Pls ignore if the spectre of ruminating on old god-diskhorse is far too obnoxious but it's rather a jump-off point for a more general question; an issue brought up pushing back against the most obnoxious "vanguard is right eradicate those tyrant gods rq stole vax hate that bitch" ppl, aside from other things like just being deeply myopic even just from an in-universe perspective, but on a wholler narrative level requires completely ignoring or discarding campaign 1 and 2's theses and genuine connections. Largely i think these ppl's takes are more interested in self-validation than concerned with what they're actually saying when they want these things to be true (which they aren't, Matt and cast and plot progression from the peak of those discourses have made that clear), but now here's my wondering: what would it say if c3 were to be these things? By what metrics do you judge a sequel installment should it, in the pursuit of its own story, undermine or contradict the earnest, complete, already told story that preceded it and was built upon?
Hi anon,
This is a good question, and necessarily one with a subjective answer, so I hope I at least explain my thought process below! Also: this does have some spoilers for a Midst episode in Season 3 (which aired a few weeks ago). I mention this because it's a really useful example for me but this wasn't a question about Midst so you might not be expecting me to talk about it.
Firstly, I agree with you that a lot of the people who want this want the story to validate their personal beliefs. Some want it to validate political/philosophical beliefs, which is a complicated thing: on the one hand, I very much don’t want to watch a show that’s like “hey slavery is neat-o!” and doubt such a show would have much merit. On the other hand, when we’re dealing with much more complicated issues like religion, which simultaneously exists as a tool of oppression; an aspect of identity that makes one a target of oppression; a source of meaning and comfort; and a source of justification of terrible practices all in one; I think it’s extremely valuable to be exposed to a multitude of perspectives and to not just endlessly look for those that validate one’s own experiences.
Others just want the story to validate their feelings about the happenings within the narrative, which is on the one hand usually less close-minded, but on the other hand, kind of stupid. You are permitted to dislike that Vax died. I disagree, but you can feel however you want (indeed, you don’t need my, or anyone’s permission to dislike that Vax died). The story saying “The Raven Queen isn’t perfect” or even “The Raven Queen is Bad” isn’t necessary for you to have those feelings; and the Raven Queen being slaughtered isn’t per se necessary for Vax to come back (which I think would be cheap and stupid, but like, if that’s what you want you could just have him come back.) You don’t need to story to tell you that your response to the story is good, so this is ultimately a case of “why are you even doing this."
I also suspect there’s just some degree of subversion for subversion’s sake (or change for change's sake) people who were into the idea of killing the gods just to flip C1 and C2 on their respective heads. The thing is, subversion for the sole purpose of subversion has always been the province of the dull. There’s a reason why culturally we treat M. Night Shyamalan as a joke and it’s because “THERE’S A TWIST” without a strong and compelling build-up to said twist nearly always is, as the post I recently reblogged said, something that only hits hard if you’re stupid.
What I need from a story to be good is internal consistency and a strong execution. I am frequently surprised, in a very positive way, by stories that are so well-executed that they sell me on a premise with which I was less than enamored. If you’d told me that I’d feel sad about FCG’s sacrifice or extremely in favor of Phineas and Jonas’s romantic relationship during early C3 or, frankly, even the minute before I listened to Trustfall, respectively, I would have said “huh, really?” But both of these events were thoughtfully built to a point where they felt like meaningful and interesting choices for the story to take, even if that was not apparent to me earlier on.
So: the metric I’d use to judge a god-killing C3 is the same as that of any long-running story. I think there is a universe in which Campaign 3 could have made the demise of the gods a good and compelling story. But that work simply has not been done. The atrocities of the Vanguard, Weave Mind, and the Dwendalian Empire under Ludinus Da’leth; the callousness shown towards all Exandrians and Ruidians by the Vanguard and Kreviris Imperium; and most importantly the fact that there haven’t been new reveals of terrible things done by the gods and the story has instead striven to paint them as more fragile and complicated than what we’ve seen in past means that a sudden twist would, well, be cheap and only hit hard if you’re stupid. You can contradict a past story in an installment (or the earlier work in a long-running series) in a way that is not undermining if you are able to tie it together and show new information that was not available earlier! But that’s the key: it needs to be clear that the earlier works were showing a specific perspective (already a very tall order given the protagonist-only POV of D&D campaigns) or that the situation has drastically changed. If you fail to do this, then as you said, it’s undermining and it’s poorly done and a bad story.
I think that last point is also really important in thinking through the fandom response. I mentioned that I can be sold on a premise that didn’t win me over initially if the execution is strong. I think some people, and especially those gunning for a “The Gods are All Bad” story are so terrified of not being validated or of being wrong in their predictions or of criticism from other fans that they can no longer enjoy a story or comment meaningfully upon it. To which I say skill issue. I am thrilled and even grateful that, as previously mentioned, FCG had an arc that deepened their character and addressed my earlier criticism such that I could enjoy episode 91 as much as I did. I was mildly spoiled on the potential of Jonas and Phineas getting together and was, to be honest, slightly dreading it as I’d always preferred a platonic interpretation of their relationship, and then the scene in which it happened (and everything since) has been so deftly handled that I’m fully on board.
I am a far better analyst and critic of fiction than a creator of it, and I’m open about this. I am constantly surprised in ways both positive and negative by how other people tell stories, and that’s why I come back to them. I want the story to be so good that it expands my horizons and comfort zone and shows me something new. I find little joy in a story validating who I already am and what I already think. I want the story to make a better argument for what it has to say than I can make against it. If this is a competition between the story and me, I am rooting for the story to win over me and in doing so, win me over; and I am disappointed when it doesn’t.
I am also a physicist, and, famously within our understanding of physics, pretty much anything can happen; it’s all just a matter of probabilities. And so it’s hard for me to say “there’s no way this could ever be done well.” It’s very easy, however, for me to say “the eye of the needle one must thread to do this well is a micron in diameter and constantly moving.” I think it’s possible to turn the concept of a god-slaying Campaign 3 into a story that, rather than clumsily ignoring or discarding C1 and C2’s theses, transforms them and puts them in a new and unexpected light. But the narrative dexterity check required for that has always been high, and only gets higher as the actual Campaign 3 story continues along its current path.
39 notes
·
View notes
Character Name Ideas (Male)
So I've been browsing through BehindTheName (great resource!) recently and have compiled several name lists. Here are some names, A-Z, that I like.
NOTE: If you want to use any of these please verify sources, meanings etc, I just used BehindTheName to browse and find all of these. Under the cut:
A: Austin, Aiden, Adam, Alex, Angus, Anthony, Archie, Argo, Ari, Aric, Arno, Atlas, August, Aurelius, Alexei, Archer, Angelo, Adric, Acarius, Achilou, Alphard, Amelian, Archander
B: Bodhi, Bastian, Baz, Beau, Beck, Buck, Basil, Benny, Bentley, Blake, Bowie, Brad, Brady, Brody, Brennan, Brent, Brett, Brycen
C: Cab, Cal, Caden, Cáel, Caelan, Caleb, Cameron, Chase, Carlos, Cooper, Carter, Cas, Cash, Cassian, Castiel, Cedric, Cenric, Chance, Chandler, Chaz, Chad, Chester, Chet, Chip, Christian, Cillian, Claude, Cicero, Clint, Cody, Cory, Coy, Cole, Colt, Colton, Colin, Colorado, Colum, Conan, Conrad, Conway, Connor, Cornelius, Creed, Cyneric, Cynric, Cyrano, Cyril, Cyrus, Crestian, Ceric
D: Dallas, Damien, Daniel, Darach, Dash, Dax, Dayton, Denver, Derek, Des, Desmond, Devin, Dewey, Dexter, Dietrich, Dion, Dmitri, Dominic, Dorian, Douglas, Draco, Drake, Drew, Dudley, Dustin, Dusty, Dylan, Danièu
E: Eadric, Evan, Ethan, Easton, Eddie, Eddy, Einar, Eli, Eilas, Eiljah, Elliott, Elton, Emanuel, Emile, Emmett, Enzo, Erik, Evander, Everett, Ezio
F: Faolán, Faron, Ferlin, Felix, Fenrir, Fergus, Finley, Finlay, Finn, Finnian, Finnegan, Flint, Flip, Flynn, Florian, Forrest, Fritz
G: Gage, Gabe, Grady, Grant, Gray, Grayson, Gunnar, Gunther, Galahad
H: Hale, Harley, Harper, Harvey, Harry, Huey, Hugh, Hunter, Huxley
I: Ian, Ianto, Ike, Inigo, Isaac, Isaias, Ivan, Ísak
J: Jack, Jacob, Jake, Jason, Jasper, Jax, Jay, Jensen, Jed, Jeremy, Jeremiah, Jesse, Jett, Jimmie, Jonas, Jonas, Jonathan, Jordan, Josh, Julien, Jovian, Jun, Justin, Joseph, Joni,
K: Kaden, Kai, Kale, Kane, Kaz, Keane, Keaton, Keith, Kenji, Kenneth, Kent, Kevin, Kieran, Kip, Knox, Kris, Kristian, Kyle, Kay, Kristján, Kristófer
L: Lamont, Lance, Landon, Lane, Lars, László, Laurent, Layton, Leander, Leif, Leo, Leonidas, Leopold, Levi, Lewis, Louie, Liam, Liberty, Lincoln, Linc, Linus, Lionel, Logan, Loki, Lucas, Lucian, Lucio, Lucky, Luke, Luther, Lyall, Lycus, Lykos, Lyle, Lyndon, Llewellyn, Landri, Laurian, Lionç
M: Major, Manny, Manuel, Marcus, Mason, Matt, Matthew, Matthias, Maverick, Maxim, Memphis, Midas, Mikko, Miles, Mitch, Mordecai, Mordred, Morgan, Macari, Maïus, Maxenci, Micolau, Miro
N: Nate, Nathan, Nathaniel, Niall, Nico, Niels, Nik, Noah, Nolan, Niilo, Nikander, Novak,
O: Oakley, Octavian, Odin, Orlando, Orrick, Ǫrvar, Othello, Otis, Otto, Ovid, Owain, Owen, Øyvind, Ozzie, Ollie, Oliver, Onni
P: Paisley, Palmer, Percival, Percy, Perry, Peyton, Phelan, Phineas, Phoenix, Piers, Pierce, Porter, Presley, Preston, Pacian
Q: Quinn, Quincy, Quintin
R: Ragnar, Raiden, Ren, Rain, Rainier, Ramos, Ramsey, Ransom, Raul, Ray, Roy, Reagan, Redd, Reese, Rhys, Rhett, Reginald, Remiel, Remy, Ridge, Ridley, Ripley, Rigby, Riggs, Riley, River, Robert, Rocky, Rokas, Roman, Ronan, Ronin, Romeo, Rory, Ross, Ruairí, Rufus, Rusty, Ryder, Ryker, Rylan, Riku, Roni
S: Sammie, Sammy, Samuel, Samson, Sanford, Sawyer, Scout, Seán, Seth, Sebastian, Seymour, Shane, Shaun, Shawn, Sheldon, Shiloh, Shun, Sid, Sidney, Silas, Skip, Skipper, Skyler, Slade, Spencer, Spike, Stan, Stanford, Sterling, Stevie, Stijn, Suni, Sylvan, Sylvester
T: Tab, Tad, Tanner, Tate, Tennessee, Tero, Terrance, Tevin, Thatcher, Tierno, Tino, Titus, Tobias, Tony, Torin, Trace, Trent, Trenton, Trev, Trevor, Trey, Troy, Tripp, Tristan, Tucker, Turner, Tyler, Ty, Teemu
U: Ulric
V: Valerius, Valor, Van, Vernon, Vespasian, Vic, Victor, Vico, Vince, Vinny, Vincent
W: Wade, Walker, Wallis, Wally, Walt, Wardell, Warwick, Watson, Waylon, Wayne, Wes, Wesley, Weston, Whitley, Wilder, Wiley, William, Wolfe, Wolfgang, Woody, Wulfric, Wyatt, Wynn
X: Xander, Xavier
Z: Zachary, Zach, Zane, Zeb, Zebediah, Zed, Zeke, Zeph, Zaccai
50 notes
·
View notes