#But I interact with a lot of people that have a lot of traits I don’t

[fantasy-anatomy-analyst]

There's a lot to be said for the narrative conflicts fantasy racism can add to a story if it's used correctly and with care.

Trying to avoid it entirely and make a fantasy world without it is actually kind of tricky, I've found. It's difficult to explore the history and dynamics of people who are entirely different species from each other and not end up with some conflicts between them based on the fact that they are different species. Even related people species will have conflict in their history. It adds depth to the world and helps you explore how those conflicts have changed over time. If they're no longer in conflict, how did that happen?

Since I'm white, I do what I can to avoid having any of my fantasy people species feeling like stand ins for real life populations and historical events. I don't what the goblin revolution to read like an exact parallel to any specific real world rebellions or uprisings, though it is still the uprising of an oppressed people.

I just think if I wrote it too similarly to a real world event, it would cause some complications as people might then read my very non-human amphibious goblins as a caricature of whichever human group was at the center of the real world event. And I don't want that.

Here are some ways to add conflict between people species in fantasy: (and of course anyone can add to this list, this is just what I've been doing in my WIP)

- people species that evolved as natural predator and prey and now have to figure out how to treat each other as equals. Now, obviously this does come with some element of "we don't like you because we're afraid of you", but the key is in the exploration of how they got to this point. What would it take for a hunter to realize their prey is just as sapient as they are? How did they get past their language barriers? Did the prey species fight back? Does the predator species feel any guilt over it? Where is the line between "creatures following natural instincts" and "people at war"? How do they feel about each other now, and is there any hope for peace and maybe even friendship in the future?

- people species that used to be one group but had some splits and adapted to new environments. How did they end up split? Was it perhaps a class division or civil war that caused part of their group to end up in a new environment? Did it happen before they were even sapient people? How have their differences continued to create conflict between them? What do they still have in common? Are they actually fully different species now, or just subspecies of the same recent ancestor?

- how are interspecies hybrids viewed? How do they feel about their own existence?

It is inevitable that when you're working with totally different people species, you run into the fact that they do actually have objective biological differences from each other, and it's likely that those differences have been used as a reason for oppression. Things like lifespan differences, magic affinity, predator and prey traits, etc. But you don't want the audience to agree with the idea that these differences make a group inherently superior or inferior, even if some fictional people within your world do see it that way.

In my opinion, one major fix for that is just showing how each people species has adapted to handle the environment they're in, how their cultures have been shaped by their differences, and what advantages they have because of their adaptations. What did they invent to fill their specific needs? As they interact with other people species, how can they actually help each other and share resources? What has been done to end and prevent interspecies conflicts?

As an example, my amphibious goblins have invented the best food preservation methods because they often live in environments that require hibernation or have weather and climate hazards that they can only survive by retreating into deep caves, relying on their food storage to get through it. They're more vulnerable to major temperature and water quality changes, so they needed good survival strategies. Being semi aquatic, they also invented water tight containers and bags, and being covered in mucus they invented special skin protection materials like clothing that helps them retain moisture. So even though they aren't as long lived as some other people groups, they're hardly inferior. They just have different adaptations and advantages. And I think that's really important to making your people species different without making eugenics look good.

Ended up rambling more than I intended to lol, sorry about that. Fantasy worldbuilding is obviously a passion of mine, it's why I made this blog. I'd be happy to see more opinions and ideas from other folks!

hmm I think fantasy oppression and "racism" can actually work if the dynamics were explored in a nuance way along with understanding how it works and what leads to this thinking instead of reinventing the Zootopia furry racism for the 100th time created by white people who have zero racial minorities on board.

[sha-brytols]

i have a question feel free not to answer but i promise it's not in bad faith. i agree with u with just about everything in dragon age and respect your opinions, but ive been an aveline hater for sooo long. i see your points about the misogyny which i think is the number one #anti aveline thing people point out, but i was wondering your takes on some of the others, like her guard favoritism, rejecting carver from the guard despite his job insecurity and not throwing out the records of fenris squatting in hightown? do you think it's like, a control thing? i admit ive been in a bit of an echo chamber and never heard someone talk about that that wasnt coming from already hating aveline. i can appreciate a morally grey character for sure, but i think her "my hands are tied" centrism always irked me more than isabela and varric's more carefree and charismatic outlooks

i get it LOL fandom has a tendency of influencing personal bias to an extreme and it's hard to see past the echo chambers. i think this is what causes characters like sebastian or sera to get such extreme levels of hate despite people very rarely actually interacting with them in game or making an effort to understand their perspectives. i don't think disliking aveline is bad, but i do think the disproportionate hate she receives compared to the other companions is like. silly. They're All Bad People.

so bioware writes women, ESPECIALLY women who don't conform to stereotypically feminine traits and roles (read: female warriors) very poorly, and i think that's really important to keep in mind in meta discussions because it does absolutely play a key role in how "palatable" they are. a lot of aveline's personality is directly informed by this odd insistence on making her a big scary unattractive Mannish brute, because the writers have no concept of femininity outside of soft and gentle and sexy. and i say this because this plays a huge role in her characterization as a big authority figure who Does Not Take Your Shit. it's one of those things that makes meta analysis very difficult because i feel like there isn't a single part of her character design or writing that wasn't affected by it (for both good and bad) and people tend to take it for granted.

like, we Know anders' characterization as the creepy possessive borderline-stalker guy is directly informed by jennifer hepler's bias against bipolar disorder. it absolutely works as a character trait and it IS an important part of him, but it's still important to acknowledge just how Caricaturized the whole thing is and how much of that is narratively purposeful and how much of that is hepler's own lack of empathy for the disorder. that's the way i see aveline's writing. bioware thinks "masculine" women are abrasive and unattractive, therefore they give aveline the most severe personality in the whole game. because that's just what women like that Are Like, according to bioware.

i keep fucking writing harvard essays in response to these asks i'm so fuckgjfnd sorry. more under the cut.

but you know like. from a watsonian perspective i think that just speaks more to her insecurity than it does to her as a person in the story. i talked about it before, but a big aspect of aveline's character is how she's been constantly at the mercy of people who were meant to be her leaders, people she was expected to follow without question, only for those people to misuse or even outright abuse their power. loghain abandoning everyone at ostagar cost her her home, her husband, her friends, everything she ever had. she comes to kirkwall with this newfound sense of "i will never let that happen again," which makes her very protective and overbearing. we can tell by her attitude with hawke and the other guards that she considers all of her people her Family and she refuses to compromise their safety for anything. they trust her, they rely on her. she won't be another loghain or another jevan.

it's not by any means a positive trait. it's both her greatest strength and her greatest flaw. she cares too much about the people she's responsible for and happily sacrifices the good of everyone else in favor of her own comfort without even realizing. and who does that remind you of?

our own protagonist is among the most important and powerful people in the game, and the whole narrative is essentially built on hawke bending and breaking every law they possibly can to keep their own family as comfortable and safe as possible, even at the cost of others. she's hawke's parallel. she forces the player to reflect on how easy it is to say you're a good person and you want to help everyone when you have the means and the power to actually make a change, but how quickly that self-assurance goes out the window the second you actually have to make the tough calls. it takes hawke 9 literal years to even Feebly voice their public support between the mages and templars, and they spend the entire game flip flopping between working for one's interests and then the other's because of that refusal to actually take a stance and commit to their morals. you can headcanon your hawke as the Radical Revolutionary but that isn't the character we see in game. we see the person who's too afraid of confrontation and losing the fragile stability they've built for themselves to actually stand up for what's right until their hand is forced. that's the position aveline is in.

this is one of those things where i keep saying people should rival characters more. all those traits you hate in aveline are the ones that become challenged through hawke's constant rejection of her authority, and what makes the rivalry routes so fascinating is how they give you a unique insight as to Why your companions are the way that they are. all these things i've mentioned aren't just excuses for why she's like this. it's all in her rivalry route! she's terrified, insecure, she has no idea what she's doing, she feels completely alone in a city where she has to constantly prove herself, and this causes her to overcompensate in the only avenue where she actually has a modicum of control.

as for the stuff with carver and fenris. i think people tend to look at those with very narrow lenses and fail to see them within their context. like, the stuff with carver is pretty easy. that isn't even an issue of favoritism or corruption, it's a matter of "the guy who i know for a fact is a hotheaded kid with authority problems only wants to be a guard to feel important and i'm not putting someone like that in a position of power." you can disagree with that assessment, but she didn't just reject carver out of nowhere, she knows him well and is well aware of the fact that he has a massive inferiority complex. like, i think it's silly that carver is seen as this innocent victim in that situation for being turned down as guard, when most of the time these same people who condemn her for it also hate her specifically because she's a guard LOL. if you dislike how aveline handles her authority, how do you think CARVER would handle it? his templar path to me seems like proof enough that he only sees these positions as avenues for validation and isn't actually fully prepared for what these positions actually Entail

and for fenris. people misunderstood that banter i think LOL. first of all, people mix up her banter about fenris squatting with banter about formal complaints about him. it was the latter she didn't throw out, and this is only after you finish her quest where you help her expose the previous captain's corruption. she's the guard captain. the complaints go to no one else but her. all she's doing is proving that she isn't going to be the next jevan. plus, i think this gets overinflated a lot LOL her and fenris are like two of the most amicable party members. she changes patrols around his mansion to give him some peace of mind, she warns him when he's drawing too much attention to himself. i don't think it's a fair assessment at aaaall to say aveline is somehow neglecting or endangering fenris, because it's literally the exact opposite. she protects all of her friends, even the Fucking Abomination Who Does Nothing But Antagonize Her LOL

this got long. erm. teehee. it's not a big deal if you don't like aveline LOL i mean we all have our favorites and least favorites and it's not like i expect everyone to love her. i just feel like these opinions Are sometimes worthy of reflection. do you give the other companions the same scrutiny? are you really judging her on her own merit or are you judging her on the purity test we tend to subconsciously apply to female characters in general, even if it's a subconscious thing? like i could try to name the amount of male characters in dragon age that share the same flaws as her and it would end up an even bigger post than this LOL. do you like gorim? duncan? sten? what makes aveline so much less sympathetic than them? that's all. and if it does turn out to just be a taste thing then i obviously can't brainwash you into loving a character LOL

if you somehow read this whole thing you are braver than any us soldier. here's the funniest picture of ricky i have in my album.

[thesoftboiledegg]

The writers' choice to stray away from B-plots in recent seasons has been controversial. Some people have criticized this decision because it means we spend less time with the other characters. Personally, I've enjoyed it because it gives us more time to focus on the main story--and man, as far as B-plots go, I REALLY wish this episode didn't have one.

The Earth World subplot was creative enough, and I'll admit that it was nice to see the whole Smith family in an episode for a change. But every time the story veered away from the Beths, I couldn't wait to return to their adventures. We've only got 20 minutes to spare, and their story is so much more interesting than a goofy subplot that doesn't reveal anything new about the characters.

Well, maybe it revealed a little about Morty. "I'm not gonna shit on it too hard because I know you'd punish me." Ouch. No matter how much Rick changes, the memory of his past abuse still lingers.

And the Beths have a lot of complicated memories, too. "The CuRicksous Case of Bethjamin Button" is a solid episode, but I wish we had time to really dive into their sadness, grief, frustration and contradictory feelings toward their father and each other. Without it, the happier scenes at the end don't completely feel "earned."

In any case, I hope this is the start of something bigger. This show has underutilized Beth for far too long.

I was glad to see two women credited as the head writers for this episode (Heather Anne Campbell and Jess Lacher) because they'd truly understand the weirdness of girlhood. As a former weird girl myself, this episode nailed it. Little girls are loud, rowdy, creative, daring and ambitious, but despite it all, we crave our parents' love and approval.

Beth, of course, is a little rowdier than most girls. I wish we'd learned more about her childhood because it's still fairly muddy. She's violent like her father, but the show keeps implying that he was kinder when he was younger, so was Beth just vicious on her own? Or are we getting the wrong impression about Rick? Or did something else happen? It's still a mystery.

Beth and Space Beth's dynamic is intriguing because they respect and care for each other, but they also see each other's worst traits in themselves, so they often end up at each other's throats. Still, they always end up reconciling because nobody understands them as well as they do. They have such different lives, and yet they ended up in the exact same mental state.

At the start, it was nice to see them acknowledge that they can't keep blaming Rick for everything. He fucked up, but they're adults who make their own decisions--well, until they get into the de-aging machine, I guess. After Rick happily lived as a child in "Cryo Mort a Rickver," we've had two episodes in a row about age regression. Don't let Rick de-age himself, because he might not want to change back.

When the Beths started raising hell in a seemingly aimless A-plot and the B-plot kept Rick away from the house, I figured we'd miss our chance to see Rick interact with his little girl. But nope, the writers had a pleasant surprise in store: Rick leaving the trip early to confront his daughters alone.

That decision resulted in some juicy character scenes. The Beths take advantage of Rick's genuine fatherly concern to trap him in the machine and turn him into a 360-year-old geezer, then proceed to kick his ass. Inevitably, their glee melts into tears. And finally, the show addresses something that's driven me crazy for ages: Rick tells the Beths that he never left them.

I've always hated how Rick apparently told them off-screen, and it didn't seem to affect the way the family treated him. The Smiths insulted him for YEARS, thinking he abandoned his daughter, and we just...never find out how they reacted to the truth? This episode doesn't totally rectify that, but at least we see Beth admit that she needs to blame somebody, and he's the only Rick available.

Beth tries to protect herself with an icy exterior, but in the end, she's just a lonely little girl who wants her father's love. Her biological father is gone, but after all these years, the Rick who stayed is finally ready to give it to her.

I would've preferred this episode without a B-plot, but I'll admit that Summer and Jerry loudly ruining Rick's moment with the Beths was hilarious. This is still the Sanchez/Smith family, after all. They might be changing, but they're always up for wacky sci-fi hijinks--and poor Gene keeps getting caught in the way.

[loderlied]

sharing some thoughts about deactivating here because it’s been difficult pondering idk.

[sonknuxadow]

originally had a super long multi paragraph ramble about this written out but then realized i did not have to say all that . anyway . i think that the reason some little animal guy sonic characters have last names while most others just go by (name) the (species) has to do with cultural differences... the fact that the characters with last names are also the same characters who have more human sounding first names makes me think that they were born in an area that had a large human population, or that their parents or grandparents were, so their family was influenced by human naming practices

[buttercup-art]

So I was listening to some songs from 'Crazy Ex-Girlfriend', and this one really reminded me of Hugo and Noa!

(But they don't actually hate each other. I imagine one of their "fights" got a little out of hand, and they're just kinda mad at each other for a while. There's a lot of push and pull with them)

Also as a bonus!

This one just reminded me of Noa correcting Hugo about what a square is (except it's with triangles lol)

[cosmic-carpals]

not ashamed to be a jc hater. I Don't Like That Guy.

[ciaran]

characters you find interesting to genderbend?

generally characters who have some interesting uhh relations w gender. like zhongxiao for example are not fun to genderbend at all? i feel no need to do it. the bite of their relationship is their m/s dynamic. luckae ARE interesting to genderbend (i havent read any good fic where diluc is characterized the way i like And a woman and kaeya's a guy and characterized the way i want). when i genderbend i also tend to make it ~het~. im not terribly interested in genderbent ratiorine (either of them). but i AM into fem sunday/gallagher. shuake is also beautiful genderbent......

ocs of ours i would genderbend probably if they werent ocs (i am not too into genderbending ocs??): alex (but not xan - i think girl alex is such a dirty little bitch and her empty boy alter xan is kinda baffling bc he doesnt have a reason to be a boy - canonically he bases his gender off of alex's. but then we'd have to figure out why he's a guy. fun); leo maybe?? (eldest daughter turbo trauma); .......ehh i really cant think of any more, they're all some type of boy for A Reason, and when the character is canonically per us a trans guy i like genderbending them less than i do if it's a character that i only hc as a trans guy. if that makes sense

(i was thinking of if the featherfall characters would be fun as girls and the thing is that girl fain is like, taxingly boring to me and girl august is this kind of jean-esque character?? noble morally upright eldest who is kind of strict and conservative and strangely neurotic... anyway not fun. el could be but ewhhh)

... ayato and kaveh are also fun as girls

[i-am-basil-boi]

Man, I’m glad that I’m at least theoretically allowed to tell people when they’re being bigoted in small, seemingly inconspicious ways that build to reveal a deeper, more harmful misunderstanding about the problems I run into as a person going throughout my daily life that they have the luxury of ignoring because they’re straight, white, cisgendered, neurotypical, and/or able-bodied, but why does it always have to be me examining your biases for you

[rxttenfish]

one of the things that particularly pisses me off about art discussions, either in how nowadays everything has to aim for more and more realism in art styles and even live action to be seen as "real art", and in dismissing more abstract styles of artwork as not "real art" and having no inherent worth, is that they explicitly do not consider realism an art style either. to them, realism is just a given of "good" art, not chosen but rather just default. which i hate, because you CAN pick realism as an intentional style and a purposeful choice to suit a narrative, and all this results in is no one noticing or understanding why you made that choice or why that choice works better than any other possible choice to tell the story you want to tell.

[lunaelume-n]

want to know where the hannibal fans are that have an ugly past, that can’t always relate to knowing they’re really a good person inside. want to know where the hannibal fans are that struggle with terribly intrusive thoughts, that have acted immorally and have been genuinely unsafe or unhealthy for others, even others who were innocent. want to know where the hannibal fans are that grew up deeply questioning everything about reality to a disturbing level, and how isolating that felt. fans that struggle with feeling very angry and hurt, or just feeling their feelings all the time. if not feeling, analyzing everything, all the time. the fans that can’t always relate to being the victim of the story, but the person who’s done harm too. want to know where the hannibal fans are at that have genuinely wondered if something is severely wrong with them, and not because of their admiration for the show, but because of the ways they’ve behaved, things they’ve thought or said, interests they’ve had, but also because you grew up feeling less included than you’d like, so you just feel more odd than most, maybe even doomed sometimes. this show is a helpful tool in observing myself more objectively, and i appreciate that because i’ve been able to learn when to step back and let go, on top of applying other coping mechanisms i have. i do feel isolated in this fandom sometimes because while i know i am not my past and my mistakes or my struggles, i see many people online that i feel might not have strayed too far the way that i have, and while i have a general grasp on reality and morals, and i’d never intentionally act out of line with those morals now in my life, i have in the past, and i’ve been wrong, unsafe, and cruel. i’ve been able to reflect on myself and grow, so there’s comfort in that, but there’s still also the worry of “what if i am alone in this?” knowing how unlikely that is, given how many people are in the world.

[welcometoteyvat]

the rarepair pipeline really is just (wants to see two characters interact) (the only people who make content of those two interacting are the shippers) (doesn't mind them having a romantic relationship and thus is converted into the rarepair)

[vermillionvillage]

@ tht one thing i just rbed on my main about being scared of remembering things have Larger Fandoms that i tagged w/ block tales. ouuuuuuggghhhhhhhhh. every time i Remember it Scares me

[cowboycatss]

so weird how often people become stupid obsessed with a disney parks actor and then are shocked when suddenly they’re not there anymore

[ur-stepdad]

had an 8 year old today ask me what my zodiac sign was and i told her that i'm a libra

she said "i didn't know boys could be libras"

[flimsy-roost]

I realized the other day that the reason I didn't watch much TV as a teenager (and why I'm only now catching up on late aughts/early teens media that I missed), is because I literally didn't understand how to use our TV. My parents got a new system, and it had three remotes with a Venn diagram of functions. If someone left the TV on an unfamiliar mode, I didn't know how to get back to where I wanted to be, so I just stopped watching TV on my own altogether.

I explained all this to my therapist, because I didn't know if this was more related to my then-unnoticed autism, or to my relationship with my parents at the time (we had issues less/unrelated to neurodivergency). She told me something interesting.

In children's autism assessments, a common test is to give them a straightforward task that they cannot reasonably perform, like opening an overtight jar. The "real" test is to see, when they realize that they cannot do it on their own, if they approach a caregiver for help. Children that do not seek help are more likely to be autistic than those that do.

This aligns with the compulsory independence I've noticed to be common in autistic adults, particularly articulated by those with lower support needs and/or who were evaluated later in life. It just genuinely does not occur to us to ask for help, to the point that we abandon many tasks that we could easily perform with minor assistance. I had assumed it was due to a shared common social trauma (ie bad experiences with asking for help in the past), but the fact that this trait is a childhood test metric hints at something deeper.

My therapist told me that the extremely pathologizing main theory is that this has something to do with theory of mind, that is doesn't occur to us that other people may have skills that we do not. I can't speak for my early childhood self, or for all autistic people, but I don't buy this. Even if I'm aware that someone else has knowledge that I do not (as with my parents understanding of our TV), asking for help still doesn't present itself as an option. Why?

My best guess, using only myself as a model, is due to the static wall of a communication barrier. I struggle a lot to make myself understood, to articulate the thing in my brain well enough that it will appear identically (or at least close enough) in somebody else's brain. I need to be actively aware of myself and my audience. I need to know the correct words, the correct sentence structure, and a close-enough tone, cadence, and body language. I need draft scripts to react to possible responses, because if I get caught too off guard, I may need several minutes to construct an appropriate response. In simple day-to-day interactions, I can get by okay. In a few very specific situations, I can excel. When given the opportunity, I can write more clearly than I am ever capable of speaking.

When I'm in a situation where I need help, I don't have many of my components of communication. I don't always know what my audience knows. I don't have sufficient vocabulary to explain what I need. I don't know what information is relevant to convey, and the order in which I should convey it. I don't often understand the degree of help I need, so I can come across inappropriately urgent or overly relaxed. I have no ability to preplan scripts because I don't even know the basic plot of the situation.

I can stumble though with one or two deficiencies, but if I'm missing too much, me and the potential helper become mutually unintelligible. I have learned the limits of what I can expect from myself, and it is conceptualized as a real and physical barrier. I am not a runner, so running a 5k tomorrow does not present itself as an option to me. In the same way, if I have subconscious knowledge that an interaction is beyond my capability, it does not present itself as an option to me. It's the minimum communication requirements that prevent me from asking for help, not anything to do with the concept of help itself.

Maybe. This is the theory of one person. I'm curious if anyone else vibes with this at all.