#subject based?

[quantumcartography]

I just listened to episode 26 of the Magnus Archives and I realized that it reminds me of Bloodborne. I have some spoilers for it, just because I was looking something up on the wiki and just intuited things based on some of the pages.

So it seems like there are some entities that are responsible for these events, a finite amount named with things associated with various fears. But episode 26 implies that these entities aren't uniform and aren't even aligned, which distinctly reminds me of Bloodborne. The way the Great Old Ones seem to each be distinct and non uniform and some seem to be fighting a proxy war against one another. Like The Moon Presence puts the player on a path that leads them to kill Rom and other great ones.

[starbuck]

“…to me” is one of the most powerful disclaimers we have on here… is this character analysis accurate? debatable. but it’s real… to me.

[squidthusiast]

Tfw your beautiful girlfriend explains all the Alien movies’ plots to you before she goes to bed.

[captainjimothy]

idk i'd never paid much attention to past prologue aside from the opener but it's so fucking funny bc of the context it gives for everything else?? like okay garak cruises julian at the replimat (with unclear success), then gets approached by the sisters and says "shit, i need backup. who can i trust to be chill about black market dealing, yet honest enough to report it if necessary? ah yes the doctor will do nicely" ............aaand then julian flubs it so bad that garak immediately starts a book club called Espionage For Dummies. he says julian you are a baby bird. a tiny kitten. a helpless puppy all alone in a cutthroat world. you must open your eyes and learn to forage or you will never survive the winter and julian says okay 💖 yayy 💖 and by god they hold that book club every fucking tuesday for the next 5 to 7 years? only interrupted when there's an actual war on? the professional outrage was THAT strong

[meirimerens]

curious and curiouser

[infizero-draws]

idk when i'll get around to designing skizz and mumbo, but here's my wild life grian design :)

[softceleste]

Autumn Best in Woman of the Hour (2023, dir. Anna Kendrick)

Please do not save, repost, or edit these gifs for any reason, use the reblog button instead. Also please do not interact if you’re a celeb rp blog, a true crime blog, or if you write taboo content on your blog, thank you!

[joyokosuka]

~normal~ relationship development:

friends

date

kiss

sex (controversial)

marriage

nu: carnival relationship development:

raw anal sex

trauma dumping

chaste kiss on the lips

missionary position intertwined hands marathon lovemaking

love confession maybe

[canichangemyblogname]

You know you don’t have to make up non-textual reasons to dislike a character, right? You can just dislike the character just because. And you also realize that if there are textual reasons you dislike the character—like the character’s past or lack of on-screen time—you don’t have to make up more reasons to dislike said character, right? You can just leave it at, “I dislike him because of his past and I don’t think the show has developed him enough.”

You don’t have to write a meta about how you dislike a character, with your reasoning being “he’s a predator” and your evidence being “because gay men cheat and fail to use prophylactic measures” or “because he has a 10-year age gap with his 34 y/o boyfriend” or “because a teenager said he’s cool” or “because gay men aren’t actually gay; they’re bi and lie” or “because Buck is a hot young thang™️, and gay men only sleep around” or “Buck’s feelings were too ambiguous before he understood he liked men and Tommy forced himself on Buck.” Because then you’re no longer relying on textual evidence; you’re relying on homophobic stereotypes to justify your fanon interpretation of a gay character. And then you’re proceeding to “joke” about violently killing this fictional man because of these stereotypes.

THAT is the issue people are having. They don’t give a fuck you dislike Tommy; they care that you’re using real-life queerphobic stereotypes, tropes, and jokes to justify disliking him.

[jonsnowunemploymentera]

The way we discuss prophecy in fandom is genuinely fascinating. GRRM spends so much time showing how different characters have different interpretations of the same thing based on their own cultural contexts. He says that prophecy is tricky to navigate through multiple characters, showing that even the most careful practitioner can get almost everything wrong and fall victim to their own fallacies (see Mel). So tell me why the main takeaway for large parts of this fandom is “prophecy stupid, it doesn’t matter”. My brothers and sisters in R’hllor, GRRM didn’t invent multiple characters (three of whom are main POVs!!) who can see the future for this to be the conclusion. This is a FANTASY series. Please I’m begging, let us be serious 🥲

[mipexch]

1014 blast 2

[mrtequilasunset]

Wanted to draw out my cowboy designs a bit for my own reference (minus the hats)

and then I also started thinking about the tanlines they'd get from these 'fits <3

yeehaw

[liorlen]

Pyr y’n gwna ni byrhoedled? / Digawn llawryded, / kywestwch a bed.

[impmansloot]

on Rook as a protagonist

I'm genuinely surprised that some people say that Rook is the best protagonist to them out of all in Dragon Age games—obviously, to each their own, and if you genuinely think that and love your Rook, then hey, that's great, I definitely do have some positive feelings towards my own Rook too despite not being able to genuinely roleplay their personality and having to change it to fit the restrictions given by the game.

Like, your personality is basically fixed in place, it's not a protagonist you can roleplay but rather a predetermined one with your skin on. You have some variety of lines but they're within, well, the same personality: friendly/empathetic sarcastic, Clown, stoic sarcastic (sure, it's a generalization, maybe an unfair one, but listen it's how I'd describe it), which sometimes don't even work like they're supposed to: e.g. you'll have a friendly/empathetic Rook sounding more stoic than the actual stoic one in the same dialogue tree.

I would say though that DAtV makes it easier to connect to Rook as a character because again, they're basically a pre-made with a distinct personality, so you can grasp that personality pretty quickly and if it works for you, it works. Inquisitor by comparison can come off bland, especially if you don't construct their personality beforehand and due to the lack of proper origins and an initial other character to bounce off of (Varric to Rook). Generally, the roleplaying aspect is not an issue exclusive to DAtV: I'd say the further we go, the worse it gets. DAO honestly handles it best because: 1. HoF is a "silent" protagonist, which allows more tone/voice speculation + what you say, you say phrasing-wise 2. you have origins which help you connect to your character throughout their events and via characters you're related to while still giving you the liberty and space to react to the events with accordance to your character's personality/vibe. 3. generally the amount of dialogue and behavior options: you're a leader, but you're not immediately put into these shoes, and you can go about your party as you want. Like yeah, you have to save the world, you're not given any other choice, but if you don't want to be a good guy, you don't have to. Defile Sacred Ashes and side with the cultists, murder the werewolves, turn dwarves into golems, annihilate the Circle with innocent mages, make a deal with the demon (doom the boy and potentially sacrifice his mother), kill your companions, be stupid.

Now Hawke is a more limited character for obvious reasons, but even they have more variety than Rook: Hawke's relationship with Malcolm will literally be determined by your personality—which is a bit silly tbh, but it's something. Hawke's personality options are distinct enough too, and most of all, you have the option to be a bad person and make bad, outright evil decisions. You can side with slavers in Darktown, you can give Fenris to Danarius (which is a pretty dumb option with a dumber reaction from companions, but it's a choice), you can just be mean in general, have beef with your companions, which will influence their personal quests. Now, is Hawke the best character for roleplaying? I don't think so, but it's still more variety than whatever DAtV gives us.

As Rook, you just can't be an asshole, can't ever argue with companions, disagree on things (which has been said by many others atp), and generally you can't do truly bad, evil decisions. I'm gonna be real, DAI doesn't always give you this choice either. DAI also doesn't allow you to be like, stupid stupid for example cause you have to be a leader of currently one of the most if not the most powerful organization in Thedas, aside from the Chantry itself, but you can say dumb shit here and there, and you can do bad things too: you can be a cruel and ruthless leader, you can be an asshole and execute people for your amusement, like hell, order Cullen to take lyrium (obviously a bad choice, imo this quest should have some immediate repercussions, like some actual penalty for the Inquisition if Cullen is in withdrawal), give Vivienne the wrong vivern's heart, force Blackwall to keep lying about his identity, generally influence your companions to make questionable decisions. And no matter what you do, your choices won't be approved by all your companions: sometimes they will argue with you, question you on them, mention how they think you fucked up on low approval.

Rook though? No, Rook is always a good guy, Rook can't be bad, Rook is a hero. Rook has to be a hero. In the narrative and in companions' eyes. Whatever happens it's fine eventually. Oh, you're a crow? You're still a hero, you did a good job, you made the right choice, and those bad bad higher-ups condemned you for doing so. I get that some factions would limit you to being basically a good guy, like Shadow Dragons, because it requires your character to have a strong moral compass to be in an oppositional organization with the goal to abolish slavery and defeat corruption in Tevinter, and it's totally fine, but when ALL factions make you out to be a hero.. it just. Well it sucks? It feels like one backstory reskinned basically.

And even if all faction options in their nature were a predisposition for you to be someone with a strong moral compass (say, every faction would be like Shadow Dragons in nature), it doesn't mean you wouldn't have the capacity to be wrong, have biases, and make bad decisions. You can fight for good causes (or believe you do) but still be an asshole and commit heinous things. You can simply be someone rude and angry or just a terrible friend, independent of your moral/political stances. Even if you're a Hero.

And even if we argue that being a good guy specifically is what the story requires of Rook, why make a story—an RPG—that limits you so badly? And how good and impactful can a story about regrets be where you can be no wrong and nothing is essentially your fault, nor framed as such?

[stardustvalentine]

do y’all get me