#Geralt is not a moral person

[hanzajesthanza]

the scene i find most relatable in all of the witcher saga is ciri in the korath desert, and idk what that says about me, but… probably nothing good 😅🙃

[petrenocka]

"X is just a guy" is a popular phrase to throw around these parts when talking about blorbos, but I swear, and I am 100% stone faced serious when I say this, not a single character has ever done it quite like Geralt from The Witcher books.

[littlestsnicket]

sometimes i want to shake people and ask “is it fun for you to take lines of dialogue and interpret them as negatively as possible? does watching things in bad faith make you happy?”

[anim-ttrpgs]

Why I Dislike PbtA Games, and How Eureka: Investigative Urban Fantasy is Their Opposite

@tender-curiosities

It is no secret that I hate PbtA games.

Though due to a recent misunderstanding regarding another post, I’m going to preface this post by saying that this is going to be a very opinionated post and

I do not seriously think that PbtA games are inherently bad, though I may sometimes joke about this.

While I do often question the taste of people who make and play PbtA hacks, I do not think poorly of their moral character.

While I am going to call for PbtA to be used less as a base for games in the future, I’m not saying that the whole system and all games based on it should be destructified. It’s good for what it’s good for, but unless you’re doing that, I really think you should use something else.

Now that that is out of the way, here’s what I have to say about it.

My first experiences with PbtA games were pretty rough. Monster of the Week was not the first, but it was one of the first ‘indie’ TTRPGs I played after having previously played mostly only D&D3.5e and 5e. I really appreciated that the use of 2D6 over a D20 meant that the dice results would be more predictable, and I really liked the various “classes” I was seeing. (At this time, I didn’t really understand that they weren’t really “classes” at all, though I think I can be forgiven for this because many people, even people who like PbtA games, still talk like “classes” and “playbooks” are interchangeable.)

I was very enthusiastic to play, until it came time to start actually “making” a character, and found that I couldn’t “make” a character. I wanted to make a nuanced, three-dimensional PC who was simultaneously stereotype-affirming and stereotype-defying, with a unique backstory and dynamic with the other characters—but when I went to actually fill out the character sheet for basically any “class”, I found that most of the backstory and most of the personality for my character was being set for me by the playbook. It felt like the only thing about the character I really had a say in was their name, and that two PCs of the same playbook would actually turn out to be almost identical characters. At the time, I thought this was very restrictive and very bad design.

Later, now that I understand the design intent behind it, I still think of it as very restrictive, but I think of it as very bad design for me, not inherently bad.

When I play a TTRPG, I want more freedom in who my PC is. That doesn’t mean I want less rules, in fact having more rules can often increase freedom, but that’s a different post. I want to create original, unique characters, that I won’t see anywhere else. If it’s a class-based system, I want that class to barely touch the details of my character’s backstory or personality, so that I can come up with something original and engaging for why and how this “Fighter” fights. This means that two level-1 Fighters, despite having almost the same mechanical abilities, will potentially be very different people.

PbtA games don’t let you do that. In a lot of PbtA games, you’re not playing your own original character, you’re playing someone else’s character, that every other player that has picked up the same playbook before you has played. It’s more like “character select” than “character creation.” I think I could liken it to playing Mass Effect or The Witcher. Every player may pick a few different dialogue choices in those games that change the story, but we’re still all playing Shepherd or Geralt. No one is going to experience a new never-before-seen story in Mass Effect or The Witcher, which is very much a factor of them being video games and not TTRPGs, and therefore limited to the amount of code, writing, and voice-acting that can go into them.

This anonymous asker who sent a message to @thydungeongal seems to feel pretty similarly to me about PbtA games, and @thydungeongal's response is a very good response about how people find this appealing.

I have more respect for PbtA now than I did, but I still don't like it because to me it seems to play so much against what I consider to be the strengths of TTRPGs as a medium, much like how video games like The Last of Us and David Cage games play against the strengths of the medium of video games, and I will never like it. But other people clearly do, so to each their own.

Then another reason I don’t like it is because I think it’s oversaturating the TTRPG space. I’ve referred to PbtA before as “indie D&D5e”, and i do think that’s a reasonable comparison, because in much the same way that you always hear “D&D5e is a system that can do everything”, I think a lot of people seem to be under the impression that the PbtA system is a system that can do anything. It’s kinda the système du jour for indie TTRPGs right now, and many iterations of it make it clear that many designers do not consider how PbtA differs from more traditional TTRPGs, and how it is specialized for different types of TTRPG gameplay. Just like how I feel PbtA isn’t playing to certain important strengths of TTRPGs, I think that many—maybe even most—PbtA hacks don’t play to the strengths of PbtA. But this isn’t really PbtA’s fault, that comes down to any individual indie TTRPG developer on a case-by-case basis. And the cure for that is something I’m always saying: If you are going to be a writer, you have got to read lots of books. If you are going to be a director, you have got to watch lots of movies. If you are going to be a video game developer, you have got to play lots of video games. And if you are going to be a TTRPG designer, you have got to read and play lots of TTRPGs. That and you have to understand that TTRPGs are specialized. Even "agnostic" systems like PbtA are somewhat specialized, and therefore might really not be a great fit for the game you’re trying to make.

That and, to get more subjective again, there’s like an ocean of them, and I don’t even like the ones that are actually good.

Now that I’ve talked about how I don’t like PbtA games, I’m gonna talk about a game I do like: Eureka: Investigative Urban Fantasy. Obviously, I like it because I’m the lead writer for it, but I would also like it even if I wasn’t the lead writer for it, because it’s just my kinda game. Eureka is the opposite of a PbtA game. I wrote it to play to what I feel are the strengths of the TTRPG medium.

Eureka’s character creation uses personality traits as a mechanical element of the character, but it does so in a deliberately freeform way. You build your character’s personality out of a list of traits, so who your character is is very much linked to what your character can do, but we aren’t just handing you a pre-made character.

Eureka is designed to incentivize organic decision-making by the PCs, most often by the mechanics of the game mirroring the world they live in. Every mechanic aims to create situations wherein “what will the PC do next?” is a question whose answer can be predicted - it doesn’t need to be ordained by a playbook.

One of my favorite examples of this is, rather than a “Fear Check” forcing the PC to run away if they fail, or “Run Away from Danger” being a “Move” on their character sheet, Eureka opts for the Composure mechanic. The really short version is that one of the main things that lowers a PC’s Composure is encountering scary stuff, and the lower a PC’s Composure, the more likely they are to fail skill checks, and the more likely they are to fail skill checks, well, the less brave they and their player probably feel about them standing up to this scary monster. So if the PC has low Composure, they are more likely to choose to run away. The lower their Composure, the better idea that will seem.

This system really really shines when it comes to monster PCs in Eureka. Most monsters benefit a lot more from having high Composure, but have fewer ways to restore Composure than mundane PCs. Their main way to restore their Composure is by eating people. The rulebook never says “your monster PC has to eat people”, but more likely than not, they’re going to be organically steered towards that by the game and world itself. Sure, they could decide to be “one of the good ones”, and just never eat people, just like you reading this could decide to stop eating food. You technically could, but when your body starts to fail, how long would you? (This is a big part of the themes of Eureka and what it has to say about crime, disability, mental illness, and evil. People don’t just arbitrarily do bad things, it is often their circumstances that leads them down that path until they see little choice for themselves in that matter, and “harmful” people are still just as deserving of life as people who “aren’t harmful”, but that really deserves its own post.)

It has been said that Eureka: Investigative Urban Fantasy actually arrives at much the same end as the PbtA game Monsterhearts, and I actually don’t disagree, but it gets there from an entirely different starting point and direction. The monster PCs in Eureka are very likely to eat people and cause drama, but it won’t be because they have “Eat People and Cause Drama” as a “Move” on their character sheet.

Monsters in Eureka have a lot of abilities, which they can use to solve (and create) problems as the emergent story emerges organically.

(Oh and Eureka is about adult investigators investigating mysteries, and sometimes those investigators are monsters, not about monster kids in high school, to be clear. The same “end” that Eureka and Monsterhearts reach is that of the monsters being prone to cause problems and drama due to the fact that they are monsters, though this isn’t the sole point of Eureka, just one element of it.)

You can pick up the free shareware version of this game from the download link on our website, or the full version for $5 from our Patreon.

And don’t forget, Eureka is fundraising on Kickstarter starting on April 10th, 2024! We need your support there most of all, to make sure we hit our goals and can afford to make the best version of Eureka we can make!

Interested in branching out but can’t get your group to play anything but D&D5e? Join us at the A.N.I.M. TTRPG Book Club, where we nominate, vote on, and play indie TTRPGs, all organized by our team with no strict schedule requirement! Here's the invite link! See you there!

We also have merchandise.

[solcorvidae]

I've been thinking about how Lambert, Eskel, and Geralt all deal with the trials and how it shapes them into the people they would grow to become.

Lambert remembers his past. He is angry, upset, bitter, and vindictive. He's got this fire in him that is only stoked by the pain and suffering forced upon him. He remembers the boys who did not make it: the hell they all had to go through, and he has a complicated relationship with Vesemir that surrounds it. Lambert does questionable things that Geralt is bothered by in his grief and anger. Geralt calls him out for killing in cold blood, needlessly and mercilessly.

Lambert avoids Vesemir at Kaer Morhen and mocks him when he is not around. He may come off as childish and like an asshole, but Lambert knows what he feels. Lambert doesn't lash out because he can't control his emotions or because he doesn't understand the path of least resistance. He knows. He chooses to avoid conflict with Vesemir at Kaer Morhen by keeping out of his way. He knows he can't control his emotions effectively if he is face-to-face with him for too long. He knows, and he isn't stupid.

Lambert talks to Geralt about the trials and the injustice of it all. He probably looks up to Geralt, hoping his brother feels just as angry about it as he does. He went through the Trial of the Grasses twice for Christ's sake! Why is he not more angry? Why is he so apathetic?

And Geralt brushes him off time and time again. Such is life, is his attitude. We all went through it, he says. Geralt can't be upset because there is nothing he can feasibly do about it. He didn't choose to be a Witcher. He wouldn't have chosen this life. He would have some other job somewhere else, just like he told Regis. He can't change the past. He can't go back and fix something he never had control over in the first place. Besides, they can’t inflict the trials upon a new generation of kids, not anymore. It’s in the past now, so why dwell on it? What’s done is done and thank god no other kids have to suffer the way they did. It’s over. It’s time to move on.

Geralt doesn't enjoy fame. He tells Eskel this in To Bait a Forktail. Geralt is the famous twice-grassed White Wolf. He is The Witcher. The famed Geralt of Rivia. He has expectations piled upon him the size of mountains. He's got to be the perfect Witcher, he's got to be a loyal brother, a lover, and a best friend… Geralt had expectations put upon him that set him aside from the rest since he was a kid. He hates it. Underneath the banter and the wit, Geralt accepts that this is his life, but that doesn't mean he likes it. He tolerates it because it is his reality and nothing more. If he thinks about it for too long… maybe it will consume him.

"You remember her?" he asks Eskel about his mother.

Unlike Lambert, Geralt hardly knows what it means to live another life. He doesn't have that following him like it does with his brother. What little he remembers is not enough to erase the apathy drilled into him at such a young age. Maybe he has a more strict moral code than say, Lambert, (or if you want to bring in the other Witcher schools, most of the Cats and the caravan) but that doesn't make him the most ethical person on the Continent. How could you be? After all that he has endured, the things he was taught? Where do you draw the line? He kills monsters, but like in Velen, it's hard to see where the line's drawn in the sand.

Humans are monstrous too.

Eskel, however? Maybe he's jealous. He did everything right, why shouldn’t he be? He is superiorly skilled in magic, one hell of a good Witcher. He has a reputation for it. Maybe he's not as kind as your average person, but he gets the job done. He's got a more relaxed demeanour than his brothers which reveals itself in his reputation. He's reliable. He is damn good at what he does. So why does Geralt get all the attention? The fame? He clearly doesn't want it.

While Lambert got turned into a vindictive prick and Geralt became a quick-witted nihilist, Eskel? He's exactly who he should be. Why shouldn't he be praised for it like his brother? Why should he be forced to bend over backwards to accommodate people and keep up with his reputation? For what? His skills? Ha! He lives in the shadows of Geralt who's notably a good Witcher, but he's not quite as good as Eskel.

Eskel was beaten shaped into the man he is today because of the trials, his training, and everything else. Should he not get credited for that too? Why does someone who doesn't even want his fame get all the recognition? Genetic predisposition? Shouldn't his hard work be given more consideration and praise? Thank god Geralt survived the hell of being subjected to two rounds of mutagens rather than one, but why should that overshadow the efforts, the time, and the sacrifices that everyone else around him has made? Eskel is exactly the man that they intended him to be by the end of it all. He is an efficient hunter, he is outstanding with signs, and he works diligently for his reputation. He did everything right. He does everything right. Why is that not enough?

TL;DR: Lambert, Geralt and Eskel handle their traumas in different ways. Lambert gets vengeful, Geralt gets apathetic, and Eskel gets borderline jealous. (And it breaks my heart)

[geraskierfanficprompts]

Yennefer, Geralt’s friend and coworker, was acting… weird. She kept smiling over nothing. And her temper wasn’t as volatile. And she brought pastries to their last meeting.

They weren’t the kind of people to talk about their personal lives, but Geralt was getting worried. What if she had a head injury or a tumor?

When Geralt asked if anything out of the ordinary happened recently, Yennefer admitted that she met someone. They weren’t dating, but she was pretty sure there was mutual attraction. They worked at the bakery Yennefer bought the pastries from. Apparently, they were “bubbly”.

Geralt couldn’t imagine Yennefer with anyone bubbly, but what did he know? He had never personally experienced the whole “opposites attract” thing, but it was a thing for a reason.

The following week, Geralt was sent (he got the short straw) to get pastries for the office from that same bakery. He wasn’t too displeased to go. He was curious about whoever caught Yennefer’s attention. Yennefer hadn’t described them in detail, but they were bubbly and named after a flower.

Geralt’s eyes were drawn to Jaskier the moment he stepped into the bakery. Not just because the man greeted him when he entered but also because he was VERY pretty. And friendly. He seemed unfazed by Geralt’s huge frame and resting scowl.

Maybe Geralt could see why Yennefer was drawn to this pretty, friendly man. He was still a bit surprised that Yennefer doesn’t mind the chatter. Geralt was surprised that he himself wasn’t annoyed by the chatter.

Well, Jaskier did have a nice voice.

Geralt then buys the pastries and leaves. It’s only when he was returning to the office that he noticed a number on written on the back of his receipt.

Fuck.

Yennefer’s crush gave him his number! Surely, the moral thing to do would be to throw away the receipt and tell Yennefer. But Geralt couldn’t bring himself to do either. He didn’t text the number, but he was tempted. He kept thinking about Jaskier.

It wasn’t too long before Yennefer told Geralt that she had a date with Triss Marigold.

Who?

Apparently, Triss Marigold was a bubbly woman who worked at the bakery. And she was the person Yennefer was interested in.

Huh.

That evening, Geralt sent a text to Jaskier.

I love love love love love love love this!!! What a gift you've given me, my darling!

[witchthewriter]

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐃𝐮𝐭𝐲 𝐌𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐬 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐀𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐲𝐩𝐞𝐬

ᴹᵃˢᵗᵉʳˡᶤˢᵗ | ᴹᵃˢᵗᵉʳˡᶤˢᵗ ᴵᴵ

𝑪𝒂𝒑𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒏 𝑱𝒐𝒉𝒏 𝑷𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒆

ENTJ

Slytherin

Lawful Good / Neutral Good

Capricorn Sun, Cancer Moon, Libra Rising

The Mentor: A wise and experienced character who guides and advises the hero, providing knowledge, skills, and guidance.

The Cunning Strategist: this character is known for their intelligence, sharp wit, and ability to manipulate situations to their advantage. They excel in political maneuvering and outsmarting their opponents.

The Fallen Hero: The Fallen Hero archetype represents a character who was once noble or heroic but has fallen from grace. They may have succumbed to their flaws, made tragic mistakes, or been corrupted by power. The Fallen Hero often grapples with guilt, redemption, or the desire to reclaim their former glory.

I will always see John as some type of leader. A leader of a wolf pack, or the King's Guard. Even a team of immortals. His task force would shift between each universe, but his station always stays the same. Price is the eldest and the leader of the men.

𝑺𝒊𝒎𝒐𝒏 𝑹𝒊𝒍𝒆𝒚

INTJ

Ravenclaw

Neutral Good

Capricorn Sun, Scorpio Moon, Virgo Rising

The Guardian: A character who protects or defends a person, place, or idea, often serving as a source of strength and support. I can see him taking stray kids under his wing, and taking care of them.

The Knight: Is a character archetype in stories that embodies chivalry, honor, and a strong sense of duty. I think the strong sense of duty is most previlent here. I think he would even be the King's Champion.

The Rebel: A character who challenges authority, norms, or societal expectations, often seeking change or liberation. After seeing all the pain and suffering from the villagers/those less fortunate around him, he would snap. Wanting to help them.

Simon reminds me of both Geralt and Sandor Clegane. I think he would do well both within a group setting (with his teammates) or going out and doing something indepedently.

𝑱𝒐𝒉𝒏𝒏𝒚 𝑴𝒂𝒄𝑻𝒂𝒗𝒊𝒔𝒉

ESFP

Ravenclaw

Neutral Good / Chaotic Good

Aquarius Sun, Taurus Moon, Sagittarius Rising

The Trickster: A mischievous and cunning character who uses wit and deception to achieve their goals or disrupt the plans of others.

The Wise Fool: The Wise Fool archetype is a character who appears foolish or simple-minded on the surface but possesses unexpected wisdom or insight. They often use humor and unconventional behavior to challenge social norms, offer unique perspectives, or deliver profound truths.

The Loyal Companion: The Loyal Companion archetype is a faithful and devoted ally to the protagonist. They offer unwavering support, loyalty, and may serve as a moral compass or voice of reason.

I think Johnny is a bit of a difficult one, because he's both humorous - which can place him in the archetype of jokester & comedic relief. But maybe thast just makes him ... a wild card? Hence I think that' why people often give him the hybrid of werewolf.

𝑲𝒚𝒍𝒆 𝑮𝒂𝒓𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒌

ISFP

Gryffindor

Chaotic Good

Gemini Sun, Virgo Moon, Cancer Rising

The Romantic Interest: A character who forms a romantic connection or relationship with the protagonist, often adding depth and emotional tension to the story.

The Underdog: A character who faces significant challenges or disadvantages but ultimately triumphs against the odds.

The Sage: The Sage archetype represents wisdom, knowledge, and enlightenment. Sages are often revered for their insights and serve as a source of guidance or counsel for the protagonist.

God this man could fit into so many archetypes. He is just ... the perfect character. He can still have character development, however, he can still be put forward as a fully formed character. Romantic, loving, intelligent, mindful. He likes to sit back and learn about others. He's diligent in that way (hence the Underdog). I also think he's so wise. Especially for his age. And he feels the most magically inclined out of the rest of the men.

𝑲𝒐̈𝒏𝒊𝒈

ISTP

Hufflepuff

Chaotic Neutral

Aries Sun, Aquarius Moon, Leo Rising

The Outcast: A character who is marginalized or rejected by society, often possessing unique abilities, insights, or perspectives.

The Beast: A character or entity often found in stories that represents the primal, untamed, and instinctual aspects of human nature or the natural world.

The Antihero: is an archetype is a character who lacks traditional heroic qualities but still engages in heroic actions. They often possess flaws, ambiguity, or morally gray motivations.

I think there are many different ways of looking at Konig. Physically he's a powerhouse - tall asf, a tad arrogant (only because of his voicelines), somewhat dramatic. But some have written him as toxic, others like to baby girl him. I think he's a bit similar to Simon but there's more distrust about him.

What would really be great is the task force as the Knights of the Round table. I think I could see Simon or Johnny as Arthur and Kyle or Price as Merlin (obviously Kyle as a young version like the BBC Merlin).

I can also see them as pirates! I actually want to write a Pirate! Task Force. Obviously Price as the Captain, Quartermaster is Simon, Kyle as Bosun (or Boatswain) and Johnny as the Gunner (makes things go boom!)

If I had to give the men shapeshifting abilities (into one mythical animal) I would go: ▪️ John Price | 𝑫𝒓𝒂𝒈𝒐𝒏 or 𝑪𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒖𝒓 ▪️ Simon Riley | 𝑮𝒓𝒊𝒎 𝑹𝒆𝒂𝒑𝒆𝒓 or 𝑯𝒆𝒍𝒍𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒅 ▪️ Johnny MacTavish | 𝑾𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒘𝒐𝒍𝒇 or 𝑷𝒉𝒐𝒆𝒏𝒊𝒙 ▪️ Kyle Garrick | 𝑴𝒆𝒓𝒎𝒂𝒏 or 𝑷𝒆𝒈𝒂𝒔𝒖𝒔 ▪️ Konig | 𝑩𝒂𝒔𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒔𝒌 or 𝑯𝒚𝒅𝒓𝒂

[knightcore-rant]

my controversial opinion on knightcore fashion

or: how to dress like a knight on a daily basis without any armor so, you're a knight just like me. you're chivalrous and noble. you want some adventures, medieval literature and a sword. maybe you even want to date a prince or a princess! that's cool and then, you're searching for "knightcore fashion" to incorporate your aesthetic into your daily life and... there's nothing that fits quite right.

img src: Rachel Maksy on youtube pinterest outfits are cool, but they are too much medieval-ish? historically accurate? LARP-ish? not suitable for school and office? that's bugs me a lot and then there's amazing @/donttesstme on tiktok, that does "workspace fantasy fits" series. that's more like it, but she hasn't done a knight part yet

well, here's my take on "how to dress like a modern knight without an armor, a sword and without expensive accessories"

important note: this advices may look a little weird and confusing at first. that's okay, and I'm going to explain why: I'm doing character design for years, and I really like fashion. armorless and swordless knights are impossibly hard to design, because their key features are... armor and sword. that's what makes them recognizable. without these components an outfit may look confusing and dull alas, swords are expensive, and armor may look a little weird on you while studying. that's why I'm going to tell you how to include some secondary knighcore motifs into your outfit. it may be subtle, but the intention makes it all 1. gather some inspiration: firstly, think about yourself, your current personal style and identity. this is important, because all knights are different maybe you're a kind, noble person with a strong moral code, who prefers light clothes and golden color? then maybe paladin archetype is going to be the best for you maybe you're a pessimistic gamer goth person, and you want to keep that. then think about your favorite gothic brutal knights from dark fantasy games maybe you just like bright colors? search for some art of medieval joust armor, it's actually colorful maybe your favorite knight is Link, maybe you're the Geralt of Rivia type of person. everyone is different, so gather some unique inspiration pictures.

2. learn the basics any fashion mf knows, that there's several components of an outfit: 1. color pallete 2. silhouette 3. pattern 4. materials 5. styling (the way you put and combine items) and that's where you gonna need your inspiration pictures. analyze them, think of what's important. ask yourself questions: do I like the dark pallete? is this knitted material reminds me of something like a chain mail? does these tall boots look adventurous to me? maybe I want a bulky scarf? write it down and keep that in mind. congrats! this is your personal definition of what is knightcore fashion.

3. op's definition of knightcore fashion personally, I think that "casual knightcore" is more like an adventurecore subtype. for me, clothes like that supposed to be utilitarian and sporty, because knights tend to explore, fight with monsters and go on great adventures. I would go for hiking vibes and comfortable pieces I also would prefer to have some brown, beige and grey neutrals paired with muted green, red of dark blue. grey, metallic and silver are probably the main color for my dream casual knightcore wardrobe I wouldn't mind to add some whimsical fantasy elements, but in a subtle way. like bulky metallic jewelry with nature motifs, accessories like chunky combat boots and belts. maybe a cool DIY-ed unicorn embroidery on a jacket or pair of dagger earrings. jewelry supposed to be like a sentimental token from a lady or an artifact from a long journey also, ribbons, lace and fishnets are somehow knightcore to me?? like, recently I crocheted a oversized brown shrug for myself, and it screams chain mail in conclusion: generally, I would recommend search for some muted and natural colors, metallic jewelry, comfortable clothes for hiking, tall boots, tunik-shaped oversized shirts and huge scarfs. this is my vision of "modern knight" clothes, your vision may be different maybe I'm taking this far too serious anyway, hope that helps

[decaying-theatre-lesbian]

Is Linda Monroe a horrible person? Undoubtedly!

But is she also the most iconic character in Black Friday? Fuck yes!

That women is so fucking quotable and I am not ashamed to admit that my gay ass absolutely would join her cult for her (“I dislike that word geralt, cult! No, it’s a new, exciting religion that I started!”).

Honestly BF is filled with icons (with varying degrees of morality); Linda Monroe, Frank Pricely, John MacNamara, my cult leading queen Linda motherfucking Monroe!

Anyways, watch Team Starkid’s Black Friday, it’s amazing!

[dol--blathanna]

I try not to post too much TWN negativity on this blog, because I know plenty of people enjoy the show just fine, and I hate being an asshole and raining on other people’s parades. But, god, the way that the show treats Yennefer - or rather, mistreats her - just upsets me and pisses me off so much. 

The book already puts her through the wringer - too much at times, honestly - but the show just takes it to a whole new level. The amount of suffering they put her through that wasn’t present in the books is so frustrating to me. Like adding in random torture scenes that weren’t present (the hysterectomy scene, being tortured by Stregebor), losing her magic powers, constantly being captured in S2, not even having a particularly good court standing - like in S1 when Fringilla mocks her for not helping advance Aedirn at all, and Yennefer doesn’t even have a good comeback to that. It’s as if the show is just obsessed with giving her constant Ls and never really letting her come out on top. Sidenote: I am fine with angst, in fact I enjoy it, and I am fine with a character going through hardships and suffering. You can do a lot of great character, story and theme exploration with angst, and sometimes it’s necessary for a character to suffer to develop that. If I wasn’t fine with angst, I wouldn’t be a fan of the witcher lmao. But when I see a character who already goes through a shit ton of misery in the books get forced into even more suffering in the show that never happened....I start to have a problem.

And then, of course, S2 committed the cardinal sin with that stupid ass Voleth Meir plotline. As if torturing her, having her be captured, making her lose her powers, wasn’t bad enough - they completely character assassinate her by making her almost sacrifice Ciri to a fucking demon. Something that is so bewilderingly OOC for Yennefer, something that never EVER happened in the books. When the show got bored with creating narrative suffering for her, they decided to take it to a meta level by character assassinating her in a really bizarre, stupid way. Because, why was this necessary? I know that they were concerned about the fact Yennefer doesn’t really show up much in Blood of Elves, I understand they wanted to create a plot line for her that got her more involved in the main plot. But - why this???!!! There were 101 different plot lines they could have given her that didn’t involve her trying to sacrifice Ciri to a fucking demon, in the process completely messing up her relationship with Geralt and Ciri!!

And this is the main reason I’m making this post - her relationship with Geralt and Ciri being messed up. I’ve seen a lot of articles recently about S3, all stating that Yennefer essentially has to grovel to Geralt, that he ignores her for potentially a full year, that at the beginning he doesn’t even let her enter the same abode as them - what the fuck!!! It upsets me so much. Because this was the biggest problem with the VM plotline - it completely upends Geralt and Yennefer’s dynamic. In the books, their relationship is way more equal - in fact, it honestly would be accurate to say that Yennefer is the more dominant one in the relationship, not Geralt. The show is now completely turning that on its head, and making Geralt the dominant one - but not personality wise, more in a moral highground type way. Because now, whatever stupid shit Geralt does, or has done in the past - e.g. tell Yennefer she’d be a terrible mother, which he never apologises for - none of that matters!! Because it will never be as bad as Yennefer trying to kill Ciri. Instead of a relationship where they both fuck up and both make mistakes, like in the books, in the show the emphasis will all be on Yennefer. Yennefer is the one fucking up, Yennefer is the one making absurdly stupid mistakes, Yennefer is the one who needs to apologise and grovel and beg for forgiveness. 

And this is what I mean by, the show is obsessed with giving her Ls. Not only do they make her suffer, they character assassinate her by forcing her character to do this cartoonishly evil thing, and then punish her for it!! They don’t just take away her powers, her court standing, they even strip her of her own relationships!!! And I ask again - why is this necessary?? Who decided that punishing her like this would be an extremely important plot line, an improvement, over the original source material? Like back when the show was first announced, I sure as shit wasn’t thinking “oh wow a netflix witcher show - I sure do hope they have a plot thread where Geralt refuses to talk to Yennefer, and doesn’t even let her into the same fucking house as him, because she tried to kill Ciri!!” who wanted this??? Who thought this was a good idea??? Honestly, it makes me feel as if someone on the writing team hates Yennefer and wants her to suffer, both in a narrative and meta level. And no, I’m not talking about that infamous Beau deMayo interview - something that caused a huge amount of online drama and should be taken with a big old pinch of salt, especially since the writer who made this claim was responsible for some pretty questionable decisions, namely the whole Treeskel thing. I’m not making a direct accusation here - it’s more a feeling. When I look at TWN, I cannot help but sense a level of contempt and spite towards the character of Yennefer. That doesn’t necessarily mean someone in the writing team genuinely has it out for her, but if that’s the impression that I get from the way they treat her in the show, then something has gone very wrong with the narrative decisions they made for her.

And this is why, not only can I not let myself be excited for S3, it’s why I’m genuinely feeling dread about it. Every time I read interviews about how Geralt and Yennefer have this really rocky start and he’s ignoring her or whatever, my stomach just sinks. And again - why was this decision made? Who thought this was a good idea? And yeah, the TWN team have already said they’re trying to fix the problem with their relationship caused in S2, but a) the way they are going about fixing it only serves to punish Yennefer’s character more and b) it should not have been something to fix in the first place. It’s also why I can’t bring myself to believe that S3 will suddenly be more faithful and better than S2, esp in regards to Yennefer (aside from the fact they’ve made this promise before and failed to deliver). Because the early plot points of a story are extremely important in setting the foundation of your later plot, especially in a series like the witcher. If your foundation is inherently flawed, it doesn’t matter how good your later seasons are; they are built on a faulty base, and will therefore lack a good structure. Case in point with Yennefer. Without going too much into book spoilers, let’s just say she has a really rough time of it post-Time of Contempt in the books. So in the show, either a) they will just put her through even more suffering and leave you thinking “wow did this entire show exist just to punish Yennefer?” or b) they will have to deviate away from the books. Neither of these options are particularly good. (this also is one of my problems with S2 as a whole - they were so desperate to put in all this insane blockbuster action and dramatic plot points, but sometimes in stories you need moments of calm to make later dramatic plot points more hard hitting. In the books, Blood of Elves was the moment of calm before Time of Contempt’s batshit, action packed drama. In the show, you never get that moment of calm. Why should I care about whatever happens in Thanedd if S2 had Ciri get possessed by a fucking demon and go on a killing spree? But anyway.)

And I think the reason why I’m particularly disappointed with the way that the show has treated Yennefer’s character so badly (aside from the numerous promises of “we’re a faithful book adaptation” being complete lies) is that Yennefer is a character who already receives a lot of unfair hate. Obviously there’s the annoying “Team Yen vs Team Triss” thing from the games, but even within the show there were a certain type of fans of a certain ship who hated a lot on Yennefer for daring to get in the way of their ship. Like, I’m so sick of seeing Yennefer getting hate for stupid, unfair reasons - and now even the show is treating her like shit??? Like, give me a break!! 

I’m just tired of it. And obviously, if you like TWN and you’re excited for S3, that’s fine. In fact, I’m honestly jealous, I wish I could feel the same. And who knows, maybe the show will improve its treatment of Yennefer, maybe they’ll finally give her some Ws. But that’s what I thought about S2, and was proven VERY wrong. Any confidence, trust or optimism I had left for the show was completely destroyed by the Voleth Meir plotline in S2, and the show will have to work very hard to rebuild that trust for me. And unfortunately, everything I’ve heard about S3 so far is only confirming that they’ll continue to treat her poorly.

[wiltking]

ok - i had to go back and consult my screenshots regarding this post (the doe eyes/pouting quote) to make sure I wasn't wrong in thinking geralt's words were aimed at saskia. and sure enough, i still think that's the case, but i want to take a moment to dissect the conversation further. the whole thing is as follows:

geralt: can you tell me what'll happen to iorveth now?

saskia: let's be honest - he's a terrorist. i'll not lie about him nor whitewash his deeds. he must earn respect on his own, and perhaps, a few generations on, humans will forget.

first - i was surprised to have the option to outright ask about iorveth. yes they're friends, but i didn't think geralt would directly raise this line of questioning, especially after the direction it takes. he knows enough to worry (or at the very least care) about iorveth's safety and saskia's ability to guarantee it now that she has her pontar valley (thanks to geralt and iorveth's combined efforts). her response is sobering, but equally surprising given that recent events weren't enough for iorveth to earn her respect, or gratitude, or solidarity especially when we consider how geralt has known him for a far shorter time and has gained (seemingly) more affection and understanding for him in that time.

it's also telling that saskia thinks geralt would be on the same page as her. not to mention her implication that iorveth's only chance at redemption will come once his actions have faded into obscurity with time. as if saying, come on, we don't have to pretend anymore that iorveth has any moral standing. let's be honest.

geralt: did you intend just to use him?

saskia: geralt, iorveth has killed more humans thank you've eaten chickens. he's not one to be used - it's not that simple. he came to believe in me and knew from the start what we were fighting for. he made a choice.

not one to be deterred, geralt doesn't dispute her claims but rather questions saskia's character, accusing her of using iorveth. but saskia's response is interesting for her acknowledgement of iorveth's agency in the matter. as if she's saying he was aware of his disadvantage from the beginning, and that his feelings (?) for her were always involved, and both knew that they would lead nowhere. it was his choice to fight for her, to put everything on the line for her cause, despite knowing full well that his feelings were one sided.

geralt: sure you don't know what i'm talking about? the baby doe eyes, that intense, misty gaze, the pouting?

saskia: we shared a cause, fought side by side...

again, geralt doesn't relent. he continues to ask if saskia really wasn't purposefully playing up her looks to get iorveth into her hands. he isn't the type to easily fall for a human after all (or someone he thinks is human), much less work with one. even she must know that. she says herself that iorveth isn't one to be used, that he's a terror to all humans. an outright 'terrorist'. she later goes so far as to say the scoia'tael will be welcome in the free pontar valley. but iorveth himself? well.... (let's be honest, geralt.)

so geralt's insistence of her being at fault makes sense from his perspective. how else could she have convinced someone like iorveth to so thoroughly do her bidding? and her answers do start to fall apart when she doesn't deny playing up her doe eyes, her pouting. or maybe saskia genuinely doesn't think she did anything wrong. given her nature, i'm almost more inclined to believe her ignorance.

but if all this is true, if saskia truly didn't mean to use iorveth's personal feelings and devotion for her own gains, then geralt's decision to go to bat for iorveth (for this perceived wronging, for iorveth's heart) reveals more of geralt's affection for the elf than any intentions saskia might have had. like, sure, maybe geralt won't defend iorveth's actions. his past. his bloodshed. his morals. but he will defend iorveth's heart. on principle. by his own initiative. after all they've been through together. and that's the main takeaway of this all.

geralt: iorveth did and would do anything for you. question is - what're you prepared to do for him?

the one question i'm left with is this: what are you prepared to do for iorveth, geralt?

[inexplicifics]

Personal theory: Jaskier to Geralt “Babe go crash that cute little walltop picnic it’s good for our people’s *morale*”

Awwwww. Jaskier would. But Geralt might well have done that on his own!

[headcanonthings]

Jaskier: Did you have to go all out? I almost feel sorry for them.

Geralt: Really?

Jaskier: ...Alright fine, I think they deserved everything you dished out. However! One of us has to at least pretend to have normal morals!

Yennefer: And you thought that person should be you?!

Jaskier: ...Yeah, let’s just forget I said anything.

[willowsages-blog]

MAIN MASTERLIST

Bucky Barnes

your husband is in prison. : Bucky Barnes

a sudden kiss: Bucky Barnes

jealousy: Bucky Barnes

the teacher: Bucky Barnes

the Angel: Bucky Barnes

the club: Bucky Barnes

the babysitter: Bucky Barnes

unknown person: Bucky Barnes

the media: Bucky Barnes

anything: Bucky Barnes

The Last of us: game

red carpet: Joel Miller

Johnny Knoxville

going into early labor: Johnny Knoxville

New Year's Eve: Johnny Knoxville

Relaxing: Johnny Knoxville

Camera mistake: Johnny Knoxville

Winter snow: Johnny Knoxville

Kissing in public: Johnny Knoxville

Riding a skateboard: Johnny Knoxville

Tennessee whiskey: Johnny Knoxville

Secret crush: Johnny Knoxville

Stranger things character's

Halloween: Eddie Munson

Pedro pascal character's

zombie apocalypse: Joel Miller

brothers' best friend: Joel Miller

Valentine's Day: Frankie Morales

Marvel Character's

after an argument: Loki laufeyson

Sons of anarchy character's

the silent treatment: tig Trager

Your Crush: Jax Teller

Your babies: Juice Ortiz

Unexpected visitor: Chibs Telford

Steve rogers

the invitation: Steve rogers

the Witcher

forbidden love: Geralt rivia

supernatural

the ultrasound: Dean Winchester

[shibara]

Five Ships & Five Fandoms

Got tagged by @croik (Thankee, I love these things :D) This one's hard cause I've not been actively invovled in 5 fandoms proper, but here we go!

Dennis Collins/Arthur Lester, Malevolent. The hired killer, and the one worthy prey that got away~ The terrifying scenarios, the obsession, the thin, thin line between wanting to fuck someone and wanting to kill someone. My current otp, if that term applies for this fuckuppery of a ship.

Cyclonus/Tailgate, Transformers IDW1. This one was the hardest. So many good ships. I generally enjoy fucked up dynamics the most, but once in a blue moon there comes a ship that is so beautiful and tragic and built on a love so pure that it makes me melt a bit inside. The slowest, loveliest burn in canon I've ever read.

Darth Vader/Obi-Wan Kenobi, Star Wars. Hot space wizards! Mentors, to friends, to enemies to a myriad of fucked up possibilities, specially with Anakin post-barbecue :cheff's kiss:

Harold Finch/John Reese, Person of Interest. Mastermind recluse nerd and his unwavering faithful attack dog that cleans up very, *very* well. He literally picked him up from the street cause it would have been a waste, what more can I say. I'd read a million D/s stories with these two.

Emhyr var Emreis/Geralt of Rivia, The Witcher (games). Hot old men of dubious morals! Endless political power vs endless physical power! 'You are the only bastard on this world who won't grovel at my feet and dares disrespects me on a daily basis' vs 'You see me only as a serviceable weapon, not to be feared or shunned, but to just be put to use'. Both emotionally damaged to hell and back. I love them your honour, I could eat this with a spoon.

Tagging @horseboneologist, @asininestars, @saltbright, @decepticonsensual, and @jarofloosescrews, and anyone else who wants to do it!

[proheromidoriyashouto]

Jaskier who is losing his eye sight because someone cursed him to stop eyeing their wife and ope guess he can’t see anybody now, and wants a sight hound but he kept putting it off because acknowledging it would make it real but he’s reached the point of no return and for all that he is a rising star at Oxenfurt University he is from a rich family, naive, and easy to trick so a mage sells him a straight up barghest they bred like noble ladies breed lapdogs except this is a chaos beast. a post-conjunction freak. a vaguely dog shaped crime against nature.

and it LOVES Jaskier. just LOVES all the smooches and scritches from this man who does not smell of fear or intent to harm. LOVES roasted mutton bone dinner treats for being a “good girl”. LOVES snuggling with a guy who can’t tell its not a hairless dog but actually A Problem For City Living. and all it has to do is keep the hand that feeds it happy, by doing tasks, and safe, mostly from himself.

it is smarter than any actual dog due to mage intervention in its domestication so it understands this trade off is pretty sweet. cats have got this “adopt a two-leg idiot thing” right.

and the University keeps trying to hire Witchers to deal with it, but they have to meet Jaskier, and Jaskier LOVES his big cuddly dog and LOVES the idea of Big Strong Monster Hunters coming to talk. and the Witchers are just like “That’s a monster, young man.“ and Jaskier says, “She’s my puppy and I have enough money to make you go away.”

and the Witchers initially think this is a threat, but Jaskier just writes them a bank note for REDONKULOUS amounts of coin to fuck off and let me live please and since it hasn’t hurt anyone or even growled at the Witchers themselves and with Witchers being so dirt fucking poor most of them just fuck right off and live it up a little bit, only noting in their journals to keep an ear out for this kid in the future with no idea how that’s going to come to pass

some Witchers even try the old come-back-in-a-different-get-up-trick to try and get more money off this clearly rich sucker, but Jaskier remembers the sound of their voices and, as fascinated by Witchers as he is, brings up things they’ve told him and is just generally a good host and kind person to them so they feel bad trying to scam the blind kid and leave before having an existential crisis about it

until the Wolves hear about it. and they have too much moral backbone to just let it go. this college idiot may think that throwing around his family money is enough to get his way but they are going to disabuse him of this notion before people start dying or the beast begins spreading its’ affliction to actual dogs.

they send Geralt. which is a mistake. because he agrees to allow Jaskier to come with him to find and identify the mage that sold him the barghest and just leads to twenty years of shenaniganry because they. can. not. find. this snakeoil sales man.

except Jaskier thinks he’s just been traveling with his two very best friends in the whole wide world, writing songs depicting Witchers as heroes and the best of men, being guided by a post-Conjunction monster the entire time.

it isn’t until someone points out the obvious solution of trying to cure Jaskier’s curse instead, rendering the need for a sight hound moot to begin with, that things begin to fall to pieces.

Jaskier begins to feel like he’s losing Geralt. wonders if Geralt ever saw him as the friend that Jaskier felt they had become or if he’s just been a contract the Witcher has humored the entire time. which is not helped by the events of the King Niedamir’s Mountain.

and then someone commits the cardinal sin of pointing out that Jaskier’s “Seeing Eye Dog“ has no eyes itself. it’s been “seeing” for him and his non-functioning eyes out of its non-existent eyes for their entire acquaintance.

Jaskier remains in complete denial about it even after being granted his sight again. “Her eyes are just closed. You wouldn’t get it, she’s pedigree, Geralt. Of course she doesn’t resemble any mutt off the street. She has papers.”