#and the role of archetypes in the more questionable character choices

[un-pearable]

i’ve got an essay idea i’ve been noodling around with for a while about heroism and sonic’s perception of it throughout the franchise,,, tossing it on the stack i guess

[a-town-called-hometown]

in regards to deltarune and character agency, i always assumed the darkners' agency being tied to the lightners' will was a direct parallel to the player character's agency (kris) being tied to the *player's* will (us), and that by making this the game's narrative (darkners are on a plane below lightners and are considered, in a way, less 'real', despite several having desires to break away from this hierarchy) the game is trying to call into question our relationship with the game itself, with the world itself. if the relationship between lightners and darkners feels unfair, then our relationship to kris should be in question as well. characters all have roles to play, but isn't that strange? why the prophecy, why the repetition, why do we, ultimately, have so much control? what gives us the right? it's all layers. us, lightners, darkners, imagine your whole world living and dying at the hands of gods that, out of boredom, could easily abandon you one day, or even destroy you? gods you were made to love and serve, and around you everyone says without them you can never be whole. who wouldn't want to rebel? i think if you're an advocate for kris's agency, you have to advocate for the darkners' agency. for ralsei's agency outside of kris or the prophecy or anything he's meant to do. i think kris and ralsei are narrative foils in this regard, one who blindly accepts his fate, and the other who tries to escape it, a character who does whatever he's told and a character who forcefully slips from our grasp. it just feels like set up to me for a lot more than 'escapism.' i'd say the main themes here are fate, agency, choice and control. even the mystery voice at the start of the game has their plans messed with by the other voice choosing to discard our vessel. every character is grasping at something they can't have, even ralsei can't have his narrative go the way he's planned because susie keeps surprising him lol

yes that's true!!! i would also argue that 'identity' is packaged in with these themes - deltarune is written in such a way where characters are not just grappling with fates and choices outside of their control, but also grappling with roles that they seemingly cannot escape.

the darkners are fantastical & metafictional version of this idea, given that they are both objects who need to be useful in order to not be abandoned and also npcs who serve an rpg-genre narrative function. ralsei especially fulfills several rpg archetypes as the friendly healer companion and as the guide npc. every major darkner has some kind of conflict involving the role they were made to play, whether it's lancer as "the bad guy" or spamton as "the spam email." even queen, who is extremely enthusiastic about her role, runs into issues because she is so zealous that she does not grasp what the lightners might actually want and need.

susie and noelle fulfill a more realistic version of this: the labels of bully and nice girl respectively are roles that neither of them exactly chose, but through a mix of environmental & psychosocial factors and a dose of self-fulfilling prophecy, neither of them know how to escape. berdly, while mostly comedic, is also a character who deals a lot with his real-world designation of "smart guy." susie breaks loose somewhat of her role in ch1, and we see noelle start to follow suit by the end of ch2. given that their existence isn't directly tied to their roles the way the darkners' are, it makes sense that they'd start to question and challenge these first.

kris, as befitting of their protagonist role, fulfills both versions of the idea. their role in the light world is an outcast who lives in their brother's shadow, and in the dark world, they're viewed as a prophesized hero. but they don't have full agency in either of these identities at all. they're being controlled by us, and the perceptions of them as an outcast and hero respectively are imposed onto them by other people.

meanwhile, almost all the other lightner npcs are different versions of characters we met in undertale. i would argue that this is another form of imposed identity, albeit one they aren't aware of. WE view them as their identities from undertale. I highly suspect that this will be something played with a lot more as future chapters go on.

the themes of choice & control all interlock with this idea of imposed identity. in a world where nobody can choose who they are, is it possible for people to eventually break out of what they are assumed to be...?

it's a game made to make us heavily question both a lot of rpg conventions and especially how we view characters in games. I'm very excited to see how the game will continue to play with its ideas of agency. it's such a brilliant idea to tell a story about fate by explicitly tying it to the way characters and worlds are written in games, and also by tying it to audience perceptions related to toby fox's last game. it's going to be so interesting to see how the characters deconstruct all those expectations!

[comradekatara]

if you had to give bolin a good personality/arc, what would it be? mako has (hardly touched) parallels as the repressed, protective older sibling. bolin, like katara, is the younger sib who wears their heart on their sleeve. but while she's a prodigy on top of being the last bender of her tribe, he has mediocre skill, and probably would get looked down upon as a mixed earthbender in neocolonial republic city. but instead he's just written in cringy ships that are esp hard to watch

this is a great question. the thing about bolin is, he’s actually a pretty talented earthbender. obviously not toph level, but you know, good enough to be a pro athlete, and to lavabend! the problem with bolin isn’t that he’s untalented per se, it’s that he’s stupid. katara may be naive, but she’s still incredibly smart, witty, and practical. no one in atla is straight up dumb tbh (even zuko has his moments). but plenty of characters in lok are dumb and serve no narrative purpose other to be annoying UHH I MEAN “”funny”” . bolin was actually fine at first. in the first couple episodes, he’s confident, outgoing, and optimistic, but he’s also grounded and has at least one brain cell. then i guess they decided they wanted bolin and mako to fight over korra but for mako to “win” korra in the end, and so they had to nerf (or perhaps lobotomize) him. which makes perfect sense, of course. it’s clear from then on that the show never really has any idea of what to do with him, which is a problem with pretty much every facet of lok.

bolin reaches his peak of character usefulness in the book 3 subplot wherein he and mako get stranded in the lower ring and run into their extended family. this is a very good mini-arc and exactly what i wish we had seen from mako and bolin throughout the entire show. i don’t care about their misguided career choices (apart from insofar as it is informed by their trauma), i care about their roles as they problematize the neoliberal fantasy lok largely uncritically glamorizes. not saying that all my favorite children’s cartoons need to be marxist propaganda (although……… im not NOT saying that), but their entire backstory conflicts w the ideologies being presented in the show, and they’re ostensibly main characters!!! so where is that tension???? why are we focalizing capitalists and nepobabies (sorry tenzin i forgot ur not actually defined by ur famous parents) when mako and bolin are supposed to be significant players?? and not just in a “oh teenage boy romantic drama” or “wacky buddy cop sideplot” way. in a “how do they reflect the themes” way.

i don’t really know what exactly i’d do with bolin if i rewrote lok right now (because i tend to forget he exists tbh), but i do know that he NEEDS to have more depth, nuance, and like… a modicum of intelligence. the class, racial, familial, and romantic aspects of his character would need to be teased out more and actually cohere. he would need to have feelings that aren’t simply played for laughs, and his role in the narrative would have to be more than simply being the show’s little jangling jester. maybe some people enjoy the “dumb comic relief” archetype (and if anyone says “but what about sokka? you like sokka” i will find where you sleep) but he literally has no depth. and what’s the point of a PRIMARY CHARACTER who serves no thematic function. his function is mainly to be proximate to mako, and of course to annoy the viewer with his wacky subplots. also i guess to introduce the avatar world to red pandas, but again, that first happens before they nerfed him, so im not even gonna count it as a positive. actually you know what? since the beginning of writing this paragraph ive given it some thought and decided that bolin should’ve been a communist revolutionary 👍🏼

[pinkcrocss]

What do you like about Marie and Jordan individually and what do you like about them as a pair?

Thank you for the ask! ❤️

For Marie, I just love her so much. First of all, I am always happy to see a black girl lead in any kind of diverse, non-stereotypical, non-sassy-side character role like this.

But I also appreciated how realistic she was. Like, I understood almost every choice she made. I saw people get mad at her at the start for not always doing the altruistic, "right thing", but for most people, self-preservation comes first. She didn't owe those other characters anything (especially after how they treated her) and I loved that she had a back bone and would actually talk back to people. But at her core, she is still a good person despite everything that has happened to her and still chooses not to be corrupted by Vought's influence once she understands the true material cost.

For Jordan, they're just such a nuanced character. One, I always have a soft-spot for the Lancer character archetype. The highly capable, second best, who can never quite out-do the main character (e.i. bakugo, reki (from sk8), Ron from HP (fuck jkr, but no other examples are coming to me atm)), and Jordan is just that. Like, yeah, they were kind of a bitch at the start, but it's so clear that they are secretly a softie and the world and their experiences have forced them to have a tough shell. Also, their powers as an allegory for gender identity, yes, it's on the nose (although, as someone who grew up reading 90s/2000s manga like Ranma 1/2, not that unheard of), but I think the show handled questions of their identity really well.

And finally for Limoreau...

idk where to start. tbh, as someone who has been hyper fixating on characters and ships since high school, I never really have a clear explanation of why I ship the characters I do. I either like it or I don't. But Limoreau is such a pleasant surprise because the chemistry was there from the start, but it felt like one of those queer dynamics that the writers would be too scared to pursue (think Arthur/merlin or Gojo/Geto). I think the fact that our MAIN PAIRING is a queer, interracial couple with no white people, shouldn't be as revolutionary as it is in 2023, but it is! I hope this is a positive direction for on-screen storytelling.

But also everyone loves a classic "enemies to lovers" (yes, I know they're not EtL in the true sense, but I consider Rivals-to-lovers as a subset of EtL, so I'm using it as an umbrella term). I think the reason people like EtL dynamics (Especially in het pairings) is that there is always an underlying respect beneath the "hatred". Like, to see someone as a threat, you have to see them as at least an equal.

It was clear from the start that Marie and Jordan were more alike than different and it was Vought and the corrupt nature of Godolkin pushing them to compete. They're both lonely in different ways, and I love the idea of them finding acceptance and a home with each other (Also all three actors are extremely attractive and have great chemistry, so that never hurts).

Do I wish their relationship had been paced out a bit more? Yes. But that was my issue with all of Gen V. I think the whole show would have benefitted from 12 eps, instead of 8, because development was needed in most areas.

I also just want to note, for all the people saying their relationship "came out of nowhere", I truly feel that if Marie looked like Erin Moriarty and Jordan looked like Chace Crawford, most people would have clocked the romance from the beginning, jus saying...

[mckinlily]

Um, okay this is a loaded question, and if you want to play it safe, you can answer me in DMs, but...I personally feel that there's something wrong about how VLD placed Keith in the lead. In a way, I can see him becoming Black Paladin, but Shiro...it feels more natural to me, it feels right that Shiro is Black Paladin. I'm not into VLD beyond Shiro, Keith's parents, and the Lions personally, but I know someone who loves it and makes good points about Keith as a leader, but something just isn't aligning for me. Maybe it's because Shiro and Keith are two radically different archetypes, and they got swapped when they shouldn't have, I don't know.

I came here because I saw one of your post S2 rewrites, and I appreciated it. So, again, feel free to answer me in DMs (if you have problems DM-ing me, let me know and I'll fix it for you) if you don't mind discussing this with me.

As a final note, I'm not trying to hate any particular character. They're all fine on their own, and I don't want to treat one as worse than the other. I just want to figure out this problem I'm having with Shiro and Keith.

Thank you for reading this, and take care.

You came to the right blog! Because I adore Keith and believe he certainly has qualities that could make him a good leader—and absolutely hate him as the Black Paladin.

The thing I never understood about Voltron fandom debates about who should be the Black Paladin is that they always seem based in the idea that because Shiro is a leader and the Black Paladin, that means the Black Paladin is the ONLY leader on the team.

It is worth noting that that premise was disproven in episode one. It was Allura who made the final call on whether the paladins should run or stay and fight Sendak, and Shiro explicitly bowed to her authority. From then on, Shiro and Allura both lead Team Voltron until the show decided to destroy their characters, accepting influence and trading responsibilities depending on which one of them fit the situation at hand. Typically, Allura functions more in a commander and diplomat role and Shiro is more of a field officer, but they both pick up the lead where needed.

I know you didn't bring up Allura, but I think it is vital she is included in any conversation about leadership in Voltron. She is introduced as THE princess of an entire planet, she has more knowledge and experience of the intergalactic landscape than any of the other characters, she's been set up to be a leader since birth, and she IS the leader of Team Voltron for two whole seasons. Shiro makes it VERY clear he considers her to outrank him.

So the question you have to ask any time you consider replacing Shiro as Black Paladin: why NOT Allura? If the Black Paladin is the "best leader", why are you skipping over the one character already established and thriving in a leadership role? (And then you have to ask yourself if that character being a Black woman has anything do with that.)

Now I do think there are ways narratively you could answer that question. For instance, if you keep the Lions as sentient beings, that means they can make choices—including wrong ones. For instance, for a time when I believed anything might be salvaged after season 3, my head canon for Black choosing Keith was that Keith was the one missing Shiro as intensely and desperately as Black in that moment. Therefore, the choice was not about Keith being "better" but rather them being at the same place emotionally and that allowing the bond. The major problem with the Lion swap in canon is that we're given NO reason for Keith to be Black Paladin besides "plot device said so". Especially when we have Allura right there. It's just bad writing.

(By the way, you don't have to be pro-Black Paladin Allura. There's nuance to be had, and I personally am actually more One True Black Paladin!Shiro. But you can't just dismiss her--a capable and proven leader--from the conversation. Erasing her character is not the answer.)

ANYWAY. Back to Keith. Or rather, leadership on Team Voltron. Thing is, there are many different WAYS to be a leader. We already touched on the differences between Allura and Shiro. Keith does a good job of making split second decisions in battle or calling shots if Shiro is incapacitated or somehow separated. If you're in the middle of a fight, the plan has gone to shit, and the team just got separated, Keith is great at telling people what to do and mobilizing because something needs to get done NOW.

But that's not the only way to lead. Keith, for instance, is terrible at pep talks. He misses a lot of the nuances going on between him and his teammates off the battlefield. He doesn't plan ahead, like, ever. Sure he's great at making up stuff on the fly, but sometimes you need a plan.

But it's not just Keith. For instance, when Shiro, Lance, and Pidge go on the mission to rescue Slav, it's Pidge who calls all the shots. Is that not leadership? Pidge is often the one telling people what they need to do to solve technical problems. She's a center for information, typically the one collecting it, organizing and interrupting it, and then instruction others based on her conclusions. We see her take point on a mission, give orders to her teammates, coordinate efforts, problem solve in real time and relay a new plan in order to navigate unexpected challenges. Why not argue PIDGE should be the leader?

And there's when they freed the Balmera and Hunk took the lead. That mission was more challenging, but I'd argue in that arc, Hunk's leadership mattered less in terms of orders and more in terms of determining what type of team they'd be. Hunk was ADAMANT they free the Balmerans and set a tone for the team where they didn't leave suffering people behind. Hunk set up a moral imperative for the team that they'd be lesser without.

And Lance! There's actually lots to say about Lance and his strengths and types of leadership. But it's easy to point out that Lance is the one initiating fun and team bonding outside of battle. And when you're operating a giant robot held together by emotion connection, that's pretty dang important!

Point is, they're ALL leaders. They all have the capability to take point when needed. We SEE them all take charge at different points of the show.

So what's the Black Paladin then? If Shiro's The Leader then what does that mean? And this is the cool part! Because you know what Shiro is really really good? Know who else to put in charge. He's the one who first acknowledges Allura as an authority because he sees she has knowledge and experience he and the others do not. He selects which paladins to go together on which missions based on their strengths and the situations. He steps back and lets Pidge or Lance or Hunk call the shots if they're in an area of their expertise. Shiro's job isn't to tell people what to do. It's to decide who to put in charge of what and place them in best position for success.

There's another aspect of Shiro's leadership that is supporting his teammates, offering comfort, teaching, and giving the kids something solid they can believe in so they don't have to care the full weight of the war. But like letting others take charge where they shine, Shiro's leadership is all about enabling those he leads. One of my favorite Shiro lines is "It's too dangerous—I'm coming with you." Shiro's goal is never control. He is support. He leads the paladins because he sees the best in them and helps them reach it.

Narratively, also, Shiro is just set up to be the Black Paladin. The parallels between himself and the Black Lion are too obvious. From both being controlled and abused by Zarkon to Shiro's missing arm and Black's mission bayard. It's a kid's show. The symbolism isn't all that subtle. And if that weren't enough, we literally get an entire episode A plot in Space Mall about it where Shiro literally fist fights Zarkon for the Black Lion and in the end, he wins because he makes it clear it's the Black Lion's choice and trust.

Remember when I said the problem with Keith in the Black Lion in canon is that we're never given an explanation beyond "because I said so"? We're shown repeatedly why the Black Lion chooses Shiro. Even before we meet most the Lions, the other paladins themselves choose Shiro as their leader when Lance asks him if they should go through the wormhole. We repeatedly see Shiro seek to understand the Black Lion better, and Black responding. We see the similarities between their situations and backstories. We see them bond.

And I think this is really important because when Shiro is in the Black Lion, it's not about him being "in charge." It's about his relationship with the Black Lion. Yeah, of course, the other paladins are leaders! And they should be! But none of them have Shiro's relationship with the Black Lion. In this narrative, the Black Lion isn't a prize to be won but a relationship to nurture, and Shiro has put in the work for that relationship.

Which is really important because it means the Lions aren't a hierarchy. The Black Paladin is one role, an important role in Voltron, but no more important than any of the others. "The Leader" is not the most important person in the room. Instead, Shiro is a facilitator who enables all the others to perform their roles better.

Also can I just remind everyone just how well the Red Lion fits Keith? The paladin who keeps throwing himself out airlocks get the Lion most likely to go AWOL and fly off to save him. Keith defends his friends and team by attacking first and asking questions later, and Red started destroying a planetary body to get to Keith. The kid with abandonment issues gets the Lion who doesn't hesitate a second to go after him. And even the way they're shown to bond—that it's so physical and based in action rather than words—it's so Keith. I freaking love Keith as the Red Paladin. He gets to be as chaotic and free as he was always meant to be and gets a Lion who meets him every step of the way.

But if you say, no, Keith should be the Black Paladin. Well. What about Red wasn't working? Why was that role not one Keith fit in? Because from my reading of canon, Keith was thriving in Red. He got a secure attachment to his favorite person in the world, he gets the freedom to fly while also being part of something bigger, and he's making friends. It's still in its beginning stages, but he's figuring out how to bond with Lance, Hunk, and Pidge and you get the sense these are a kind of friendships he's never experienced before. But you know what could kill that really fast? Making him The Leader, a position that inherently sets him apart from the rest.

This is actually a problem twice over for Keith because unlike Shiro, who is shown to be given his role voluntarily by everyone around him and repeatedly shows he's earned that trust and respect, Keith is basically thrown into the Plot Device Machine and gets a t-shirt that says YOU'RE THE LEADER NOW. And we never get a reason beyond that.

This is actually my biggest problem season 3 and the Lion Swap. Because as soon as they made that choice, the Lions became a hierarchy. But what other explanation do we have? Keith won Favorite Character status got "prompted" to Black Paladin. But as soon as Black Paladin is a promotion, that makes the other paladin roles inferior. Red becomes the "second in command". So Lance get prompted but can never be equal to Keith. Allura gets the "Training Wheels" Lion/Blue, and they didn't have to write that as a massive demotion, but they sure did anyway. Hunk and Pidge are no longer leaders because they aren't in the "Leader" Lions.

It makes me so mad. One of the things I loved first about Voltron was the message of equality and servant leadership. The idea that a leader (represented by Shiro) is someone who elevates and enables everyone else. A recognition for the more "feminine" types of leadership—nurturing, compassion, emotional support. Which support roles are seen as vital and just as if not more important than being the "boss."

But we only got two seasons of that before they pulled the rug out and said, "Nope. We're returning back to patriarchy." Suddenly the Lions were in a strict chain of command, one character was the boss and the rest were his subordinates. There was a top position and a bottom position, and the characters were all fighting over each other. Perhaps most damningly, the Lion lost all personality and agency and become trophies to symbolize a character's power. And I'm not saying they're an accidental representation of how women are treated in Western media but I MEAN. It's right there.

My response when anyone says "[X] character should be the Black Paladin!" is—Why? Is their connection with the Black Lion deeper than Shiro's? Do they have more in common with Black than Shiro does? What could they achieve or obtain as the Black Paladin that they couldn't where they currently are?

And, though I don't think most of us realize it, the answer to that last one is power. Because we're soaked in patriarchy and a certain portrayal of "leadership (derogatory)" that many fans automatically assumed the Black Paladin HAD to be in control of and have power over the other paladins. So of course you want your favorite character to be the Black Paladin! You don't want your self-insert to be inferior!

But that's all the patriarchy talking. The other paladins are NOT inferior. There is NOT a hierarchy of types of people. Keith doesn't have to have Shiro's role because he's already equal as Keith.

Keiths look different from Shiros, but they're all equal and valuable as they are. Same goes for Lances, Hunks, Pidges, and Alluras. The whole point is they're stronger together. Their differences make them BETTER.

So yeah. Of course, Keith has some good leadership qualities. There's plenty of situations where it only makes sense for him to take the lead. But why on earth does he need to be the Black Paladin to do that? He's already Keith!

[tadpolejourney]

Thoughts on D&D alignments and BG3

Don't mind me, I just felt like spending my day off writing a philosophical essay about Baldur's Gate 3 and Dungeons & Dragons character alignments. I may or may not have been inspired by someone I admire here on tumblr. And by may, I mean yes, I was inspired by that. :) Everything that follows is my opinion as an experienced D&D player and dungeonmaster. My main motivations are being a 3.5 D&D nerd above all else, and wanting to educate others about a cool but misunderstood system in a game I love.

Respectful discussion and questions are highly encouraged! <3

Character Alignments in D&D

Alignments in older versions of D&D were much less about the morality of a character's choices, and more about the confluence of a character's values (good vs evil) and loyalties (law vs chaos). There is long-standing recognition among many D&D players that these alignments are merely guides to help you create a fully realized character and encourage good role-playing. Just as it is widely acknowledged that all characters are capable of changing and capable of surprising anyone when faced with a situation, even themselves. Flexibility is not only implied, but highly encouraged in response to an event, because it enriches role-playing. It also encourages creativity when you're making a truly unexpected character because that character still needs to make sense in the world they are in despite being rare or unique among their kind. For example, how would someone become a chaotic evil druid when typical druids are neither chaotic nor evil? How does that influence their actions and decisions as a druid? The potential for rich backstories and truly unique characters can multiply when thinking about a character in terms of their alignment. The broader concept of categorizing characters to better understand them isn't new or unique to D&D either. See also: Carl Jung's Archetypes.

Alignments are supposed to guide role-playing decisions, not dictate them or pass judgment on a character's worth. In D&D, players are not supposed to know the alignments of the other players' characters, and in fact alignments are often withheld from the dungeonmaster (DM) as well to limit meta-gaming. When your character's alignment can be revealed as a creative surprise to the whole table upon confrontation with a game mechanic that exposes you? That's fun. I heard fun is the point of games, idk.

Character Alignments and BG3

In the spirit of not making things fun, BG3 character alignments have become broadly associated with moral judgment of a character instead. Another mistake being made in the BG3 fandom over and over is the erroneous conflation that D&D 5.0 = all D&D ever. D&D 5.0 is D&D simplified and reworked to be more accessible to more players. This is a good thing at the end of the day, but resulted in a lot of difficulty imbalances, lost mechanics, and confusing remnants from the more robust versions of D&D. In the case of alignment, it should have been either included entirely or left out entirely. Instead it was left in name only, causing it to be often and easily misunderstood and misused.

Larian wisely left alignments off the character sheet in the game, and I'd like to think that was at least partly done out of reverence for D&D. It would take away from one of the most powerful experiences in BG3 that separates it from D&D: your choices, as the video game player, guiding and influencing ALL of the characters, not just the one you chose for yourself.

I consider the characters in BG3 to be well-written characters. Well-written characters are meant to be seen in multiple dimensions, and at best an alignment gives you 2. There will always be nuance in a complex, fully realized character that alignments just won't cover.

All alignments have two sides to them. The first side of an alignment is good, evil, or neutral, while the other side of an alignment is lawful, neutral, or chaotic. If both sides of their alignment are neutral, that character is considered a 'true neutral' (often simplified as neutral, sometimes referred to as neutral-neutral).

Good vs Evil in Alignments is Not a Value Judgment

The good vs. evil side of alignment is all about degrees, not about a character's worth. Anyone can be an asshole or an angel under the right circumstances. Good vs evil is about what they value most. A traditional argument for the meaning of goodness asserts that all killing/harming is evil, and therefore a truly good character would never harm anyone. On the opposite end, the simplified definition of evil is anyone who kills or harms others, regardless of their circumstances or motivations. These definitions are way too reductive and inflexible, and would be the worst framework for the good vs evil side of alignment. In D&D alignments, characters who fall along the good axis are primarily motivated by altruism no matter their loyalty. Characters that fall along the evil axis are most motivated by power no matter their loyalty. Neutral characters on the good vs evil side of alignment are most motivated by personal relationships.

What follows is my perspective on how alignments shake out for BG3 characters. For the sake of brevity, I provide either a single example or a short justification of why I think that character 'fits' within a given alignment only if needed. I also account for contexts where a character's alignment can change based on players' choices in BG3. This is presented along the law vs chaos side of alignment, rather than good vs. evil, to diminish moral knee-jerk reactions.

Chaotic Axis

Chaotic characters are not always actually chaotic by definition, nor are they selfish by definition. Characters in the chaotic axis are most loyal to personal autonomy rather than rules/duty (aka law).

Chaotic Good – places the highest value on freedom of choice. Different from personal choice, freedom of choice implies that all people should have liberty but not at the expense of the liberties of others. (Karlach's arc is largely driven by this.)

Chaotic Neutral – places the highest value on personal choice.(Astarion doesn't care if others' lives don't benefit from his personal gains. He won't commit an evil or altruistic act that would disrupt or compromise his ability to live how he wants to.)

Chaotic Evil – places the highest value on personal gain (Ascended Astarion, on the other hand, will harm or kill anyone to be and remain powerful, no matter the consequences. His romanced line about being two sovereigns when in reality you are subjugated by him is a good example of that shift in values. See also: Every devil in the game. Orin fits here in theory but her alignment is more chaotic stupid, which is a special circumstance I won't cover here.)

Neutral Axis

The neutral axis gets wacky, because true neutral is the only alignment where neutrality is typically the goal and neutral shows up on both sides of alignment. Neutrality is difficult if not impossible to maintain unless you're in a vacuum, and true neutral characters are the most difficult to role play correctly. It is rare that a true neutral character is presented in a way that makes them compelling and interesting. They are likely to read flat and/or as though they're missing something. This alignment isn't useless however, because true neutral alignment as something intentional and/or temporary allows for interesting characterizations not available to other alignments.

For neutral good or neutral evil characters, their neutral alignment is determined by them being most motivated by their values rather than their loyalties. For chaotic neutrals and lawful neutrals, the opposite is true: their loyalties come first.

Neutral Evil – places the highest value on total control. (The Emperor. The Netherbrain. Ketheric. Gortash. Don't feel like I need to explain these to anyone who has played through BG3.)

Neutral-Neutral (aka True Neutral) – all things are considered equally. They favor neither their loyalties nor their values when making decisions. Their typical actions neither directly harm nor directly help others. A character without specific motivations to maintain balance in all things (aka a true neutral that isn't a druid) is likely experiencing or has experienced something which prevents them from possessing strong convictions or values. (Shadowheart when you first meet her, literally only because she's missing chunks of her personality and nearly all of her personal history. Her attempts at conviction are shallow and unconvincing, and her values don't land consistently either. I'd put God of Ambition formerly known as Gale here too. He's not actively bringing harm or help to anyone. He's just kinda there, soaking in worship while being really detached, uninteresting, and uninvolved, as any god would be.)

Neutral Good – places the highest value on kindness/compassion for others. (Gale. How outraged Halsin is at the state of the refugee crisis in Baldur's Gate. Jaheira allying with the Astral Prism gang once she realizes they're on the same side, despite misgivings about them being infected. Selunite Shadowheart.)

Lawful Axis

The meaning of 'law' in the law vs chaos side of alignment is extremely flexible: duty, order, honor, justice, tradition, and rules, are all considered law. The lawful axis is for characters who place law first, above their values. The type of law is not necessarily indicative of the good vs evil side of their alignment, but there is a certain amount of boxing in that can take place. If the character's highest priority is fulfilling duties for an evil god, for example, they're lawful evil, period.

Lawful Evil – places the highest value on attaining and maintaining 'rightful' power. (Minthara embodies the lawful evil paladin archetype pretty fully. She has a malevolent sense of justice. See also: Dark Justiciar Shadowheart, Vlaakith's Zealot Lae'zel.)

Lawful Neutral – places the highest value on upholding law (Lae'zel. Duty is everything to her.)

Lawful Good – places the highest value on benevolent justice (Minsc and Wyll, always kicking ass for good and willing to sacrifice for it too. Killing may be an unfortunate side effect, but the values of lives are respected.)

A Scandalous Visual Representation

Final Thoughts

These are just examples, of course. There are many characterizations in which you can argue for an alignment where the standard description I provide here wouldn't apply. That is part of the fun of debating character alignments and thinking critically about what motivates the decisions of characters. As a creative tool, character alignment has value outside of the game as well. It facilitates that difficult process fan fiction writers go through of not being the original writer while trying to determine how a character would react, what they would do, and what they would say. Writers who can see characters in three dimensions are capable of expanding on any existing well-written universe with believable canon and stories. If you got this far, I appreciate you entertaining my rambles!

[lokiinmediasideblog]

I Intentionally Start Shit in the Loki Tag

If you complain about Sylvie being "harmful queer rep" BUT want "Lady Loki" in the MCU, which was Loki possessing Sif's body just to torment Sif, I need you to sit down and shut up. a. Genderfluid people don't go by "Lady " when they're femme or women. b. If you don't see the transphobic dogwhistles in the comics possession subplot, I don't know what to tell you... But let's say that hag that wrote those crappy books would love it. c. If you weren't aware about this, maybe you should read the wiki at least before giving uninformed opinions.

I definitely agree that they should not have led people on with the promise of genderfluid rep during the promotion of the series. But get mad at Disney/Marvel for that. Not at the writers or Sophia Di Martino that had to cave in to Feige's demands. That's literally what they have to do.

I really don't give a damn about the "autogynephilia" allegations, which again, is ALSO PRESENT IN CIS WOMEN. Like why the fuck should I care about someone finding themselves hot? There's fascists out there. AGP even if it was a trans-specific thing harms no one. The only harm said to come from it is DUE TO FASCISM because it plays into RESPECTABILITY POLITICS.

If you use AI to create a "proper" Lady Loki or love interest for Loki, you can't complain about the blatant product placement in S2. I am not a fan of product placement either and won't defend it, but those are the rules. Show some integrity. And before you ask, I have not given a cent to Disney since they pissed me off with attempts to trademark Dia de los Muertos for Coco.

If you complain about how being a "Loki" is not a role (unlike Spiderman) and how it should have been all 100% Tom Hiddleston, you don't get to call it selfcest as a gotcha, because you're already differentiating between the variants with different DNA. Like do y'all hate selfcest or not? Make up your mind. The series treats a Loki as an archetype of sorts, so it can be a role. Also, having the same name does not make you related because we don't know what Sylvie's parents are? And we don't even know if Sylvie is also a Jotun, a prop claims she isn't.

If you say you want Sylvie dead but claim to not be misogynistic, because you'd love if a specific love interest from the comics or mythology replaced her, STFU. You only like those because you can project whatever the fuck you want onto them.

If you claim Sylvie is a misogynistic depiction of women but salivate over characters written by cishet white men in the 1960s-1980s that made wanting to fuck Thor or being in a monogamous marriage with Loki their entire personality (there's so MANY OF THESE), STFU. Do you hear yourself? And no, it's not misogynistic of me, a woman, to criticize offensive depictions of women by cishet white men. They're not real.

Our MCU!Loki is not the young adult Ikol reincarnation currently. Of course 20-something Verity is not going to be there! The Loki show should be praise for having multiple female cast members around the same age as the protagonist and pragmatic clothing choices that allowed SdM to nurse her baby.

Selfcest isn't real and I cry tears of boredom whenever someone clutches their pearls over it.

The comics aren't perfect. As much as I loved the recent Dan Watters run (and German Peralta's art), the comics art has some very questionable tendencies, especially regarding Loki's nose when she's femme. It's associated with how some kinds of facial features are considered masculine or feminine (and racialized). Noses have no gender, ffs! Women with nose bumps exist! For some reason Loki always has a tiny button nose when she's a woman or femme. There's also the BLATANT physiognomy that has ALWAYS PLAGUED Thor comics since their inception, and Loki's facial features as they've become more "grey" and less evil is an interesting study. Peralta's far from being the only artist with this problem, and is far from being the most problematic. For comparison from Loki (2023) run:

Loki from ye olden days:

[thecameronchronicles]

The Other Side of Drew

TW: rough sex. DominantDrew! Language. Degrading Language. Edging. Teasing. 

SUMMARY: Drew decides to teach you a lesson when your teasing goes a bit too far…

WORD COUNT: 1500

*Requested*

The Other Side of Drew

Drew could not be any more different than the roles he played before a camera. Portraying the archetypes of men controlled by their vices, lacking the ability to differentiate between right and wrong by the acts of selfish indifference, he rivaled this to every degree. And for the most part, you favored this as he was chivalrous and kind, always a source of comfort and reliability,  where others in your past would abuse your loyalty, which you gave tenfold to your amorous boyfriend. 

However, you also couldn’t help but tease him because of this. The way he would take his time, thoroughly and efficiently, always left you satisfied with the perfect hum of an orgasm remaining for some time well after the sweat had dried. And yet, you wanted more. Specifically, you wanted to see what existed beneath this sweetness…

And so you set the stage. His favorite shampoo lingering through your locks in loose tendrils and a high bun so he could apply pecks across your neck as he loved to do every so often to take in your scent. A dress complimenting your figure to every degree wrapped around the frame he knew well, now harbored his beloved set of lingerie in preparation for his discovery. You ensured you were as angelic and mouth watering to him, having taken notes throughout your relationship to just what it was he loved most about you, before appearing to him as a vision as you made your way out of the back bedroom. He had only remained invested in his cufflinks for a second before you came to view. 

“Shit…” Although it had been your intention to garner such a reaction, to hear it made you grin a schoolgirl smile as you never got tired of making him speechless. 

“I don’t know if I’m going to be able to focus on anything except you in this dress…” He moved behind you in the mirror set just beside the door, the same one harboring your keys, as you reached to apprehend them with a playful eye roll playing back to you in the reflection, "Maybe have to bend you over one of those tables right then and there…"

“Not like you'd actually do anything about it…" You teased, casting bedroom eyes to him in the mirror as he raised his brows in consideration of your challenge. 

"Don't think I will?"

You turned to him, hand to his chest, before offering a confident smile. 

"You're too…soft. Sweet." Your choice of words had become blows to his ego, that amusement fading to something you'd never seen before, spread across his face. 

"You're too gentle, you'd never do anything rough-"

His jaw cocked to the side as he slowly nodded, taking the keys from your hand, before leading you down the steps of your apartment. For a moment, you'd questioned if you'd really hurt him as he did take pride in knowing your sex life was satisfactory. The question weighed heavy on you as you would turn to address him, feeling him take you against the open wall opposite the one with the railing, before taking his hand to your next. 

"THIS too soft for you, baby?" He asked while applying a small amount of pressure to test the limitations of this kink while you kept your eyes to him with renewed excitement. 

"How about THIS?!" He grunted while taking your hand to his pants, unbuckling his belt and leasing you to his shaft, fully prepared to take you when the moment would beckon. 

"You wanna tease me, sweetheart? Huh? Tell me I'm too soft? Tell me I won't do it because I am too gentle? Maybe not at a restaurant with our friends, but we're alone now, aren't we?" There was something almost sinister in his voice to this remark, as if for a moment he was no longer Drew but one of those morally gray characters he portrayed. And it thrilled you to be on the receiving end of it. 

"Drew…" Your eyes shot in both directions of the steps as he moved quickly to the lower steps, reaching beneath your dress, and removing your panties. But instead of burying himself inside of you as he may have in any other instance, he carried them to your mouth. 

"Open-"

"Drew-" At the utterance of his name, the fabric was forced beyond your lips. 

"I'll take them out when I want to hear you talk. Until then, I'm gonna show you JUST how gentle I can be-" You were turned against the wall, absent any form of solace for a grip, as he bent you forward until his cock became aligned with your folds. 

"Are you this wet because you know how hard I'm gonna fuck you or because you want everyone to hear you come?" He asked this as more of a rhetorical question as you moaned at the idea. 

"That's the difference, baby. The gentle and sweet Drew would have spent hours making sure you were fully satisfied. Eating you out for however long it took before you were shaking…fingers curling JUST right-" Your nails clawed against the wall as you were desperate for even a second of what he spoke of, but his torments continued. 

"And finally when I was throbbing from watching you moan like that for me, arching your back from all that pleasure…I'd make love to you. Because that's what a sweet…and gentle boyfriend does-" You groaned as he kept a hand to your back before pulling your hair to leave you at somewhat of a bend so he could speak to you with this display of dominance. 

"But that's not what you're gonna get. You want rough and wild? Then that's that's you'll fucking get-" He was inside of you without the usual care of a slow insertion. 

As if now a wild animal let loose in the wild, he was untamed and animated, pumping in selfishness against the absence of your pleas. Drew was always attentive to share those sensations. If you were on your knees for him, he was using his foot between your legs, if you were riding him, he was playing with your sensitive nipples to increase your pleasure. But for now, he remained devoted to his release and his alone. 

"This what you wanted? Huh baby? So rough you can't fucking speak?" He teased as the panties remained in your mouth. 

"You want to fucking toy eith me? Tease me?" You attempted to lower your head for some form of stability, before feeling him pull you tighter. 

"THIS. IS. WHAT. YOU. FUCKING. GET." He spoke each word with a cruel thrust, slowly pulling out of you, only to continue in repetition until you his point now hung on the air. 

Your pleas were muffled beneath the panties, bringing him to tear them away as you gasped for breath. 

"Better make it quick, I'm losing my fucking patience-"

"Please Drew!"

"Oh, you wanna come, don'tcha sweetheart? Want me to rub your poor little clit?" He teased this, drawing circles just beyond the nerves he knew needed such a release as his words sounded sincere enough, at least they would have been if not for the sinister smirk that followed his question. Still you nodded through your whimpered, hoping it would be enough to convince him to take pity on you, but he was reveling in his torment of you. 

"That's what a gentle boyfriend would do…he'd make it soft and giving…make love…" You nodded. 

"But I'm fucking you. Because you wanted this. Because you challenged me. Because I'm NOT fucking gentle. I'm not fucking soft. And I will take you whenever the fuck I want, whenever I want!" His words became cold and harsh as he spent himself inside of you, a quickening pace through the utterance of words and clenched teeth, bringing him to this edge as you were winded before him. 

"And NOW we're gonna be late.." He groaned, leaving you behind as you found it difficult to walk, let alone follow behind him. But once you had, you found him waiting by the passenger side of the car, holding it open with annoyance for having to wait even longer. 

"I didn't mean-" You were sheepish, tears in your eyes from a denied orgasm, as he looked at you as if indifferent. 

"I want you to think about it the rest of the night…how easily I could make you come…but I won't. Because that would mean I was soft…" 

"You're perfect-" He silenced you with a kiss and a hand to your jaw. 

"If you manage to behave, maybe I'll make it worth it…" He slipped your ass as he moved to the driver's side of the truck before you were forced to endure this 'punishment'. As always, Drew didn't do anything half-assed and this was no exception…

Taglist: @hopebaker @iovdrew @penny4yourthoughts @magnificantmermaid @pickingviolets @lovedetlost @trikigirl271

[jkl-fff]

youve asked me some fun questions so I will ask you: what is your favorite part of your favorite media of choice? (If the answer is 'the whole thing' that's valid sdafghjjhgd)

Ooo, delightful! Thank you!

I'm going to go with ... Gravity Falls. And I think my favorite part of it, on a narratology level, is how well-rounded every member of the core cast is. Yes, they're cartoonish and fit overall into certain archetypes ... but they spill out of those roles, too, quite frequently. It's not just a question of knowing what motivates them, but also what provokes complex emotions both positive and negative. They all have grandiose, heroic, loving moments, but they also all have moments of pettiness, grudge-holding, forlorn loneliness, and so on. We know what it would take to make any of them go, "Actually, fuck this guy." Which means the there's a lot more we can imagine them doing with psychological realism. An odd thing to like in a cartoon, perhaps, but I go nuts for truly seeing who a character is--seeing what their strengths and weaknesses, facets and flaws, growth and limitations are.

On a narrative level, "Not What He Seems". When so many of the plot threads finally come together. It's an amazing, heart-pounding and heart-wrenching episode.

And on a comedy level, those whimsically insane moments like when a unicorn tells her guests to leave because she has to pose in front of a waterfall or when Stan plots to shoot down a hotair balloon with a crossbow or when freakin' this happens:

[infinatenoise]

Oblivious Hunters - An analysis on Alice "Daisy" Tonner and Basira Hussain and the ways they foil each other

Major spoilers for TMA!

Throughout The Magnus Archives, Daisy and Basira have always been foils to each other, but the way they contrast greatly changes as the show progresses.

When Basira Hussain is first introduced, she is presented as a polite, no nonsense but good hearted policewoman, taking the mantle of the stereotype of "Good cop". She talks sternly, but quite openly and she does agree to help Jon. She is polite and well meaning, and is an exemplary officer. However, when her best friend Alice "Daisy" Tonner was introduced, she is shown as a very aggressive character, reluctant to answer Jon's question (Most likely only compelled to by The Eye), presenting her as a "Bad Cop" archetype.

Daisy's role as the bad cop is presented even more clearly in MAG 82 - Eye Witness, which details Alice's backstory and the source of her nickname: Her friend who became an avatar of The Hunt cut it into her in an attack. The scar looked like a daisy to the doctor who treated her, so Daisy stuck. Alice liked Daisy as it sounded soft and gentle but the scar showed strength. This could be symbolic of how the hunt actually affected her: Daisy is who she should be, gentle and kind, but the Hunt, represented by the scar, twisted her into the violent woman she is. MAG 82 establishes that Daisy has killed many more criminals, but also shows Daisy's violent nature through the way she speaks to Elias, as she repeatedly threatened to hurt and kill him. This initially contrasts with Basira, who's repeated appearances demonstrate her "good cop" role, consistently helping Jon and being polite (Even taking it very well when Jon mentions that Tim thinks they're dating), but upon closer inspection it unveils a flaw in Basira's character. She is letting Alice do all this. It is stated that Alice and Basira are very close, as close to being "best friends" as their job allows. The police don't take notice of Alices actions because she's Sectioned and they don't want to get involved in that, but Basira has no excuse. She says she "had a feeling" that was going on but she never made any action about it. Basira felt alone and Alice was stopping her from being alone, so Basira let her get away with horrible things.

So through their initial introductions, the way Alice and Basira contrast are very clear: Alice is the violent "Bad cop" who actually has no choice, and Basira is the calm "Good cop" who chooses to let Alice do horrible things. But after the S3 finale, things change.

Alice is trapped in the buried. This causes a lot to change in both characters.

Without Alice, Basira does feel alone. There is no one she can relate to anymore, no one who thinks of her primarily. She is left alone with only her thoughts of Alice, the idea of who she thinks Alice is in her mind all the time. She tries to fill Alices role, shown in her aggressive way of speaking to Elias and her hateful attitude towards Jon. However, Alice being stuck in the buried separated her from The Hunt, and left her alone with her own guilt and thoughts. She realises what she has done is awful and she is now scared. Futhering her development, she is separated from Basira. Basira enabled Alice to do these things, she let her get away with her terrible actions and didn't even think twice. But now Basira isn't here to support her violent thoughts, to justify her gruesome actions, and Alice can finally think about what she's done, and she regrets. And when she is rescued, she is still no longer violent. She starts being more social, wanting to hang around when Jon is making a statement. She wants company, mainly due to her isolation in The Buried but also because she is human now. She is Daisy, she is kind and gentle, and most of all, she regrets her actions. Basira still tries to fill the role of Alice, even when she is back, being rude and violent to those around her, specifically Jon. And when they have the intervention with Jon, Basira starts ranting to him about being a monster, a heartless avatar, disregarding Daisy's actions. Daisy even tries to bring this up, that she is guilty like Jon, even more so, but Basira doesn't want to hear it, not even from Alice herself. She has idolised Alice, and refuses to hear anything bad about her, not even an admittance of guilt. And she tries to bring up that Daisy is trying to change, which she is, and Jon tries to say he is too, but Basira doesn't want to hear it.

At this point in the show, the roles have switched. Alice is now the gentle, kind "good cop", and Basira is now the heartless, violent "Bad cop".

Then the S4 finale happens, and Alice is forced into her hunter state once again. She makes Basira promise to kill her, and Basira does. Alice turns her back on the progress she made to save Basira, her best friend (/Non canonically lover), and now Basira is lost. In the apocalypse, she hunts Alice, but does not know if she could kill her. Alice hunts down criminals, like she used to when she was a hunter, and brutally slaughters them like a predator. Basira is still defending Alice, however, even though she knows she isn't human she still tries to justify her actions, which is not what Daisy would have wanted. She never asked Jon for forgiveness when she tried to kill him, and didn't expect it. She could have taken full responsibility for her actions if Basira had let her, but she kept assuring her that it wasn't her fault, that she couldn't help it, so Alice could never fully overcome the Hunts influence. When they finally meet, Alice recognises Basira and asks her to join the hunt. Initially it would be assumed that its because Alice had such strong memories of Basira that even when she is a beast she recognises her, but I believe the real reason is much more sinister. She recognises Basira because The Hunt recognises Basira. The Hunt knows Basira let Alice get away with what she did, allowed her to indulge in The Hunt's influence, defended her when her crimes were brought up. She was no better than Alice. She had technically assissted in the deaths of all those Alice had killed because she didn't want to see a problem with it. Basira was a killer in the eyes of The Hunt, she was an ally to its cause. And Alice's recognition of her made Basira realise this. She realised that this situation wouldn't have happened if she had stopped Alice before The Hunts influence took effect. Basira was face to face with the consequences of her actions taking the face of the one person she trusted and loved. By blinding herself to her actions, she had brought about Alices ruin. So she finally takes the responsibilty of putting Alice out of her misery, ending the one person who she shared a real bond with for the second time.

[willemdafinky]

If you could pick any season 1 character to show up at the ski lodge instead of Kenny, regard of how improbable it would be, who would you pick? Why do you think that character would be an interesting choice?

Outside of the obvious choice of Christa, my pick would actually be Ben. Purely because he, like Clementine to a much lesser extent, was a kid when the world went to hell but unlike Clementine who the group acknowledged was a kid Ben wasn’t. It’s really easy to forget that despite that being in his mid to late teens Ben wasn’t an adult and that he like Clementine had to grow up too quickly in order to survive except that he never really gotten a chance to until near the end of his life in canon. When you take that into question, seeing this character archetype going through S2’s is really fascinating.

Plus it would be interesting seeing the more of the relationship between Ben and Clementine something that wasn’t really touched on much in canon. Remember in EP4, Clementine is the only character to stand up for Ben if you take her to Crawford regardless of what Lee says so I think having that relationship be expanded on would be so interesting.

And also just how would Ben react to what happens in S2: how would he feel about Lee, Omid and potentially Christa (and for this scenario’s sake, Kenny) being dead while he, the guy who caused the motor in to be overrun by bandits and indirectly got Carly, Katja, and Duck killed, is still alive. What would his dynamic be with the Cabin Group? Would he relate to Nick being like a let down? Would he agree with Carlos sheltering Sarah? How would Ben handle under the rule of Carver, would he make the same choices that Kenny made? Would he take on the role of being Clementine’s guardian or would he fail.

In short: i think Ben surviving to S2 would have been really interesting.

[sideblogdotjpeg]

neverafter is so intimately tied with the themes of parenthood and growing up - which makes sense, because what are fairytales if not the bedtime stories we make up for our kids? the parables and tales we tell to our children to instill in them the values we hope for them to have

and given the seasons focus on the inherent cruelty of these stories to its characters - it reflects even more strongly on the Failure of parents to protect their children. mother goose losing his child to forces of horror beyond his control, but still desperately clinging on to his memory and story to get him back. gepetto and his immediate regret following his cruelty to his child, words he can not take back and that will remain as the last thing he ever said to his boy. and of course - failures of the stepmother as a combination of both active violence and unavoidable destiny. she is undeniably abusive and the cause of the suffering of her wards, but as she comes to question, how much of that is just due to her role as an archetypical villain? does she have any choice but to be malicious and cruel?

and paralleling timothys own desperation to save his son, so does the stepmother devour and consume to right the own wrongs of her story and her daughters story. (the contrast of course being rooted in tims overpowering care and optimism vs the stepmothers bottomless nihilism and spite)

anyway no real conclusion but umm i just love stories about parenthood and parents trying and failing to give the best for their children. especially as that so ironically takes the form of abuse, control and punishment and the parent becomes the very source of danger they were trying to protect their children from

(and of course an inverse to this is how the season looks at abuse from the childs perspective, breaking out of the warped morals and rules their guardians/stories enforce on them.....)

[vertebrae-entertainment]

1.25.23 - ‘Anchor’

Hi y’all! Its been a while since we did a proper blog update, so i figured it was time i talk about the thing people usually talk about when i bring up the main character of our fishing game: “whoah, he’s a big dude huh?”

Designing a tough guy

When me and Åge first discussed this project, I told them two things would make me automatically passionate about it. The first was that the main character should be a hot dude, and the second was that he should be transgender. Now, at a glance it doesn't seem that complicated (and it really isn’t). I like hot dudes, I like to draw bulk, and I am a trans man myself. Seeing as we are a two-person team, there’s no CEO to tell me what I can and cannot do, so naturally this was how the basic concept ended up.

Following from there I started designing. I took some amphibious inspiration, building him sort of like a frog- top heavy and with long legs, lending itself well to animating acrobatics. I wanted to make him tall and menacing, with a shadow covering his face to make him seem mysterious. At the same time I couldn't forget his fishing lifestyle. In the end he ended up somewhere between Batman and Popeye, with a sprinkle of elegance for good measure. It turned out to lend itself really well to build him like he was hunting monsters for a living, as that was what the game was turning into.

After settling on a color scheme of black, white and red, and taking inspiration from the simplistic designs of the UPA-revival movement for ease of animation, I figured he needed a tattoo- both to top off the design and hint at his marine connection. The anchor seemed obvious! A symmetrical object right on the middle, plenty of body hair, and our main man was ready for the screen!

The tough guy through a queer lens

I have a huge soft spot for towering tough guys, it's no secret. From Conan to the T-800, this hyper masculine archetype may seem dated and boring to others, but personally I cannot get enough of it. What kind of pressure does it take to make a man two steps from a monster? In an odd sort of way, I suppose I find it relatable. Furthermore, I always find masculinity as a topic lends itself really well to a transgender lens- it's like free nuance! It is one thing to be born into this cruel, limiting role.. But what does it tell of a character, their story, when it is a choice?

Some people express confusion learning that this fisherman is transgender, which drives the question: should you be able to tell? Frankly, I think there should be a hell of a lot more trans men in media before we tackle this question. Assuming someone can’t be genetically tall and bulky due to the gender assigned at birth is an awfully dated idea to begin with, in my humble opinion.

I am out here making what I  would like to see a trans man in a videogame do, which is be huge, wrestle monsters and kiss cute guys. A topic me and Åge started tackling back in the Liquid State days was the concept of a trans power fantasy- which is exactly what it reads on the tin. While there are few men (trans and not) who fit into the shapely mold of a hyper masculine, sword-swinging barbarian god, many admire these characters and live out their fantasies through them.

Besides, you can tell! We specifically make excuses to show off his shark-teeth patterned top surgery scars because we want people to know. Hey, are you a trans guy that likes bulky dudes? This one’s for you!

In conclusion

While my inspirations are deceptively simple and reasons are uncomplicated, I often catch myself thinking about this design. Is it realistic? Is it alienating? Is it empowering? Is it wise? Even if he was designed straight from a trans man’s gut with no worries about the greater question of good representation, I often find myself thinking as though the task of representing all trans men lies solely on my shoulders. It is an unrealistic, unfair expectation. I am not all trans men, neither is he. 

His design and background is a love letter to one of my favorite types of characters, no doubt mixed in with years of queer, man-loving brain soup. He is what I like, and what I want to see in a video game. At the end of the day, I can only hope that what I enjoy also appeals to others.

So far, all signs point to yes. :)

This is our fanart wall, right by my desk at our office. I put them right where i can see them every day. Thanks for the support, folks- it means the world to me.

-Hauk Want to know more? Follow us here or on Twitter for regular updates on this project- or click here to join our discord!

[dokidokitsuna]

DDT Preview 3

...This next ‘family discussion’ won’t be as carefree as the first one. ^^

Something that’s going to start becoming apparent soon is the role Leon inhabits within this story-- it’s an archetype I like to call the ‘pushover parent’. A lot of stories with young protagonists just kill the parents off, or make them into NPCs in their own children’s lives…and while I recognize the validity of these choices, I think it’s more interesting to have them along for the ride as secondary characters. ^^ Which is why I invented this archetype.

The ‘pushover parent’ essentially recognizes the ‘protag potential’ of their child-- they know that the kid is burdened with special powers, or otherwise doomed to a particularly harsh, pressure-filled lifestyle, which they are powerless to change. So they become so thoroughly racked with guilt about the fact that their poor baby can’t have the peaceful, ordinary, safe life that they deserve, that they overcompensate by spoiling them (as much as they can, anyway). They are incredibly doting and forgiving, and often make a habit of lying in order to spare the child even the slightest bit of pain.

Of course, eventually the plot arrives, our kid protagonist has no choice but to start going through it, and the ‘pushover parent’ starts to feel even more powerless than before.  In the end, they are hurt the most by any trials the child has to face-- on a meta level, they become the emotional outlet of the narrative, since the child in question is usually too innocent or too busy actively experiencing trauma to have a ‘proper’ reaction. 

In this instance: Elfilin generally (and incorrectly...) has it in his head that he can ‘handle’ every unpleasant experience that comes his way; meanwhile Leon is clearly dying inside a little more each time. ^^ Needless to say, it’s a LOT of fun to write~

[thepascalproject]

Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)

Character: Maxwell Lord

Attributes: Avaricious, manipulative, desperate, emotional

Favorite Quote: “You don’t ever have to make a wish for me to love you.”

I’ve got mixed feelings about this movie, ya’ll. It’s funny for how good the first movie was, the second just didn’t deliver. Well almost. The movie takes Diana Prince into the 1980s, where she works as a curator for a museum and does hero work on the side. But things change when Maxwell Lord and Cheetah team up to bring the world into chaos and it’s up to Diana to stop them, as she questions everything she knows about herself.

So Pedro can play the hell out of two archetypes (plus many more); the morally gray character and a single father. And Maxwell Lord is both of them. Pedro and Max were a match made in Hollywood heaven! And it did not disappoint. The film was upsettingly second rate but, as freaking usual, Pedro carried the movie and then some. He perfectly balanced a surprising amount of characteristics in this character—near unhinged desperation, emotional fragility, disingenuousness, and greed. I think it may be one of the more uniquely emotional performances I’ve seen from him.

I loved the duplicity of this role. One moment Max is an egocentric manipulator the next he’s a tearful, loving father. He’s a suave businessman making a commercial and then he’s a manic opportunist unhinged with greed. His arc was ten times more compelling than anything else going on in the movie. The best aspect was his relationship with his young son, Alistair (dad role #3) He’s not perfect, he makes mistakes multiple times as a father and it feels realistic. But nonetheless Max tries to prioritize him, and by the end of the film we understand it’s his own childhood struggles that influence his reckless choices. He doesn’t want Alistair to experience the same things he did. This is why we’re able to sympathize and care for him as a “villain”.

My favorite scene is the Black Gold commercial. It’s a pure 80’s cheese fest and Pedro just revels in it. His sense of humor def came out to play with this one. And it’s still just the right amount of fun balanced with arrogant villainy. My other favorite was his scene with the President in his office as he desperately tries to get him to make a wish (still can’t get over how the second he got the wishing stone he became it lol) Pedro acts his ass off—it’s so physical and emotional and unhinged. It’s super impressive and Wonder Woman doesn’t feel deserving of such a great performance! It doesn’t deserve Pedro period!

[satyricplotter]

the issue of the personality of the reader is fascinating to me for its inherent contradiction we are speaking of, technically, hundreds of people who are each their own a little island with specific wants, needs, likes, histories, etc for whom it is impossible to write a complete enough character to encompass them all they cannot be X if they're already Y, and the only way to resolve that is to not address it. it's Schrödinger's reader: both and neither until you set the ink down

but you cannot fail to mention everything for that too is impossible you have nothing in your hands and nothing in your story you're speaking of blank air and even that is a choice, even that is space being filled you could go for the blandest reader in the world and they're still, somehow, a person. and yet isn't the mere motion of a decision a betrayal of the purpose of this practice, which is to deliver a believable situation which you, who reads this now, in your myriad of idiosyncrasies, can insert yourself in? I have found the question is not about how you could write one person to which a whole audience can relate to but how far can you talk your audience into believing they, too, could be just like this if they were under these specific circumstances. the strength therein lies in other places—setting, plot, and most critically, the love interest, whose presence shapes the entire narrative

that is not to say there aren't specific—well, to call them archetypes would be a bit much, but at least sets of personalities which people agree (and disagree) fit certain characters much better. I do genuinely believe you could write any personality and make it work so long as you've got a good handle on the character work of the love interest, because that's where believability rests upon, and the proper framing device.

the superhero genre tends to more peppy, snappy characters because such a strenuous activity requires some vitality—either that or the sultry variety batman's girlfriends are so well known for—and I think it's a reasonable choice in a genre where most women (and that is the gender reader fics most cater to) tend to fall on the role of damsel in distress. but I myself am very partial to the weak and the bland and the utterly useless (but still kind, still clever—or angry, mean, withered etcetera! Human above all!), particularly when seen by someone who by all means should not be invested in this particular being but still, somehow, loves them

the particular heart of the reader genre—which is to say, anyone can be loved, as they wish, by whom they wish, including (particularly) you—is one which I believe serves this type of character very well