in him being unhappy in some way? Here’s Gale in Hell with his beloved Karlach:

He is happy as a clam!

Tara visits them frequently!

There’s even a f*cking bookstore!

In Conclusion:

If you want Gale to be truly happy, KEEP HIM AWAY FROM THE GODS.

[rjalker]

I'm not getting paid to review books, and neither are 99% of people who criticize media, and the bigotry within this media.

Saying that normal people just criticizing media for free in our own time should have to hold our criticisms to the standard set by a company that, above all, does not want to say anything to offend the authors, is not actually good advice for people who are actually concerned about criticizing the media for what it's doing wrong, which 99% of the time is bigotry.

If you want to advice other people who's job is to review books how to do their paid job well, then okay, but saying that everyone who criticizes media should restrict themselves to this Company Approved Method That Doesn't Offend Paying Authors is not going to work.

You are not doing media analysis better because you're doing it the way corporations approve of.

I used to work for a trade book reviewer where I got payed to review people's books, and one of the rules of that review company is one that I think is just super useful to media analysis as a whole, and that is, we were told never to critique media for what it didn't do but only for what it did.

So, for instance, I couldn't say "this book didn't give its characters strong agency or goals". I instead had to say, "the characters in this book acted in ways that often felt misaligned with their characterization as if they were being pulled by the plot."

I think this is really important because a lot of "critiques" people give, if subverted to address what the book does instead of what it doesn't do, actually read pretty nonsensical. For instance, "none of the characters were unique" becomes "all of the characters read like other characters that exist in other media", which like... okay? That's not really a critique. It's just how fiction works. Or "none of the characters were likeable" becomes "all of the characters, at some point or another, did things that I found disagreeable or annoying" which is literally how every book works?

It also keeps you from holding a book to a standard it never sought to meet. "The world building in this book simply wasn't complex enough" becomes "The world building in this book was very simple", which, yes, good, that can actually be a good thing. Many books aspire to this. It's not actually a negative critique. Or "The stakes weren't very high and the climax didn't really offer any major plot twists or turns" becomes "The stakes were low and and the ending was quite predictable", which, if this is a cute romcom is exactly what I'm looking for.

Not to mention, I think this really helps to deconstruct a lot of the biases we carry into fiction. Characters not having strong agency isn't inherently bad. Characters who react to their surroundings can make a good story, so saying "the characters didn't have enough agency" is kind of weak, but when you flip it to say "the characters acted misaligned from their characterization" we can now see that the *real* problem here isn't that they lacked agency but that this lack of agency is inconsistent with the type of character that they are. a character this strong-willed *should* have more agency even if a weak-willed character might not.

So it's just a really simple way of framing the way I critique books that I think has really helped to show the difference between "this book is bad" and "this book didn't meet my personal preferences", but also, as someone talking about books, I think it helps give other people a clearer idea of what the book actually looks like so they can decide for themselves if it's worth their time.

[5arcasmw]

i know this has been talked about before but I CANNOT stop thinking about solas saying "please, rook, I do not wish to fight you"

like???

this is a man who has constantly betrayed, injured, and even killed his closest friends and confidants over and over and over again for thousands of years. he killed (or tranquilized) his oldest friend and former general just because he said "hey maybe people deserve rights" and he practically killed one of the last remaining embers of the woman he used to love. the woman he used to be conpletely beholden to. the woman he literally BURNED OFF OF HIS FACE so he could have enough power to tear down the veil.

and yet

he still refuses to hurt rook, and only lays a hand on them out of pure desperation during the sacrifice/worst ending when he literally has no other choice.

AND EVEN IN THAT ENDING he could have just turned them to stone and plucked the dagger out of their hand like he did to their companions but he DIDNT

he wanted to see the old world restored with them. if rook wasn't there to see it too, then what was the point?

even if your rook has a primarily negative/hostile relationship with him HE STILL DOESN'T KILL THEM!! HE STILL WANTS THEM TO LIVE!!!

if it really came down to it, though, solas probably would have killed them in order to tear down the veil and "fix" his mistake, but i KNOW that rook's death would have been one of, if not his biggest regret.

idk... i just think it's really interesting how solas becomes so obsessed with rook in his own way, more than almost anyone else we've seen him interact with. he could have killed them at any time, turned them to stone as soon as elgar'nan was defeated, but he didn't. he wanted them to see the old world restored with him so badly that it inevitably lead to his downfall.

[cynthiav06]

Respectfully, did Percy Jackson even have any character development throughout the original series?

He doesn't have any flaws. He chose to take the prophecy from Nico, but he was always going to be the prophecy child.

He's good at the start and good at the end with no development unless you count being traumatised and depressed from a war as development, which it's not.

Not trying to be rude, sorry if I seem rude.

Worry not. It's a perfectly reasonable question and should usually be applied to most character studies. Also, buckle up. This is going to be long. Very long. It took me a while to get the time to post this and even more time to actually get my thoughts together. Like a lot of time. (To anyone who doesn't want to read the horrid mess of a post this is there's a partition at the end, after which all the most important points are summarized. ) Just skip to that, but hopefully, someone reads this whole thing because it took me eons to write.

I can see why you think that way, and it is contributed more so by Rick's absolute incapability of not recycling the dead horse that is the original pjo dynamics. He has inhibited character growth from almost every single character where all their epiphanies and character change in the end amounts to nothing, and they regress back to how they used to be, and any and all deviations their personality had are either dismissed or suppressed.

Percy is the victim of the latter. In the first book, he was a child, not particularly concerned with saving the world or being a halfblood. His life had been worse enough, and the halfblood situation had made it abysmal. Percy was living goal by goal. He wanted to get through the field trip, then through the semester, then through the Gabe interactions all so he could finally see his Mom, the one good thing about his life. Then that upends completely, and his only reprieve, the trip to Montauk, his safe place becomes the start of a series of grand tragedies in his life.

Sure, he stayed at the Camp, not willingly but for safety. He had nowhere to go, his life had been turned upside down, his mother was dead, and he wanted to go home, to have his mother back. He couldn't have cared less about the Gods and the world ending, but as soon as Chiron mentions Underworld, Percy is back on solid ground. He has a goal again. Get Sally back. He does everything to reach that goal. He fights monsters, prays to a godly father he refused to acknowledge beforehand, manipulate the press and the Gabe situation, bargain with immortal deities and such, and negotiate his way out of most of those bargains. All the while keeping in mind that he has a traitor to deal with, but Percy is the definition of "deal with one thing at a time. If it's not an immediate concern, it can wait." He does all that and is rewarded for it by being able to live, getting his mother back, and a taste of the life he has doomed himself to, and he almost seems to accept it. He even wonders if Camp Half Blood could be his home.

We see Percy do this throughout all the books. He is constantly changing his intentions, his goals, and his opinions on everything. He is also caught in his internal conflict of being with or against the Gods. The thing is, Percy has very little time for reflection as he is jumping from one existential threat to another, and yet he still manages to grow in the small ways. You need to see it individually book wise rather than over the whole series as Rick messes up terribly with character arcs and developments of literally every other character.

He begins by not caring about Poseidon's existence or his proximity, but in the end, he, too, is beholden to the intrinsic need of having a father. He, too, wants Poseidon to care for him like a father and is therefore hurt by being called a mistake. He knows Poseidon claimed him as a weapon against Zeus so he could rectify someone else's mistakes and restore Poseidon's reputation; who if not Percy would understand this manipulation the best? But the best lies are the ones you want to believe in, and so Percy keeps his silence because, of course, he wants to believe his father genuinely cares for him and loves him. Who doesn't?

He didn't want to be the hero, but by the end of the first book, when he is called one, he doesn't dislike the feeling. He accepts if only a little that this is to be his life now, and as the series progresses, he adds to the pros and cons.

In the Sea of Monsters he is very happy that Gabe is gone and it's just him and his mother again but by the end of it he has gained a new family member in Tyson and is very happy of the fact. He even manages to get over his initial hostility of Clarisse somewhat when he understands her situation.

Titan's Curse is all about Percy learning about the number of forces at play in the world of demigods. He tries to get along with the Hunters and Thalia; it doesn't work. He ends up almost losing Annabeth, someone who he considers a close friend by now. And so we see Percy spiral a little, show more of his anger issues as he interacts with Thalia or even Young Nico just after Annabeth falls from the cliff. Angry and impatient, he goes on his own quest.

I know most readers remember it as Percy, Annabeth, and Grover or the main cast always working together, but it's almost never like that. Somewhere along the way, Percy always ends up doing his own thing, which works because he best works on improvisations. It's Percy's plans that always end up working the most more so than Annabeth's. Just putting it out there.

Then it's just Percy having the worst month of his life. Annabeth is in mortal danger. No one seems to be hearing his opinions between Thalia and the Hunters. Then Bianca dies and Percy because he is Percy is completely and utterly guilty over it.

Note that Percy says he will do his best to keep Biancs safe and not outright promise to keep Bianca safe. But his non-existent self-esteem and other factors withstanding he blamed himself for it completely. Then Zoe dies, and Percy has lost yet another person he thought he needed to keep safe.

Percy is angry at the gods, but he is not surprised by their actions. But he is Percy, and he is determined to change the ways of Olympus, so he pressures the Council and his father to keep the Ophiptaurus, the very creature that threatens to topple their rule. It's his small was of rebelling, and Percy is always rebelling against the gods in his own way, almost never playing into their hands because as much as he despises Luke, he agrees with Luke too and unless he finds a better way to deal with the situation than what Luke is employing he too would have to one day follow in Luke's footsteps.

Now Percy, who trusts Chiron, even thinks of him as a secondary father figure realizes that Chiron for all his compassion for mortals and demigods will always in the end do the bidding of the Gods'. So he makes the snap decision to hide Nico's parentage from Chiron and from everyone else because Percy realizes no matter how much he loves or cares for certain people in his life, they are beholden to answer to a higher power he cannot gainsay, so he will have to take some secrets to the grave. He learns that in the end, some things he needs to shoulder himself.

And of course, the guilt of Bianca's death is no lesser, so he does the only thing he thinks can give him some relief from it. He takes the prophecy for himself, saving Nico and hoping it's enough to alleviate himself of this bile inducing sensation in his gut called guilt that is swallowing him whole.

Now, the Battle of Labyrinth is the most crucial. This is the book with maximum stress on Percy from all ends. From Sally dating Paul and Percy having to prove he is worth Paul's confidence in him in Goode, from Annabeth who is quite literally snippy and passive aggressive through the whole book either due to Rachel or due to her own prophecy even though Rachel and Percy are the two people who got them all out. Then there's the Nico situation. He knows Nico is spiraling, which is making Percy spiral and further strengthening his own guilt. And on top of all this, the Luke situation. Percy is literally caught between an enclosed space, with all four sides closing in on him rapidly while he is fending off mortal danger.

All this repressed tension is fully let loose when he explodes Mt. Helen's. And this is the tipping point. Percy wants to take the choice of Calypso's Island if only briefly and not because he loves her or anything of the sort but because it's his one escape. From everything from his own doomed prophecy. Yet again, Percy is trapped by his own fatal flaw. Personal Loyalty. So he chooses to carry out his responsibility because he has given himself no other choice.

If that wasn't enough of self-realization, he is faced with the horrifying realization of the devastation his power has wrought. His loss of control has single handedly released the greatest threat to Olympus. Hephaestus tells Percy he doesn't know the limits of his own, and by the gods, does that terrify Percy. Up until now, Percy knew his powers were dangerous, but now he knows that he is also dangerous; that he is the real danger. And it's not a reality he wants to ever confront, so he coils his power and holds it tight in a leash. (It's why Percy's burts of power always begin with an unraveling sensation in his gut or something breaking inside himself)

He is somewhat soothed by Poseidon's reassurance because not only does Poseidon not blame him, he also solidifies Percy's faith that he is doing the right thing. And if Poseidon sprinkles in the fact that Percy is the favorite child then who is he to deny himself the comfort of such sweet lies because, of course, Percy thinks it's a lie and of course Percy basks in it. He knows better than to trust gods, he knows better than to trust even his own allies because at the times like this, they will do and say anything to appease him, after all the fate of Olympus depends on him, does it not? And neither the Gods nor the demigods will risk a falling out with him at times like this.

He asks his father if he can help but is denied because he is needed here. Then he does his job as told, and Charlie dies. It's on him. He is struck with twice as much guilt. Over Beckendorf, and then over the state of Atlantis. He asks again if he can help his father and is denied again yet scorned by his father's family, for he can't even help them with the mess he started (or so he believes).

This is why Percy goes with Nico's plan of using the Styx. Because he assumes Nico of all people who already hated him has no reason to curry for his favor. But he makes a mistake. After all, Nico needs his father's favor, and Hades needs Percy gone. Percy can't really blame the kid, but he does anyway because why not? He is angry, he is furious, and everything is slipping from his fingers. He is going to die. Everyone is going to die, and it's all on him. It's all his fault, AGAIN. So he rages at Nico because for at least one single moment, he wishes this were someone else's burden, especially Nico's, but Percy's taken it for himself, and it's too late to back out now.

So he fights and manipulates and negotiates. Titans, River gods, his own demigods. Because don't forget Percy knows there's a mole and that's also his problem. Everything is his problem. All that work and so many dead. Silena, Michael, Ethan, and many more on both sides, and he is trying everything he can to make it better to fix things because, again, he thinks it's his fault. Imagine doing all that, and Rachel tells him he is not the hero, and Percy bristles because no, he doesn't want to be a hero, but of course, it offends him. Because, if he's not the hero, then it's not his burden, and then what the hell is he doing all this for if, in the end, he is not the hero that can save Olympus? Does that mean he read the prophecy wrong, and now he is going to get everyone killed because he wrongly assumed he isn't the hero. He is angry and impulsive, and he snaps at even Hermes. Because now HE is spiraling.

And somehow, it's all over with Luke killing himself, and it dawns on Percy, the truth. So despite all the hate because why wouldn't there be hate, Luke has singlehandedly tried to kill Percy more than Percy can count, and he calls Luke the Hero. Makes the choice because he believes in Annabeth's faith and Hermes's faith in Luke. It pays off and that's all that matters.

Finally finally it is all over. the Gods owe him, and finally, he has an answer on the path he wants to take to change the gods. He denies immortality because he is Percy Jackson, he is Sally Jackson's son and he knows better than to let others dictate the flow of his life, because he has better plans than wasting away inside for eternity, dancing on someone else's tune. He fights for the demigods, the non-Olympian gods and their children who Olympus has failed to do justice to, for Nico, and in some way for himself.

Then it's not over at all because Rachel has taken Blackjack and Percy knows the truth of the Oracle and he loves Rachel far too much to let her even try. But it works and she is okay; he can't be with her but she is alive and she is okay and Percy is extremely grateful for that.

But then there's a new prophecy, and even though he tries to find some peace with Annabeth, he knows it's not over. It's never over for him. But he can forget about it until he can no longer afford to ignore it.

___________________________________________

Of course, Percy repressed his trauma. The last time he let it out, he released the literal bane of the gods out. Do you think Percy could live with something like that happening again? What choice does he have? There's no one who can understand him. NO ONE. Not even Annabeth.

You can see him accept his role as a leader and grow more into it. In son of Sobek or even in Son of Neptune. He is more serious and more authoritative because he has so many people depending on him, so many expectations hanging on him. We can also see Percy's anger issues get out of hand. He is spiraling, the readers know he is spiraling, and Percy knows, but he can't do ANYTHING. HE IS LITETALLY DYING OR BEING ATTACKED, HE CAN'T, HE JUST CAN'T.

BUT WE KNOW IT'S THERE BECAUSE WE CAN SEE HOW MUCH PERCY HAS GROWN INTO SUICIDAL TENDENCIES. AND HE CAN'T ACT ON THEM MOST OF THE TIME BECAUSE OTHER PEOPLE ARE DEPENDENT ON HIM AND HIS FATAL FLAW WON'T ALLOW HIM TO PUT HIMSELF OUT OF HIS MISERY.

BUT WHEN HE HAS DONE EVERYTHING HE POSSIBLY COULD, AFTER HOUSE OF HADES, HE LETS POLYBOTES'S POISON CHOKE HIM, ALMOST KILLING HIM IF JASON HADN'T INTERVENED. THANK GOD FOR JASON GRACE.

Percy was this sassy, heavily independent, "I do my own thing" kid and now he is someone with more responsibilities than anyone with most of his free will stripped and most of his hopes ruined or deemed impossible. IT'S TRAGIC AND IT'S EXCRUCIATING AND HE CAN'T DO ANYTHING BECAUSE HE THINKS IT'S MAKING OTHERS HAPPY. IT'S SUCH A HORRIBLE SITUATION. IMAGINE BOOK 1 PERCY? HE WOULD HAVE LET IT BLOW UP IN EVERYONE ELSE'S FACE BEFORE HE EVER LET HIMSELF BE SO BROKEN.

I have seen so many people say how Percy is the standard hero who is always good and never makes bad choices, and I wonder which books they read. Percy always makes the supposed "right" choices at the cost of himself. His fatal flaw enabling his moral compass and the sheer guilt of the lives lost. He can't escape. He hates the gods, he hates the quests but he loves his family and friends so dearly, there's nothing he wouldn't do for them which means Percy is suffocating, drowning, choking in his own misery, his repressed trauma,his self loathing and being crushed to death by the weight of lives, responsibilities and expectations only he can hope to fulfil.

And one day Percy won't be able to take it. His lapses of control will increase in magnitudes so great, his inner rage will level the world. Destroyer, like Athena predicted, Destroyer like Kronos wanted and Destroyer like his name means.

Not every hero needs a villain arc. Percy is inspiring because after all this shit and all these horrors. He is still good, but WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE TOLL OF IT. PERCY IS STILL GOOD BUT AT WHAT COST? LOOK WHAT IT'S DONE TO HIM.

Rick has such a great potential for an arc like that but he is going to fuck it up, I know he is but I hope readers realize where it's all leading to and how much Percy has changed and how much he has sacrificed. Also, @hermesmyplatonicbeloved , @ogjacksonsimp , @cynicalclairvoyantcadaver , @helenofsparta2, @fourcornersofcreation thoughts? Did I stray too far from the canon, or am I getting it right at least a little? Because this post took days, I have no idea what it has devolved into.

[crownofefflorescence]

🥀 GARDEN of BONES

You, a mortal, awaken in an unfamiliar land of heat and sand, staring into the unfeeling mask of a spindly stranger who claims to rule the deathless kin of the air.

Beholden to an unremembered promise to assassinate their disgraced twin sibling, bound for an eldritch garden hidden somewhere in the arid plains, and compelled by an enchantment you do not understand, certain choices are beyond your control...

...yet even so, the power of life and death is forever fated to slip through immortal fingers. It lies within in your hands, and yours alone. Many questions plague you, but only one can you answer.

What will you do with it?

GARDEN OF BONES is a 17+ interactive work-in-progress with an emphasis on relationships, and includes some content that may be triggering; complete warnings will be included within the game and updated if necessary.

CHARACTERS

The Younger (M/F)

Weary of being disregarded and mocked for their aspirations, the Younger has their golden eyes set on not only their realm... but yours as well. Yet they need their disapproving sibling and crowned ruler out of the way, for good, and only a mortal can kill an immortal. Will you be their weapon?

The Elder (M/F)

A banished king haunts a garden removed from the flow of time; they had not considered that their beloved twin would stab them in the back... and now they are doomed to rise and fall by your hand. How far will you take this lie?

The Mortal (N/A)

A forgetful assassin, sent to dirty your hands on behalf of an immortal ruler from another realm. Cling to the past with bitterness or longing, or abandon it all if you wish. Forge a path built on vengeance or mercy. What will you sacrifice?

Note: as the siblings are identical twins, both ROs must be set together, so you will have the opportunity to play the game with immortal sisters or immortal brothers as your romantic options and potential allies.

FEATURES

CURRENT FEATURES

⮞ fey-adjacent immortal folk ⮞ 2 M/F selectable romance options (one of them is very ill-advised) ⮞ customize your appearance ⮞ shape your personality ⮞ 30 minute playtime ⮞ decisions

PLANNED FEATURES

⮞ a curse (may or may not be discovered) ⮞ bones (quite a lot of them) ⮞ angst ⮞ finished romantic route ⮞ platonic route ⮞ more creepiness ⮞ riddles ⮞ revenge

Everything here is subject to change.

LINKS

DEMO (TBA) | ITCH.IO | RO INTROS

Current word count (with code): 45,000.

I find friendships to be equally as captivating and fulfilling as romantic affection (and also fully support your right to antagonism and arson if desired) so expect me to do my best to ensure that each route is as lovingly detailed as possible!

There is a plan and intent to release the demo soon. Thanks for your interest and I hope to craft a most distressing and positively delightful journey for you.

Ask me anything!

~ Effie

[please-picturemeintheweeds]

^article with sources about climate change and concerts! I’m feeling grumpy that this article doesn’t mention the way the stadium boarded up the air vents, and that a lot of the articles about this situation don’t mention that Taylor’s team was personally handing out water when the venue staff was telling them not to. Yes, Taylor’s a capitalist, and capitalism is to blame for this situation, but she isn’t all powerful and she isn’t actually responsible for Ana’s death- the venue is.

I hope that this causes international outrage at the way venues treat people during concerts because tragically, this is the reality we now live in where heat is one of THE LEADING causes of death world wide due to climate crisis, and companies are not morally or logistically equipped to care for human beings in extreme heat events. Let this be a warning to venues around the world that heat will kill, and that the venue is responsible for occupant safety. Shit.

[apas-95]

I think the 'problematic media' issue is composed of two principle parts, one superceding the other.

Firstly, and the most important to address to cut the discourse off at the head; yes, media is a vector by which social systems reinforce themselves. This is the purpose of propaganda, and this dynamic is completely intelligible to us if we consider the cases of 'person whose sole source of online interaction was 4chan, and who exclusively watched History Channel hagiography about fascist war machines', or 'person who developed inappropriate ideas about sex through watching misogynistic media'. It is plainly clear that it is both possible and common for media to influence people ideologically, as an apparatus of a given social system. Material reality dictates which social systems are given ideological hegemony in media, but media is in fact an effective tool of those systems.

Secondly, while acknowledging the first point, it is not the dominating factor, here. While media can and does influence people ideologically, often commandingly so, it is not some sort of cognitohazard. It is plainly possible to watch, even repeatedly over an extended timetrame, some given piece of fascist propaganda, or abuse apologia, or what have you, without becoming any more beholden to its ideas - if anything, becoming more opposed. The crucial thing, here, is that doing so requires some level of understanding and defence against the ideas presented. Someone with no rebuttal to fascist positions, with no even kneejerk dismissal that what they're taking in is fascist, is unlikely not to internalise something if they're surrounded by fascist media. On the other hand, someone who has been innoculated with opposing political theory, who is capable of recognising the social systems being reinforced by a given communicative work and reasonably countermand them, can watch a thousand misogynist movies, read a thousand racist books, peruse a thousand transphobic news articles, and leave with only stronger convictions to oppose these systems. Clearly, the dominating factor here is not the content of the media itself, but the content of the audience - whether the audience is able to sufficiently recognise, interrogate, and oppose the messaging in a given work.

All this is to say - yes, media can and does influence beliefs, but that that influence is completely subordinate to the question of whether the audience has any level of political theory or critical analysis. A liberal reading fascist literature, not holding any real theoretical opposition to the content of fascism, is safe so long as they can recognise and reject basic fascist signifiers. A feminist is able to recognise misogynistic logic in a given work. A communist can recognise and countermand reactionary spin in a news article or wikipedia page. While the politically-unconscious man will not recognise that his favourite sitcom is instilling him with absurdly sexist views on marriage, the issue here is not the media itself. Fundamentally - the issue of 'problematic media' is one best and principally solved by the development of political theory and political education, not by any suppression of the media itself, which is cumbersome.