#not really sure how to tag this

[eggsistential-breakdown]

Would thou like to draw Deereer the beanie baby I customized? Ideally I will get more deer too add to the rear.

HELLO I love deereer have deereer i drew deereer I hope deereer gets to become deereereereereereereereer...eereer i love deereer

[alice-after-dark]

So I Wanted to Talk About Hell's Hierarchy

(Image from here)

Personally, I think Sinners and Hellborn should be swapped. The Hellborn are native to Hell. It is their natural home while the Sinners are there as a punishment. I would think that Sinners would be more on par with imps and hellhounds.

I think it would make for some interesting social issues within Hell itself. Like imagine how the Hellborn would feel about Overlords? Sinners who are supposed to be beneath them who have clawed their way up the ranks to a position that supercedes them? It would also add that much more importance and prestige to the rank of Overlord and they'd have to struggle with the Hellborn who refuse to acknowledge them as their equals and look down on them for being Sinners.

Having clashes between the Sinners and the Hellborn would be interesting while also having the complexities of imps and hellhounds also being Hellborn but being seen as just as low as Sinners.

[ikachap]

wip snippet of a piece I was working on to relieve some anxiety

[devil-works-hard]

Small revelation: mascot horror (especially the giants like FNAF, Bendy, Poppy Playtime, and others) isn't really about aesthetics/tropes/storylines like other kinds of horror are. Mascot horror is defined by the advertising and community.

While a lot of mascot horror has bright, fun colors to appeal to their target audience (kids, mostly), this isn't a requirement. Bendy is famously sepiatoned, and a lot of Poppy Playtime and early FNAF games are relatively muted. The only unifying aesthetic is a mascot character that can be turned monstrous/scary.

Like I mentioned before, mascot horror is aimed mostly at kids, who might not be able to play the game. Instead, they watch content creators play the game. This creates a unique relationship between game devs and content creators. Devs create content for the creators, maybe even allowing the creators to have early access; content creators platform the game for their audience. Because of the lore aspect, this also creates a relationship with theorist channels and easter egg hunters. I'd argue fan-made songs are also important to the genre, considering how goddamn popular some of them are.

But this also creates a weird dynamic for the game devs, because they need their game to stay relevant. The episodic release schedule is one part of this, even if I don't think it was intentional at first. But then there's the convoluted lore- it changes, it gets convoluted, and it's not uncommon for important story elements to be disguised as easter eggs. This is (for me) detrimental to the story in the long run, but it keeps content creators making videos and theorist channels talking about the game.

(For a really blatant example, just look at how badly Hello Neighbor fell off.)

And then there's the copious amounts of merch. Books, spin-off material like games, plushies, board games, apparel, toys, and even movies.

You could argue that the narrative of "ex employee returns to workplace to uncover mystery" is another signature of mascot horror. Personally, I think that's a cliche, rather than a convention. I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing mascot horror games go other directions, lore-wise.

[sallet-lad]

A K-2 model Vessel adorned with patterns and reflective amber accents along its frame. While originally created for waging warfare, vessels later became a status symbol for wealthy individuals who could afford one for personal use. Although their creators are long gone, there are still functioning vessels lost and dormant within the ruins of those societies, patiently waiting for a soul to inhabit their cores.

[sirenalpha]

Percy and Grover aren't good friends let alone best friends

we're certainly told that's the case, but I don't think it's born out in what's shown to us

The thing that sticks out the most to me is that the foundation of their relationship is built on lies

Grover is sent as a protector to make sure Percy safely arrives at camp and Percy doesn't know that, he doesn't even know that Grover is a satyr, but after the Dodds incident Percy knows for sure that Grover is lying to him and Grover knows it too because Percy brings up Dodds repeatedly as it's been bothering him to the point its deteriorating his mental health and tanking his grades and he even ends up telling Grover he eavesdropped on him and Chiron on the way back from Yancy and Grover still doesn't tell the full truth then

now the full truth does come out eventually, but I don't feel that it's adequately reckoned with, Grover claims he really was Percy's friend but Percy doesn't agree or really comment on this at all as he's distracted by discovering Grover is a satyr and they're also being chased by the Minotaur

they also don't talk about it when Percy wakes up at camp, Grover starts throwing a pity party for himself that Percy comforts him over assuring him its not Grover's fault despite believing his mother is dead after seeing her strangled while Grover was out unconscious and slowed them both down

this is a huge thing to just not address in their relationship, Grover lied to Percy, they both know he did, it bothered Percy to the point of distress where he lost sleep, his grades tanked, and he lashed out at a teacher who called him lazy, and Grover doesn't apologize for this, there is no recognition or reconciliation for how Grover hurt Percy for attempting to befriend him under false pretenses and explicitly and obviously lying to him like this either between them as characters or even just within the narration such as Percy unilaterally and explicitly forgiving Grover for it despite getting no apology only an explanation, the assurance from Grover that he really is Percy's friend and Percy not blaming Grover for his mother's supposed death is treated as adequate so the story can truck along

This is more than sufficient reason to not see them as good friends as there's essentially this open wound at the center of their relationship neither of them have dealt with, but I see more problems than just this

Grover and Percy do not see each other as peers, Grover might claim he's really Percy's friend, but Grover's life goal at the time is to become a searcher and find Pan, but to do that he needs to get a kid safely to camp, he is using Percy for career advancement and befriending him out of obligation to that job, did he eventually come to care about Percy? Probably, but it is undeniable that he entered the relationship seeing Percy as a charge, someone he had to take care of, he could not like Percy or have chosen to befriend him outside of his work because he did not know him at all, Grover was also certainly aware of the imbalance of power between them as Grover knew the reality of the situation and also knew that Percy was completely unaware of it and he had to keep him unaware of it for as long as possible

and on the flip side, Percy appointed himself as Grover's protector due to his perceived physical disability and how he was getting bullied, Percy's never had a friend before this so of course he's going to latch onto the first person to stick around, but it also means he doesn't know what friendship is really like or what's healthy because even before he knows the full truth about Grover, he really does kind of see Grover as pathetic and incapable and that it is Percy's job to protect him from bullies, he's incredulous when Grover says he needs to protect Percy and harshly asks why he would need Grover when he offers him his address, that is not seeing someone as your peer or seeing the relationship as having each other's backs, that is seeing yourself as a strong protector and being offended when someone weaker suggests you might need them or their protection instead

it also reads like Percy feels he has to perform these protector/bodyguard duties to earn any form of companionship, but it also stresses him out, he loses sleep when he learns he's not coming back to Yancy as he is sure Grover will be left unprotected and bullied, but he's also not getting much emotional support from Grover even though he clearly wants it, while Grover does try to keep Percy out of trouble such as reminding him about his probation and to control his temper and tries to keep him from getting isolated by Dodds, when Percy talks about wanting Dr. Brunner to lay off him during lunch on the museum trip, he expects Grover to try and make him feel better but all he does is ask for Percy's apple and Percy hands it over and then Percy kinda stops looking for support from Grover

so we have a situation where at the start they both see themselves as the protectors and the other as the protectee rather than as genuine peers, but Percy's perception is ultimately more accurate as Grover turns out to have little ability to protect Percy from monsters even before he learns to use a sword and properly defend himself, Percy grows into being a hero while Grover stays comic relief despite getting a power up from Pan, this relationship is not even and reciprocal

and I don't mean in terms of their literal powers, what Percy most wants and needs out of friendship is emotional support, someone he can relax around, companionship, and Grover not only does not offer him much if any emotional support but he actively stresses Percy out as Grover continues to need rescues throughout the series and is often not around Percy at all to offer companionship, the most amount of time they spend together is when they're at Yancy and after that Percy only sees Grover on quests and that's like a few days out of the year, a couple weeks at most, whereas Grover needs protection from bullying and rescues from monsters and Percy is there to rescue him whatever the cost to himself

then there's the matter of the empathy link, I get it was a last ditch effort from Grover to survive Polyphemus and I would have no problem except that it comes with this huge penalty that if Grover dies, Percy at best becomes a vegetable then dies too

Grover creates this empathy link with Percy without his knowledge or approval and then asks Percy to come rescue him from getting eaten after placing this additional risk to Percy's life, like it's not enough he has to go into the Sea of Monsters where Percy might get killed but he now will also for sure get killed if he doesn't rescue Grover, and Percy is definitely aware of this consequence when considering how to go about rescuing Grover

this is basically just coercion from Grover that's not even necessary, Percy would have gone without the threat to his life, Riordan didn't need to add this penalty, it could have just been a dream link but no we've gotta have crazy high stakes after threatening WW3 in the first book, but it has the side effect of turning Grover into a shitty friend to Percy coercing him like this and adding more stress, but especially because Grover suggests dissolving the link but Percy is the one who agrees to keep the link in the end to be alerted if Grover is in trouble so he can go rescue him again, it's likely intended to be a meaningful gesture of friendship despite happening within basically three line of dialogue so there's no going in depth into either of their emotional reactions to this or its affect on their relationship or the consequences of creating this link where Grover is binding his rescuer to him while Percy is leaving himself open to access at any time and potentially surveillance from Grover since we know Percy doesn't get Grover's emotions despite it being called an empathy link, he only gets the messages Grover consciously sends to him as dreams but we don't know what all Grover gets from his side of the link and we already know satyrs sense emotions beyond what humans/demigods are capable of doing

ultimately it makes it seem like Percy is desperate for friendship and companionship as well as ironclad in his self image as a protector and hero that he's basically willing to submit to coercion and sign himself up to to constantly being Grover's protector on pain of death since they all know Grover is an ineffective fighter and it just exacerbates the already existing issues that stem from their time at Yancy where Percy seems to believe he must perform these heroic duties as a protector to earn friendship and how they don't actually see each other as peers but now with even higher stakes

the thing that really kills my belief in their having any sort of good friendship, though, is that if Percy hadn't gone to camp like a day later, he and Grover would not have been friends, after a significant amount of time being lied to and receiving Grover's business card and assuming this meant he was wealthy, as soon as Grover started acting weird after seeing the Fates and freaking Percy out, Percy immediately ditched Grover in a bus terminal likely believing he'd never see him again as he knew he wasn't going back to Yancy

as soon as he perceived Grover as far wealthier than him and not in his social class and therefore not in need of his protection, he dipped, he dropped this friendship and ended it there except then Grover showed up in Montauk and this is also not discussed between the two of them or treated as an end to the friendship in the narration, but as far as Percy knew at the time, he was leaving Grover behind without even saying goodbye and no intention of visiting his 'summer home', what is that if not an end to a relationship?

but it's pretty clear Riordan doesn't see it this way, this is treated as a totally insignificant blip in their relationship, Grover doesn't even mention it when he shows up again as they have the Minotaur situation as he sees it as Percy just being risky and is more concerned that Percy didn't tell his mom what happened meanwhile Percy is just bombarded with information while still not understanding the full situation and doesn't mention it either as he's more shocked by Grover's legs than Grover's showing up at all at that point

so now that's two major issues at the foundation of their relationship, Grover lied and it's not addressed, and Percy unilaterally ended the relationship and it's not even acknowledged as such let alone addressed and I'm supposed to really believe they care about each other and are best friends because they basically slapped a death pact of an empathy link over it?

these issues in their relationship results in any time Percy is written as assuring Grover that things are not his fault or he is brave or whatever else, I read it as Percy being insincere, he doesn't really mean it, he's just saying it because he has to to get Grover to move along or it's what he thinks friends are supposed to do even though I'm fairly certain all those scenes were played straight and supposed to come across as genuine and Percy really is offering emotional support to Grover

Percy can say he's best friends with Grover as much as he wants, but their actions towards each other say otherwise

[melonmortis]

Romulus and Remus

[sharoscylla]

Clone Wars era Ripley’s armor is pretty light! Mostly just treated leather over a flight suit, since she prefers flexibility, although her pauldrons, parts of her gloves, and her mesh fencing mask/helmet are made of painted beskar. She’s too claustrophobic for standard helmets and although she’s much more capable of using blasters and slugthrowers now that she’s had Space Lasik, she’s still a champion sword duelist/brawler at heart.

[toxartsukagakas]

i looked inside of the variables file suspiciously, there appears to be a file name "ymfucker" curious

Yes, this is a variable for whether you're dating him or not. There isn't anything explicit (or even like. Over pg 13 at most) in the yes man ukagaka, I just like giving variables funny names for my amusement while I code.

[otherworldseekers]

FFXIVwrite2024 Day 9: Lend an Ear

WoLNero- Orpheus and Eurydice AU? 358 words

Attempting something a little different.

Lend me an ear and I’ll sing you a song. A tale of the world from long ago. 

When the sun shone down on lands free from suffering, free from pain. And the stars, jewel bright in the sky, never failed to guide lost souls home. And flowers bloomed in colors we no longer have names for. When the world was a paradise without want or woe. 

There was a mighty city with sparkling spires and transcendent towers. And the people there gave their love to the star tenfold. Beyond the city many rivers flowed through fertile plains. For the star answered their love with every bounty. 

And in the river delta three children met to play. They fashioned creatures out of clay and wished them to life. They built boats out of reeds and used the wind to race them. Such were their games. And when the sun drew down towards the horizon they clasped each others’ hands and promised eternal companionship. 

But the children didn’t see that the Fates hovered over them, whispering in their ears. To one they whispered of pride. And to the next they whispered of sacrifice. And to the last they whispered of change. The whispers settled deep in their hearts and none knew what secret dreams the others clutched in their souls. 

And the Fates laughed at the children’s vows, knowing with the intimate knowledge of a craftsman what the tapestry of the future showed. For none in any age can defy their Fate.

“Why do you tell such an unhappy tale?” said the girl lying in the grass beside the river. 

“Because it came to me,” said the boy, sitting beside her and quietly strumming the lyre held in his lap.

“Is it true?”

“Everything I sing is true.”

“Yes, but did it really happen?” the girl knew by now that the boy had an odd way of looking at things like truth. 

“Who can say? But I do not think the Muses would send me a song that was false,” the boy said with charming naivete. 

“Perhaps,” replied the girl, for she new of the capriciousness of the gods.

[grilde1chesse]

ngl it URKS me when people say shit like "non-con" and other watered-down words for rape to make the concept more "digestible" and censorship safe. i am SO sick of seeing the words "unalived", "🍇ed" and other stupid shit on tiktok. imagine being murdered and raped, then left as an unidentifiable corpse in a ditch off the side of a highway just for someone to glorify your assault and water it down to make it more consumable and appealing to their internet audience??? "sex with an underage woman" there's no such fucking thing. that's not an "underage woman" that's a CHILD. its called RAPE. rapists don't deserve politeness and victims deserve validation and recognition for what they've been through.

[sl33p1ng-catzz]

Fuck everyone I'm going to watch bfdi from the BEGINNING.

[how-do-i-do-words]

(weird pic because my phone camera refuses to cooperate)

i've had all four of these books for literal years at this point and i still haven't read them despite knowing that i'll (most likely) really like all of them. now, i'm once again almost done with my stack of books from the library and can't decide what to read next

[secretagentsagainstwhatever]

Idk if the Chappell Roan European tour discourse is just happening on twitter, but this feels like a safer place to give my 2 cents

Artists cancelling their shows (especially so last minute that people can’t get refunds) is definitely too common an occurrence and should be discouraged. However i don’t think I’ve personally ever seen any artists receive THIS much backlash from doing so, and i don’t think it’s a coincidence that the artist getting the most hate for doing something other performers have done and will do is a lesbian woman

[witha-boxofscraps]

Something that I find genuinely interesting (??? Not sure if that’s the right word) is the internets use of “pick me girl”.

I know it’s been around for a while and that it’s certainly not going away any time soon but it just makes me sad. Because while the people who are often labelled as “pick mes” aren’t very nice to be around and none of this justifies their actions that often involve putting over girls down, it seems to me that it’s a common phase to have had.

As in, I can’t think of a single girl I’ve been friends with who hasn’t had a “pick me phase”. Including myself. It seems like a universal experience of all teenage girls that later see sense and regret it years later.

And that has me wondering, maybe it isn’t the girls that should be criticised on a world wide scale but the society that they’re surrounded with that has essentially criminalised the teenage girl. The society that has made little girls desperate to get away from the stereotype that they’re defined by from a young age, that pushes them towards making masculinity and an association with “the boys” as a defining personality trait.

“Pick me Girls” aren’t people I enjoy socialising with. To achieve this distinction away from femininity, they resort to putting other girls down for any actions they perceive as feminine. This obviously is not a nice thing to do.

However it really does feel like the term does just get slung around to bring down women in general. You act too feminine and you’re a “girly girl”, you’re naturally tomboyish and you’re a “pick me”. All of these terms that are designed to push women down for anything and it’s welcomed with open arms because it targets people we find annoying.

[snevinsspn]

always found it cool that all the creatures the didn’t have a technical soul (angels, demons, etc) went to the empty when they died, a place that canonically was the very concept of nothing. they really said “just like you, there is nothing in here. it is Empty”