#omw to assert world dominance ofc

[loremmaradeur]

The attitude towards fans of anything evil in media coming from such people is so childish, really. Some recent time ago I finished reading Stoker's "Dracula" and even though the Vampire Count was shown there as repulsive monster, by god, is he charismatic. And villains are almost always being made this way.

Ah yes, I do eat newborn children every morning, slaughter people and must be put in a straightjacket just because I giggle and kick up my legs in a silly way whenever I meet an evil charismatic character anywhere. /s

People need to understand that they aren't "humanity's therapists" and realize that by telling people online that they are mentally ill and need help if they enjoy fictional evil doesn't make them any better person, or god forbid an "irl moral hero" than anyone else around - in fact, it makes them as person only worse.

I wonder what they would say about some actors who often plays evil characters and sometimes enjoy it that it's almost their only repertoire. Ah, yes, remembering that time when the crowd bullied one of the Game of Thrones fans for playing an evil char, because they hated him so much they saw no difference between char and real life person. All this "goodness" of those people in it's "best".

People who apply irl morality to judge whether a character's outcome in BG3 is their "good or bad" end (separate from "evil or good", fyi) really confuse me.

Basically saying "evil=bad, good=good" but...

They will too use Speak with Animals and then at camp eat meat/meat dishes. By real life logic, the spell confirms animals to be equally sentient (if less "civilized" cuz yk, animals) as humans - meaning only veganism is a moral way (by irl standards.)

Or how they don't realize "good Gods" doesn't mean "ethical" by irl rules - lots of good Gods in DnD would haplily smite down UA if given the chance, simply because he is a vampire.

Morality, as it exists in the real world, does not map at all into a fictional world where:

Magic, Gods, many afterlives, immortality, curses, spells that detect literall Goodness and Evilness, speaking to plants and animals (and then eating them after hearing their dreams), etc., etc. exist.

Now this is not to say "evil" actions are "good", it's just that it functions different, matters - less, in the world. I see people say "sending 7000 spawn to the Hells is like killing 7000 people irl! You have to be evil irl to defend such game choice!" (after they likely slaughtered bloodlines and children of goblins and absolute's people who also had dreams and could be really sweet inside, but it's ok, because they're ugly and "evil") and my eyes roll so hard they fall out and I have to pick them back up.

I guess my main point is that in a DnD world - or frankly, any world of fiction and fantasy - what is evil can also be good... It is quite funny - because cultists are deserving of a happy life just as the many sacrificed spawn, but Tav kills without remorse... And it's fine! Because they stand between Tav and their selfish goal, surviving vs surviving. A hero-bias, if you will: "the story says I'm the main character, so anything I do is Moral and Pure, because I'm a Moral and Pure person" (a belief of many "heroes" who kill "monsters" like Astarion, too.)

But then same players see (some of) sacrificed spawns as "cute little meow meows" (even tho they are clearly described in-text as they are in lore, mostly evil - which makes the selection we see in Cazador palace before seeing him highly suspicious, raising question of "what did he want to achieve? Play into Tav/Astarion's feelings to prevent them from stealing or stopping *his* Ascension?"), so ofc it's "wrong" to Ascend for selfish reasons (power, safety to heal on own's terms, because of "choice" not "lack of other choice, if I am bad I will be killed"), such Tavs will say. But that is clearly a double standard...

I think really, only way you can come to such conclusion if you pay little attention to text (and I played since EA, seen every possible route of romance/friend and origin of the other Player Characters/Origins, and play DnD for years now - evil alligned usually ♡) and only rely on epitext (fanon takes, tiktoks without contexts, fragments while discrading anything to contrary, first impression of emotion without deeper look) as main lense.

The assertion that a game route called "romance" with "romance" flags being seen as "canon tragedy, headcanon happy" is just projection (because I guess genre is irrelevant in literacy) and it's actually backwards imo (hot take I guess). And asserting it can't be happy because it's evil (and evil=unhappy) is, well - very american, I guess. I remember learning of Hays Code in university classes and the literal rules of "evil can't be happy" "evil can't be rewarded" "we must push moral lesson in romance because children/women r dumb" is 1:1 anti-AA talking points. "He must be evil because he did something "bad" therefore he must lose soul and can't love, abuse apologies," uh huh, you can just dislike something without making it about moral signaling and therapy-tok talk. It's literally fictional - Oh the horrors, lock us in fiction jail... Just because progressive and big words are used doesn't mean it's better if you repeat same thoughts of puritan censoring. Something about thought crimes is brought to mind too... Anyway, don't want to tangent.

~~~

Evil deserves happy endings, and AA gets one.~ ♡

And Tav is happy with him if *they* love *him*, like he does.~♡

He deserves to feel the sun on his smiling face - to shine like the brightest star; not to dim quietly, like one whose light will soon extinguish.

xoxo ꨄ︎