#you're allowed to disagree

[neptune-scythe]

A short essay on Kaz Brekker and his colours

Kaz, in my opinion, is best represented by purples and blacks

Purple is a colour of balance, a middle ground between the rage and fire of red and the serene calm of blue. Black is a void, grief, and a consuming darkness, but also a symbol of elegance and power.

Kaz is driven and motivated by his anger and rage, but not to the point that it consumes him. He is patient, methodical and calculating; and always maintains composure and a level head. Thus balancing the anger of red and the calm of blue. The darkened shade mirroring the void of pain and grief and the often emotionless or seemingly heartless actions he takes.

His grief is a defining part of his personality and actions and a constant in his life. Black is also often representative of evil or a corruption of ones goodness, thus representing Kaz's often immoral or destructive choices.

[kale-of-the-forbidden-cities]

Umber x vespera

nO /lh

we ship umber x trix and gisela x vespera in this household

[hotvintagepoll]

I love these polls. But this feels like a weird and uncomfortable time to continue them. While we are in the process of deciding whether or not to give fascism unlimited power in the greatest military power currently on the planet, these posts feel uncomfortably out of touch with the existential threat facing all of humanity. I cannot enjoy voting in silly polls when I know that all of humankind faces the threat of extermination.

When we can return to a less horrifying reality, I would enjoy revisiting these polls. At the moment, to continue them feels like a cruel celebration of privilege from those who are insulated from the most extreme consequences of current proposed policies. It is hard to think of what level of inhumanity is necessary to continue laughing in the face of so much world-wide horror.

Of course you don't have to stay, and I won't begrudge you at all for going. But there's one point of yours here I feel is worth discussing, and it's your last one: laughing in the face of world-wide horror.

There is a difference between laughing at horrifying things and taking a break to laugh. In a world that is horrifying—and, to be honest, has been horrifying since this blog began, and long before then, and will be after it's done—you need to laugh to keep your endurance. I mean that every step of the way. You will not be able to keep fighting for the people who need your help, including yourself, if you don't give yourself a break and let yourself have joy and silliness in little dollops on the regular.

In my real life, when I'm not posting hot silly people on the hot silly people blog, I try to find ways to help change the world for the better. I've been trying for a while. And one of the key things I've learned in that while is that having a little fun and silliness does not dilute the work of making the world better—it gives you the fuel to keep doing it. Your human brain and body need a muchness. They need joy and sorrow and work and rest and laughter to keep going—and before you say, that's a privilege! yes, in today's broken world it often is. It should not be one. It is a right. You have the right to find spots of joy, silliness, time off from the world.

Stuff sucks right now, but taking ten minutes off to let yourself rest is not going to contribute to the end of the world. We need to rest and laugh if we want to keep going. I've always said this is a silly blog, and I maintain that yes! it is silly, it is pointless, this is nothing big at all. Nothing here has any consequence. And that can be a small good thing at the end of the day. It doesn't mean the big stuff doesn't matter if we have the small stuff too. We can have both. We need both.

I hope you find peace, wherever you are.

[babygirlmickey]

IAN GALLAGHER + his most superior era

[randomnameless]

Rewatching Shez's supports with Edelgard, it kind of irritates me that Edelgard looks upset after Shez points out that the average farmer probably hates her for the war. Like, ma'am you knew this would lead to mass death and a lot of people not being fans of yours, and considering Hubert also points out the Edel's policies are meant to benefit nobles who give her money and troops and keep down the commonfolk, she shouldn't be surprised by this answer. Shez even softens the comment by saying "you must have a good reason" but it's like Edelgard can't handle hearing any kind of real criticism from people she respects (or claims to). I think it's another player-pandering thing, can't have the Lord be mad at you, but it just makes Edelgard look like a thin-skinned whiner who can't handle the harsh criticisms that her actions are going to bring her. At least when she went on about "her path of blood and death" in 3 Houses she seemed to have some sense of "yeah people will hate my guts." Idk it probably comes down to the developers being scared to have someone truly criticize Edelgard without pushback.

That supports irks me for other reasons lol, basically the fact that Barney points out how water is wet (something Supreme Sailor Fuku apparently missed, as you noticed) but within 1 convo they completely drop that plot line and get along with her plans because, eggtivation means that someone as bland as Barney - who could represent common sense - must also be drowned under liters of Hresvelg Grey.

Imo, it's not "your lord cannot be mad at you", but again and again with the Fodlan games, "no one can be mad at Supreme Leader, not even you(r self insert character)".

FWIW, FEH got her writing right - faced with contradictions and criticism, Supreme Leader ragingly storms out of a conversation when the characters aren't from Fodlan and thus cannot be eggtivated (or when the Fodlan team isn't writing them?).

Given how her Nopes' Big B's support basically has her say "you're either with me or against me", no wonder why criticism, at least in Nopes, is something unknown for her, hell, Ferdie must behead his father to demonstrate times after times that he and House Aegir aren't her enemies - in a way, even with the twist they added (let's ally with those icky disgusting beasts to get rid of uncle, and THEN we will free Fodlan from their scaly grasp!) Nopes wrote Supreme Leader to be even more uncompromising and more bull-headed than ever, if in Houses she had a modicum of self-awareness (she's still the Adrestian Emperor though!), in Nopes it's written away.

[crownedwille]

.

[northern-passage]

i've shared some of Alex Freed's narrative writing advice before and i recently read another article on his website that i really liked. particularly in branching/choice-based games, a lot of people often bring up the idea of the author "punishing" the player for certain choices. i agree that this is a thing that happens, but i disagree that it's always a bad thing. i think Freed makes a good case for it here.

...acting as the player’s judge (and jury, and executioner) is in some respects the primary job of a game’s developers. Moreover, surely all art emerges from the artist’s own experiences and worldview to convey a particular set of ideas. How does all that square with avoiding being judgmental?

[...]

Let’s first dispel–briefly–the idea that any game can avoid espousing a particular worldview or moral philosophy. Say we’re developing an open world action-adventure game set in a modern-day city. The player is able to engage any non-player character in combat at any time, and now we’re forced to determine what should occur if the player kills a civilian somewhere isolated and out of sight.

Most games either:

allow this heinous act and let the player character depart without further consequence, relying on the player’s own conscience to determine the morality of the situation.

immediately send police officers after the player character, despite the lack of any in-world way for the police to be aware of the crime.

But of course neither of these results is in any way realistic. The problems in the latter example are obvious, but no less substantial than in the former case where one must wonder:

Why don’t the police investigate the murder at a later date and track down the player then?

Why doesn’t the neighborhood change, knowing there’s a vicious murderer around who’s never been caught? Why aren’t there candlelight vigils and impromptu memorials?

Why doesn’t the victim’s son grow up to become Batman?

We construct our game worlds in a way that suits the genre and moral dimensions of the story we want to tell. There’s no right answer here, but the consequences we build into a game are inherently a judgment on the player’s actions. Attempting to simulate “reality” will always fail–we must instead build a caricature of truth that suggests a broader, more realized world. Declaring “in a modern city, murderous predators can escape any and all consequences” is as bold a statement on civilization and humanity as deciding “in the long run, vengeance and justice will always be served up by the victims of crime (metaphorically by means of a bat-costumed hero).”

Knowing that, what’s the world we want to build? What are the themes and moral compass points we use to align our game?

This is a relatively easy task when working with a licensed intellectual property. In Star Trek, we know that creativity, diplomacy, and compassion are privileged above all else, and that greed and prejudice always lead to a bad end. A Star Trek story in which the protagonist freely lies, cheats, and steals without any comeuppance probably stopped being a Star Trek story somewhere along the line. Game of Thrones, on the other hand, takes a more laissez-faire approach to personal morality while emphasizing the large-scale harm done by men and women who strive for power. (No one comes away from watching Game of Thrones believing that the titular “game” is a reasonable way to run a country.)

These core ideals should affect more than your game’s storytelling–they should dovetail with your gameplay loops and systems, as well. A Star Trek farming simulator might be a fun game, but using the franchise’s key ideals to guide narrative and mechanical choices probably won’t be useful. (“Maybe we reward the player for reaching an accord with the corn?”)

Know what principles drive your game world. You’re going to need that knowledge for everything that’s coming.

[...]

Teaching the player the thematic basics of your world shouldn’t be overly difficult–low-stakes choices, examples of your world and character arcs in a microcosm, gentle words of wisdom, obviously bad advice, and so forth can all help guide the player’s expectations. You can introduce theme in a game the way you would in any medium, so we won’t dwell on that here.

You can, of course, spend a great deal of time exploring the nuances of the moral philosophy of your game world across the course of the whole game. You’ll probably want to. So why is it so important to give the player the right idea from the start?

Because you need the player to buy into the kind of story that you’re telling. To some degree, this is true even in traditional, linear narratives: if I walk into a theater expecting the romcom stylings of The Taming of the Shrew and get Romeo and Juliet instead, I’m not going to be delighted by having my expectations subverted; I’m just going to be irritated.

When you give a player a measure of control over the narrative, the player’s expectations for a certain type of story become even stronger. We’ll discuss this more in the next two points, but don’t allow your player to shoot first and ask questions later in the aforementioned Star Trek game while naively expecting the story to applaud her rogue-ish cowboy ways. Interactive narrative is a collaborative process, and the player needs to be able to make an informed decision when she chooses to drive the story in a given direction. This is the pact between player and developer: “You show me how your world works, and I’ll invest myself in it to the best of my understanding.”

[...]

In order to determine the results of any given choice, you (that is, the game you’ve designed) must judge the actor according to the dictates (intended or implicit) of the game world and story. If you’re building a game inspired by 1940s comic book Crime Does Not Pay, then in your game world, crime should probably not pay.

But if you’ve set the player’s expectations correctly and made all paths narratively satisfying, then there can be no bad choices on the part of the player–only bad choices on the part of the player character which the player has decided to explore. The player is no more complicit in the (nonexistent) crimes of the player character than an author is complicit in the crimes of her characters. Therefore, there is no reason to attempt to punish or shame the player for “bad” decisions–the player made those decisions to explore the consequences with you, the designer. (Punishing the player character is just dandy, so long as it’s an engaging experience.)

[...]

It’s okay to explore difficult themes without offering up a “correct” answer. It’s okay to let players try out deeds and consequences and decide for themselves what it all means. But don’t forget that the game is rigged. [...]

Intentionally or not, a game judges and a game teaches. It shows, through a multiplicity of possibilities, what might happen if the player does X or Y, and the player learns the unseen rules that underlie your world. Embracing the didactic elements of your work doesn’t mean slapping the player’s wrist every time she’s wrong–it means building a game where the player can play and learn and experiment within the boundaries of the lesson.

[y3ahwhat3ver]

Been seeing this over and over and it's sort of been annoying me but. Valentino and Alastor are not even remotely comparable. Like. Look I may be a bit biased bc I like Alastor and don't like Valentino beyond the funny moments he has but like.

Okay. Alastor sucks. Like he's a violent dickhead but part of that is that he's very restrained in his violence. The only times we see him do anything outright violent are when he/the hotel are under attack and then his one moment with Husk. His relationship with Husk gets brought up a lot when people make the comparison but to me like.

Throughout the show you see Husk talk shit to Alastor, literally all of the time. He heavily dislikes him (in my opinion a major part of that is bitterness over losing his own title just to become subservient to Al) but he doesn't ever really seem scared of him, beyond the one moment. He and Alastor have known eachother for years and it's pretty clear to me that Alastor sort of just. Let's him say whatever as long as he doesn't hit A Limit. Alastor's own contract is something he's very clearly sensitive about and Husk bringing that up when he was already in a bad mood. I'm not saying the way he treats Husk in this scene is good, or right but just that it makes sense in context.

I guess what really does it for me is Niffty as well? Like it's so clear she loves Al, quite literally crawling all over him and crowning him. They have a very sweet relationship in the show. She's comfortable enough with him to freely speak about her own feelings ("I really like them Alastor. They let me put on roach puppet shows without booing")

You just get the sense that like. Alastors relationship with his contractee's is. Maybe not the most outright friendly but it's not inherently violent.

And then you compare that to Valentino. Valentino is violent, but worse he's impulsive. And also kind of an idiot. Like the first time we see him it's Velvette calling Vox to come deal with him bc the man is on a rampage and killing her models. He has to be talked down from going to the hotel and killing everyone there. (Already a bad idea image wise but like. With the literal Princess of Hell in that hotel it's like. What was your plan for after that Val. What was your plan for after you attacked the only heir to the throne, the literal daughter of the devil. Christ.)

The difference here is that the only contractee we see him interact with is Angel Dust, and their relationship is fraught with abuse. Physical, sexual, and psychological. Valentino enables his drug addiction because it makes Angel more compliant. Even when he is not being violent towards Angel himself, he's still perpetuating that violence through the work he has Angel do (literally the everything about Poison makes me kind of sick to watch. Tbh, like great song but i cannot watch the mv without getting kind of upset. And look there's a conversation in there about sex work, and specifically SAFE sex work but that's not really what this post is.)

Like. There's literally a line in the show about Angel being WATERBOARDED at work. ("You know, Val, he's into that waterboarding shit now - I don't know, it's a kink." - episode 6 welcome to heaven) And this is JUST Angel's perspective. You don't see Valentino's other contracts but from the way Angel is treated, it's kind of clear that he does shit like this to anyone under his control, and thus anyone who cannot tell him No.

Look. You get the sense that Alastor is a dick, but there's no implication that he takes Niffty and Husk out back and beats them when he's aggravated (with them or otherwise.) We literally watch Valentino assault and threaten Angel because there is someone stronger than him [Valentino] who is trying to get him out of work.

[Edit (June 2nd, 2024): I want to clarify that I do like loser, baby and also Husk as a character and this is more abt my grievances with fandom comparing the two. In series, Angel needed that discussion with Husk and even thought their situations aren't 1:1 or even really that similar, it's still clear that Husks attempt to like. Empathize with him worked for Angel. That is all, thank u and goodnight]

[maestro030403]

Hot take? Maybe?

It may be totally against canon but I will forever view Tech as the baby of the batch. You can't tell me that rebellious-middle-child Crosshair gives off any youngest child energy. (I mean you can tell me but it probably won't change my mind). And you know us middle children can be sassy too.

Here's the birth order of the batch in my opinion: Wrecker's the oldest, then Hunter, then Crosshair, then Tech. It just makes sense.

Did I create this on my own? No

Did it come from obsessively reading fanfiction? Yes

But seriously, if you haven't read wwheeljack's bad batch fanfiction over on fanfiction.net you're really missing out. Really, you should read it it might just change your mind...

[viktheviking1]

Unpopular opinion: the new casting, at least for Alastor, is a good thing.

Yes. Edward Bosco is great. He clearly is a great voice actor and I hope he gets some really big roles in the future.

But can we all at least all agree that a white voice actor playing a mixed race Creole character is a bit problematic?

The original pilot was made with limited resources and contacts and such. The change was needed.

I mean at least now the voice actor is a minority. The wrong minority, but a minority.

Look, I don't know much about doing race right in movies and television, but so far, spindlehorse and amazon prime have been doing it wrong. And I say this as a fan of the show.

I have been informed that the reason he was chosen has to do with his role in the Broadway production of Annie. He plays the radio host whose voice Alastor's is based on.

Thanks @diamondkat

[lu-cider]

here's a page of plasma drawings from my sketchbook

also an extra drawing from the previous page

sillies!!!! they're in love!!!!!!!

[cephalofrog]

noah caldwell-gervais is the only motherfucker to have ever been correct about dark souls and elden rings' difficulty. no one else understands

[dallonwrites]

bestie how the fuck do you start writing again when you haven't written in years bc you're so paralyzed with Fear of Writing Badly mixed with How Do I Get Started and also WHAT do I write about HELP

I WANT to write but every part of it is. so. DAUNTING

Ohhh bestie I have BEEN there. Whenever I take breaks from writing I find myself scared that I'll have just….forgotten to write?? I think the fear of "bad writing" is amplified when you don't write for a while, however long, because you have to like hype yourself up to go back to writing and it's like what if I do all that and then I just can't do it? Returning to writing, especially after a long time, for me has taken a lot of mental work, trying to understand what will make writing fun and healthy for me. A lot of it, honestly, is easier said than done, but also it's mental work you'll keep doing after you start writing again and as you write, and for me it's easier to process my relationship with writing when I am actually writing.

A big part of that mental work for me, and something I think is so valuable, is to reconsider what "bad" writing is and give yourself permission to write it. Sometimes you will think your writing sucks, happens to all of us, but that isn't all it has to be. Like yeah, I'll think something I wrote sucks, but I still wrote it. I can revisit it and work on it and maybe I'll turn it into something I'm happy with. And even if I don't, I still wrote it, I learned from it. Writing does not need to be "good" by whatever standard we're holding it up to for it to have value. And you can delete it! Nobody has to see it! Also you can have fun writing something and still think it's not your best. I've written a lot of "bad" scenes that I had fun with because the scene was entertaining to me! I love when writing turns out how I like it, or I write a banger prose line, but equally I found it helpful to give myself permission to not worry about that all the time and just focus on my interest/enjoyment in what I'm writing, regardless of the "quality". Again, easier said than done, but something I've found easier the more I write, because you'll have bad writing days but you'll also have writing days that are so good

I know a lot of people see writing as a skill that they want to improve, and like I agree it feels really good to see your writing grow, but writing is so much more than the skill and the craft and the theory. There is no objective "perfection" to reach with writing like we are not Sims with levelled skills LOL. Writing is art and creativity and it should be fun and fulfilling. And IMO, the more you focus on what makes writing fun, you will grow and "improve" as a writer a lot quicker and in a way that is a lot more enjoyable than if you treat writing like some icy quest for perfection. You also get to decide what "good" writing is for you/your story. Some of my stories are more prose focused and I'll play more with language, imagery etc. Others are more about the plot and just having fun imagining this scene. Sometimes it's a mix of both. What is "good" writing depends on the writer, story, genre, etc. There is no one way to write.

I'm rambling a lot because I'm just really passionate about this and I cannot express enough how easier writing got, including all the difficult and ugly and frustrating parts, when I gave space to prioritise my enjoyment and fun. People love to romanticise the idea of the "struggling" writer. I see stuff on here and I'm like you guys….writing should be fun. Like yeah sometimes it's hard and we should talk about that but like, you Need to make sure you are having fun. Anyway I'm going to try not to ramble and bullet point some things that helped me:

Make Writing Fun: Lol! Literally whatever makes writing fun. Sometimes I just write super indulgent scenes and the fun of that sets me up to work on my projects. When I work on my projects I try to find what in each scene I'm going to enjoy the most, and focus on that to help me write the rest. I make playlists, moodboards, memes, art etc for my story because it's fun, and it helps me be engaged with my story outside of writing it. Just, have fun.

On productivity: some people will benefit from setting clear goals and running towards them. Some people don't. For me it depends on my headspace. I don't think productivity is a bad thing, it can feel good, but productivity should not be the only reason you write. And the most productive writing process is whichever one makes writing enjoyable for you, because that's how you'll get words on the page

On that note, please be wary of anyone online who who treats the writing advice they share as Fact. I'm not saying every writing teacher out there does...but some of them market it that way! And creators do not have an authority on writing just because they have a platform however big. There are some AMAZING content creators out there who talk about writing, and I have found them motivating, but like just let yourself be picky about who you listen to/engage with. I say this because I consumed some very Strict writing advice when I was younger and it literally contributed to my years long slump so like...I'm picky now LOL

About goals: Personally, gentle goals are what help me get back into writing. Maybe just write for 20 minutes, or write every day for a couple days. When I do word count goals, I base them on how I feel that day, and recently I don't make a word count, I'll transfer it to the next session but smaller. So if I try to write 500 words but can't I'll say okay, lets try 250 next time. Goals can be a great motivator and way to feel achieved, and maybe bigger goals will help you, but you're also allowed to adjust them as you go to make it easier

On finding new ideas, having been there before, you don't need a fully fleshed out idea to start writing. My longest break I came back to writing with...one character and a backstory? If you have stories/characters already you can revisit them, either build on what you have or completely change it. Or if you don't have that, if there's a piece of media you like you can take that concept and play around with it in your own way, or you can even just write fanfic until you have your own idea (if you want your own idea, fanfic is cool too!) You can even just find a cool pic on pinterest and play around with describing it, writing about it, seeing if you can get anything from that. Ideas are everywhere and they can be tiny, and I think if you have that want to write you Will find your story eventually. All writers have had the Idea struggle, but I think the more you engage with writing and think about what concepts and stories interest you already, the more you'll like train yourself to get ideas

That was very long and maybe a lot but like, I am very passionate about this! I've been in writing "slumps" where I didn't know if I would write again, I've started writing again with no ideas, and in those times all I had was the fact I knew I wanted to write. There are a lot of reasons why we end up having long breaks from writing and it is totally normal, sometimes beneficial for us, and we should never give ourselves a hard time for not writing for however long. But also remember that you can always come back. Every one of us has the capacity to create, whatever that looks like, and you can make it as self indulgent and self serving as you want.

[walterdecourceys]

anyway now that i've thoroughly undermined everyone's confidence that i know what i'm talking about. i think that making the "jesus was a socialist hippie!" "i'm not a christian but the biblical jesus was actually a pretty cool dude who aligns with my belief system" isn't that much better than conservative christians twisting in knots trying to find biblical justification for voting for trump or whatever. like you're still cherrypicking a really complex and nuanced historical document to fit your current political agenda

[astrabear]

A writer friend of mine posted this on Facebook:

A FB friend made a post asking if writers have any sort of ethical or moral responsibility regarding our writing. Most of the answers were about our only responsibility being to the "truth" of the story and characters, or the like. The following was my response. ---------- I guess I'll be the voice of dissent. As writers, we *absolutely* have a responsibility to the culture and times we live in--or rather, to the people who share them with us. Any piece of fiction longer than a short story (and many short stories as well) has a socio-political message. It may be minor, and it may well be unintentional, but it's there. It's there in the decisions we make about what characters to spotlight, and how we portray them. It's there in the attitudes we don't even mean to express. It's there in our choice of what struggles to showcase, and why characters on different sides of the issue make the choices they do. You can choose to craft your message deliberately, or not. But it will be there. It is our responsibility to be aware of what we're saying, and if what we're saying is harmful to people, to choose to say something else. If (to choose some random examples) your survivalist ammosexual turns out to be right, and his way of self-centered violence is the correct way forward? You're saying something that speaks to issues our society is facing right now. If your villain is Black or trans, and your heroes are all white or cis? That's a message. In a world of true equality, it might not be, but in this world? In a world of persecution and hate crimes and laws of deliberate oppression across multiple states? It's absolutely saying something. And what it's saying is harmful. It literally contributes, however small your audience may be, to a greater harmful attitude and world view. As a writer, you own that. And as writers, I believe we have an ethical and moral responsibility not to make things worse, if we can't make them better. And if doing harm is the only way you can be "true to the story"? Then you damn well tell a different story. As humans, our obligation is to our fellow humans, the marginalized most of all. Being a writer or an artist doesn't change that; it only changes how we go about it.

Me again. Now, this author writes novels and screenplays (Ari Marmell, he writes mostly fantasy with some sci-fi/horror, many of them have audiobook versions, some have been translated into other languages, see if your library carries anything but don't pirate minor authors who barely make enough to get by please) but this is the crux of the conflict I see in fanfic discourse.

And I don't know if it's possible to have constructive discussion between people who agree with these underlying principles (that everything communicates a political viewpoint, that what you put out into the world becomes part of a larger system of beliefs and values, that you are responsible for the effects of your work) and people who disagree with them.

[bruciemilf]

I could be wrong but didn't superman talk bruce out of killing the joker after he killed Jason. Probably also a combination of that and joker having diplomatic immunity, but still. Maybe it's also that some universes don't have Jason ir have different story lines, but in Injustice I was kind of confused why everyone was upset with bruce for not killing the joker and not realizing it's a whole host of other things that keep batman from killing his rogues

Oo idk!! But at this point they should just kill the fucker themselves Dick grayson style. Why are you waiting around for Bruce?? You want him to murder for you???? What are you, 4? You want him to cut your food next????? GROW UP