#but i want to actually put sources to what i vaguely remember reading

[mamawasatesttube]

still thinking about the way john byrne went so hard on clark being the ONLY survivor of krypton that he even got rid of krypto. sir that is literally just a pumby dog who hurt you

[fallstaticexit]

Prev / Next / Beginning / Pillowfort

AN: Source for tarot reading

Transcript under the cut

Morgan: Ever done this before?

Nancy: Can’t say that I have.

Morgan: Are you as put off about this as that other bible thumper?

Nancy: [rolls eyes] We’re not all the same. I’m more than my faith.

Morgan: I don’t doubt that. I’m sure there’s many layers to you. Where are you from?

Nancy: Brindleton Bay.

Morgan: Really, I’m from Portridge, a small town south of the Bay. Originally.

Nancy: Yeah? So, how did you end up a Fyres?

Morgan: Great question. My mom was his secretary. Super scandalous shit, which would explain while the Royal Barbie hates my guts. He’s not a bad step dad though. Hell of lot better than my actual dad. So, your parents-

Nancy: Isn’t the probing developing a bias or something?

Morgan: Just a little small talk. So, is there a question you want answered? Perhaps, a question about your past, your present or your future?

Nancy: I-

Nancy Narrates: [I want to get forget my past. I want to survive my present. I want to escape my future. Could there really be an answer for all that in those cards]

Nancy: I don’t know...

Morgan: That’s ok. You intention will guide us.

Morgan: Pick three cards that call to you. Based on the three, we will see what the cards have to say about your past, present and future.

Nancy: And you believe in this?

Morgan: We believe what we believe in, right? You have your three?

Nancy: I think so..

Morgan: Let’s take a look.

Morgan: Your past—the Upright Fool. Innocence. Curorsity. Something new and exciting—perhaps a first love in your youth that swept you off your feet?

Nancy Narrates: [Already I hated this...]

Morgan: Your present- the Reversed Star. Insecurity. Self doubt. A loss of faith. Interesting. Perhaps a struggle with one’s own faith? Are you having any doubts, Nancy? About yourself? About your God?

Morgan: Your future- the Upright Devil. Lust. Obsession. Temptation. Could be for the material things of life, or maybe a desire of the flesh.

Nancy: [clears throat] That all seems incredibly vague.

Morgan: [grins] Does it? Your poker face could use some work. Let me ask you something. Who exactly did I remind you of? Someone from your past?

Morgan: Your silence is very telling. I have a real gift for reading people.

Nancy: I’m sure you believe you do.

Morgan: [laughs] I really do!

Morgan: Tightly wound, fidgeter. You bite the hell out of your nails, right at the skin on the tips of your fingers, unconsciously. You pick at it until it bleeds. It’s the only thing that’s keeping you tethered to your own body. The pain, that is.

Morgan: Right?

Geoffrey: You made it! And making friends! Sorry, am I interrupting girl talk?

Morgan: It’s cool, boy wonder. Want me to do your reading?

Geoffrey: Are you kidding? Of course I do!

Nancy: Actually, I think I want to g-

Geoffrey: Really quick, Nance, then I’ll walk you to your dorm!

Geoffrey: Upright Death for my future sounds kind of scary when you think about it, huh? She said it could mean profound change. Sounds promising.

Nancy: [tsks] That could mean literally anything. That whole practice strives on vagueness. You can never be wrong if you’re bound to be right.

Geoffrey: Yeah, but it’s about how you perceive it, right? It’s unique. She did yours, didn’t she? What did yours say?

Nancy: Yeah, I um, don’t remember.

Geoffrey: Maybe you can ask her again. You two seem to hit it off.

Nancy: [huffs] Please. I am not going back to that shabby bar. She’s a sham. Those cards mean nothing. It’s stupid.

Geoffrey: [sighs]

Nancy: What?

Geoffrey: [blows raspberries]

Nancy Narrates: [Truth was, I was more curious than anything]

Nancy: So. Those cards. Could they...I don’t know- tell me something that could happen in a week? Like if I asked if I’ll pass my Statistics exam?

Nancy Narrates: [I was completely captivated by this otherworldly experience, whether I’d admit it outloud or not]

Nancy Narrates: [and Morgan was always happy to indulge me]

Nancy: [whispers] So I past my exam. How does this even work? I mean, how could they know? The cards. Could you do another reading after the debate?

Nancy Narrates: [But of all the questions I did ask, there was one that burned inside me more]

[heavy metal spills into the hallway]

Morgan: [startled] Nancy?

Nancy: Is this a bad time? I know it’s late...I can come back another time. I just have so much on my mind and I can’t sleep.

Morgan: You want another reading?

Nancy: Is that ok?

Morgan: Of course it is, Nancy. Come in.

Morgan: Sorry for all the smoke. I can open a window.

Knox: Babe, who’s this? It’s not my birthday.

Morgan: [smirks] Want me to get rid of him? I can.

Knox: Hey! I’ll be quiet! Won’t even know I’m here.

Nancy: I don’t mind. I just had a question.

Nancy: Could you do a reading for someone else, even if they’re not here?

Morgan: [hums] Not really...not without their permission or their intention. Who is this person to you?

Nancy: [looks away] Someone from my past. Someone I need to forget but- I can’t.

Morgan: Did this person hurt you?

Nancy: [shakes head] If anything, I hurt them. I ruined them with my... [lowly] um, perversions. I just need to know if they’re ok. If they hate me for it.

Morgan: [softly] I see... Here’s what we’ll do. Just like before, I’ll do a three card spread.

Morgan: Set your intention. Clear your mind. Ask your question. The first card is ‘you’. The middle card is ‘them’. The third card is the relationship.

Nancy Narrates: [‘Vanessa, do you hate me?’ ‘Do you blame me?’ ‘Do you regret loving me?’ ‘Do you know that I never stopped loving you?’]

Nancy Narrates: [‘Do you know that I’m sorry?’ ‘Do you know that I miss you?’ ‘Do you know that I need you?’]

Morgan: [exhales] It says... that you are a filled with love, Nancy, even though the world around you wants to drain you of it. There’s just too much of it inside of you and your friend-

Nancy: [weakly] Vanessa.

Morgan: [smiles] Vanessa. She loves you all the same. She may be experiencing her own hurt in this world, but having loved you keeps her strong. You two brought something bright and beautiful into each other’s lives.

Morgan: You can’t rid her from your life, because she’s apart of you, and...I- I think that’s a love worth fighting for, Nancy.

Nancy: [between gulps] Right. Right, thank you. Thanks, Morgan.

Morgan: Wait, Nancy, you don’t have to leave. It’s ok-

Nancy: It’s fine. I uh- I should go.

[door clicks shut]

Knox: Uhh, did you just make all that up?

Morgan: [weakly] I don’t know why I did that..

[clover-system]

The longest list of anti-endo sources I've ever seen

While trying to find something else using Tumblr's infamous search engine, I came across this absolute gem:

NINE SOURCES!!! That's a record!! This is incredible!

@radpocalypse, listen. I am about to tear these to shreds, but before I do, I want you to know that you have my respect for not only compiling the longest list of sources I have ever seen an anti-endo provide, and not only doing so seemingly not directly prompted, but typing out every single link by hand, on mobile, without making a single mistake. Incredible work.

And also, to be completely honest, if I had nine sources supporting a belief, I almost certainly wouldn't look into them this closely. But, hey, that's what strangers on the internet with opposing views are for.

One more thing before the debunk: Endogenic systems do not claim to have DID etc. without trauma. They just don't. Whether it could be possible is often debated as an edge case, usually just to win an argument against someone of the opposing side, but really, it's irrelevant for 99% of the community. A good chunk are questioning OSDD based on later trauma, but as far as I am aware, no one on this website is claiming a completely endogenic plural disorder.

However, I don't want to dismiss entire pages based on this alone without further commentary, and it's a fun intellectual exercise regardless. So, whenever I use green text, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate under the premise of "If I was claiming to have DID without trauma (which neither I nor anyone else afaik is), would this source actually debunk that claim?" My syster will also occasionally pop in with purple, since she was cocon while I was writing this.

My dad just walked into my room and literally said "hey how it's going". You know, like. Like that one post. Amazing.

Anyway, civility established. Now come along with me on this long long journey of ten minutes of reading. Maybe put some music on in the background, if that will help you get through it. I had Near's Theme on while writing.

Here we go.

Link 1: McLean Hospital

Ok, main thing that caught my eye was

According to a 2010 Psychiatric Times article, only 5% of people with DID exhibit obvious switching between identity “states.”

Very interesting! Even with all of the "idk who's fronting" memes, 5% is really not that high. Though maybe online spaces like these help train the ability to identify it? The reference trail leads back to a book by Kluft but I don't really feel like going through dozens of pages for this. Definitely making a note of this though; I wonder if there have been any follow-up studies on this.

Not much to say here other than that. No mention of plurality outside DID.

DID is associated with long-term exposure to trauma, often chronic traumatic experiences during early childhood.

Dissociation—or disconnection from one’s sense of self or environment—can be a response to trauma.

Dissociative identity disorder—a type of dissociative disorder—most often develops during early childhood in kids who are experiencing long-term trauma. This typically involves emotional, physical, and/or sexual abuse; neglect; and highly unpredictable interactions with caregivers.

Why "associated", not "is caused by"? Why "can", not "is"? Why "most often", etc.?

Why such weak language?

Not that it couldn't be weaker.

I vaguely remember McLean getting into some hot water regarding a video they posted about DID, but didn't find anything concrete. Half-remembered anecdote aside, the author seems well-qualified.

C-tier debunk of this position. It's not nothing but it could be a lot better.

Link 2: Psych Central

It occurs in women 9 times more often than in men.

Very interesting statistic, but no citation provided.

Alters can show striking differences. For instance, one alter may speak with a different accent or have a softer way of speaking. They might have different opinions or a different gender identity, and even physical differences — like left- or right-handedness, or the need for a glasses prescription.

That's quite a stark difference here compared to the McLean article. What happened to "alters aren't that noticeable"?

But whatever, these are just interesting tidbits. None of this has anything to do with endogenic plurality. Nothing like "this is the only way to be multiple", no comment whatsoever.

DID is usually associated with adverse experiences in someone’s past and traumatic memories.

Dissociative identity disorder (DID) is a mental health condition with strong links to trauma, especially trauma in childhood.

Bruh. This again?

In fact, the American Psychiatric Association reports that 90% of people with DID have a history of childhood abuse and neglect, based on research from the United States, Canada, and Europe.

Bruh. Seriously? 90%? You know what that leaves, right?

According to your own source, 10% of DID systems are endogenic.

But let's break this down. There's a big difference between the system being endogenic, and the DID being endogenic. This statistic is specifically referring to childhood trauma.

The wording's plenty vague though. This can absolutely be read as completely endogenic DID.

One review article from 2017 about the causes of DID noted that there was relatively little research on the condition to date.

The authors said researchers hadn’t yet investigated potential genetic and epigenetic factors. With epigenetic factors, the experiences and behaviors of your parents and ancestors can influence the function of the genes they pass down to you.

The authors of the review said scientists needed to do more research to investigate whether a person with DID might carry genes that can influence if they develop the condition or not.

This is particularly promising because studies have already shown that genes can influence dissociative disorders in general.

So you're telling me DID might be able to be passed down one or two generations? Wow. Again, this still has nothing to do with endogenic plurality, but I'm really glad I decided to play with this second angle, because it's so much more fun. We're certainly not at intentional self-inflicted DID here, but we are at this point a long way from certainly needing childhood trauma in all cases.

And also the reviewer is a military psychiatrist who specializes in ADHD. So uh. Not bringing our best here.

Link 3: Mayo Clinic

Gotta love an article that's nice and short. This is just a brief summary of a bunch of dissociative disorders. Again, nothing about endogenic plurality.

Starting to run out of things to say about this. This whole post could probably be a fifth the length if I didn't feel like playing on hard mode.

Formerly known as multiple personality disorder, this disorder involves "switching" to other identities. You may feel as if you have two or more people talking or living inside your head. You may feel like you're possessed by other identities.

Each identity may have a unique name, personal history and features. These identities sometimes include differences in voice, gender, mannerisms and even such physical qualities as the need for eyeglasses.

Hey, that reminds me of someone.

There also are differences in how familiar each identity is with the others. Dissociative identity disorder usually also includes bouts of amnesia and often includes times of confused wandering.

Again, McLean looking really odd with its declaration of DID's covertness against great detail like this. However, its author is so far the best qualified. This one just says "Mayo Clinic Staff". Can't even know which of them worked on this. Some of them are psychs, but if any of them specialize in dissociative disorders, it doesn't say so.

Dissociative disorders usually arise as a reaction to shocking, distressing or painful events and help push away difficult memories.

I won't bother quoting even more wishy-washy language because this post is already at an ungodly length (about 1300 words so far) and we're barely a third done. But yeah, suffice to say, no nail-in-the-coffin 100% link to trauma.

Link 4: Rethink

We are a trusted information creator and accredited by the Patient Information Forum (PIF).

Their bold, for once. That's an alarm-ringing corporate phrase if I've ever seen one. Also, first thing on the PIF's website is "balancing the risks and benefits of AI in the production of health information". So this article might've been written by GPT. Awesome. And yeah, a lot of this whole website looks to me like a bunch of interconnected pages with stupidly long articles written by stitching together LLM generations. Does pass GPT0's test though.

This one is so long. I'll take the ten minutes to read through every word, which I don't think @radpocalypse did, just to make sure there's nothing here, but one thing that does catch my eye scrolling down to near the bottom is that they misspelled their first citation.

A quick look at this Carolyn Spring shows a lot being sold and credentials nowhere in sight. Awesome.

So already I don't need to read this. The information here is not at a high level of trustworthiness. It's maybe better than nothing, but seriously, one can and should do better. But I'll read it anyway, just for bonus points. Thanks to AccelaReader for making this bearable.

Many people will experience dissociation at some point in their lives. Lots of different things can cause you to dissociate. For example, you might dissociate when you are very stressed, or after something traumatic has happened to you.

Some of the symptoms of dissociation include the following:

You may have clear multiple identities.

It‘s important to remember that you could have the symptoms of dissociation without a dissociative disorder.

So according to this, multiple identities can be caused by intense but non-traumatic stress, and might not necessarily be a disorder. So, while I admit this is a little bit of a stretch, we're four links in and this is the first mention of plurality in general, so I'll take it. One point for endogenic plurality. (And again, none of this really matters anyway because this is the worst source so far.)

Dissociative identity disorder (DID) is sometimes called ‘Multiple Personality Disorder.

If you have DID you might seem to have 2 or more different identities, called ‘alternate identities.

Two missing closing quotes. Really not a good sign.

They suggest that DID is caused by experiencing severe trauma over a long time in childhood.

Aha! Finally, something concrete against endogenic DID! Too bad it's buried in the worst source yet. If we believed we had DID, we would absolutely not reconsider that based on a sketchy webpage with suboptimal syntax and no credentials.

Ugh, finally done with that one. What a slog.

Link 5: DID Research

Aha! The infamous psych student's blog! That's what Sophie said, anyway. Not taking her word for it though. Let's see what we can find here, independently.

Dissociative identity disorder (DID) is the result of repeated or long-term childhood trauma

Why wasn't this first? First sentence, so crystal clear. No two ways about this, transDID destroyed right out of the gate.

DID cannot form after ages 6-9 because individuals older than these ages have an integrated self identity and history.

Why wasn't this first? It's so plain, so refreshing after four pages of strategic ambiguity. Nothing left here for green. But still no mention of non-disordered plurality.

The author is impressively credentialed but doesn't seem to specialize quite near this area. She's certainly better than most, high above any random Tumblr user talking out of their ass, but the good stuff would be to get a DID specialist to explicitly spell out that endogenic systems are not possible.

Also should make note of this big fat legal disclaimer:

While the author strives to make information on this website as complete, reliable, and accurate as possible, the author makes no claims, promises, guarantees, or warranties about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents of this site and expressly disclaims liability for errors and omissions in the contents of this site.

If we did claim to have DID, this would rattle us a little but could ultimately be brushed aside.

Link 6: SANE

As usual, literally nothing about endogenic plurality. I'll just greenmode this.

The majority of people with DID have been through severe trauma in early childhood

And now back to our regularly scheduled nondefinitive language.

Fun fact: highlighting text on this website turns it invisible. Awesome.

A person needs to meet the following criteria to be diagnosed with DID:

- Two or more distinct identities or personality states, each with its own way of thinking and relating. - Amnesia and gaps in the recall of everyday events, personal information or traumatic events. - The experiences are not part of normal cultural or religious practice, or part of childhood imaginary play. For example, a child having an imaginary friend does not mean they have DID. - The symptoms are not because of substance abuse or other medical conditions.

Ah finally, a direct quote from the good ol' DSM. Notice the lack of a trauma requirement.

Funny enough, using only these criteria in isolation, we actually would count as having DID due to our grayout memory gaps when switching. DID is also listed in the dissociative disorders section of the DSM, not the trauma disorders section, so there is no implied criterion there either. However, there still remains the universal criterion of distress, which we do not fulfill. We are quite happy with ourselves.

DID is caused by severe childhood trauma, such as physical, verbal or sexual abuse.

Well, which is it?? Is it a majority association or a direct cause? Why the contradiction? Or is the emphasis on early childhood trauma?

Eh, whatever. Point is, green is once again shut down. But there is still no mention of endogenic plurality anywhere here!!

And no indication of who wrote this article, though the citation for direct cause is a dissociative disorder specialist. Does he actually say that in the cited paper, though?

Dissociative identity disorder (DID) is multifactorial in its etiology. Whereas psychosocial etiologies of DID include developmental traumatization and sociocognitive sequelae, biological factors include trauma-generated neurobiological responses. Biologically derived traits and epigenetic mechanisms are also likely to be at play. At this point, no direct examination of genetics has occurred in DID. However, it is likely to exist, given the genetic link to dissociation in general and in relation to childhood adversity in particular.

I hope you have a dictionary on hand. That sure is a lot of big words that aren't in Firefox's built-in spellchecker. Still, after making sure I got everything, it's clearly not so cut and dry here. And we're back on the "it could be genetic" point.

Tangentially related: I do like the dismissal of the iatrogenic model on the basis of the brain scans.

Neurobiological differences have been demonstrated between dissociative identities within patients with DID and between patients with DID and controls. Given the current evidence, DID as a diagnostic entity cannot be explained as a phenomenon created by iatrogenic influences, suggestibility, malingering, or social role-taking. On the contrary, DID is an empirically robust chronic psychiatric disorder based on neurobiological, cognitive, and interpersonal non-integration as a response to unbearable stress.

Anyway, we're not even on the original page anymore, so I'll call it here. No mention of endogenic plurality, and the citation that claims to dismiss endogenic DID doesn't.

Link 7: NAMI Michigan

While the causes [of DID] are unknown

I'm tired. Aren't you tired?

Treatment for DID consists primarily of psychotherapy with hypnosis.

Yeah I'm calling BS on this one

And no citations on this entire page, nor even the author's name.

Statistics show that DID occurs in 0.01 to 1 percent of the general population.

Research has shown that the average age for the initial development of alters is 5.9 years old.

No sources listed. This is definitely the worst link. Literally on the same level as a rambling Tumblr user in terms of credibility.

Doesn't matter that it says

This disorder is believed to be triggered by physical or sexual abuse in childhood

Couldn't even get this dogshit source to be firm.

This one gets an F.

Link 8: The Psychology Practice

Got scared for a moment there that it said ai. No, that's AL, a name. Also this was written in 2022, so we're definitely safe. Can't actually find any other info on this AL character, but at least we can look up the co-author.

Hm, can't find anything on her, either. Well, at least this is a step up from the previous link. Let's see what it has to say.

According to the Dissociative Identity Research Organisation (2018), DID is formed in childhood due to repeated trauma in early childhood (before age 10) before the personality is fully integrated.

I do like that these later links are direct with this. They don't seem to have a citation for that DIRO, though. Unless...

No. Oh no.

Ok, so this one was written by a couple of clowns who definitely didn't do their homework. Cool. I'm getting tired of humoring awful sources like this, so moving on to the grand finale.

Link 9: NAMI

Wait, this is the same group behind the zero-citation article from Michigan! But that was just Michigan. Maybe the main site can do better.

Ugh, it's just another list of dissociative disorders instead of DID specifically.

The symptoms of a dissociative disorder usually first develop as a response to a traumatic event,

Aren't you tired? Aren't you tired? Aren't you tired?

Often these identities may have unique names, characteristics, mannerisms and voices.

Often? Wow. Sure is a far cry from 5%.

Dissociative disorders are managed through various therapies including: - Psychotherapies such as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT) - Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) - Medications such as antidepressants can treat symptoms of related conditions

No mention of hypnosis, allegedly the primary method of treatment?? (/sarc)

and there was no mention of plurality being exclusive to dissociative disorders

Oh, and no listed authors either.

So, after three thousand words of analysis, all we've come up with are nothing burgers, dogshit, and dogshit nothing burgers. Out of nine links, only one briefly and indirectly touched on endogenic plurality, and it was in favor. Even the argument against the traumaless DID strawman is weak at best. These sources are bad, to put it lightly.

@radpocalypse, if you're reading this, firstly, thank you for powering through your ADHD and dyslexia to read thousands of words dunking on your masterpiece. Secondly, if you have any more sources that you think are backing you, feel free to send them my way. Just uh, maybe read them more closely next time?

And that goes for everyone here. If you think you have a better source, or if I made a mistake or missed something here, I am open to correction. I am open to the idea that I'm wrong and I have some unknown trauma to work through, but I certainly won't go digging unless I have good reason to believe it's there, and I haven't seen any good reason. And if you haven't either, maybe it's time to reconsider your position.

One last thing before I go.

Have you ever actually seen a pro-endo carrd, let alone one cited in standalone? I haven't.

Here's a much longer list of much better sources than yours supporting endogenic plurality compiled by the traumagenic Guardians System. I don't expect you to read anywhere near the whole thing; just pick a few links at random. And yes, while many of them are peer-reviewed papers, some of them are Tumblr posts, but those Tumblr posts cite peer-reviewed papers, so it's all good.

Thanks for reading.

[sanctus-ingenium]

I’m really inspired by your world building and the creatures you use. I’m trying to kickstart my own world using Celtic, Norse and Scottish myths (it also involves werewolves because they’re cool)

But I’m stumped and a bit overwhelmed. How’d you start your project and what were huge sources of inspiration for you as you worked on The Black Horse?

hi there!!! this will probably get wordy i have a lot of thoughts on this but here's how i built up my inver setting

i had the characters first, and the werewolf establishment was basically the first thing invented about the world. I wrote a decent amount about the characters in the pre-1st draft slush pile just getting a handle on their voices, their history together, etc. the first slush draft was in painstaking chronological order telling of their lives from birth to like age 40 - it wasn't pretty to read but it meant I knew what big moments formed their worldview, their relationships with others, things like that. and then i got to pick and choose which ones would feature in the actual 1st draft, and which i would leave unsaid, in flashback form, or only in the form of vague allusions. the plot and world events changed significantly as i wrote the actual 1st draft so this ended up only being useful for backstory stuff and not book plots, but it was still good to have.

There was an important moment of a character being kidnapped into a faery realm, which is what started me off thinking about fairies in general. they weren't originally a part of this world - it was an undefined space before just for the characters to exist in, because i was (and still am) more interested in the characters than the worldbuilding. but i still like for there to be SOMETHING there in the background, and it gives a lot of opportunities to inform characterisation, so i started to make my setting. I picked the Púca as a pivotal being & major inspiration source to include because of its relatively large presence in the fringes of my childhood in stories told by my older relatives and i like the unusual aspects about it as well, how it has been both heroic and malevolent in different stories. you have to remember i grew up in this culture too, i knew a lot already, and that's what got me thinking of alternate Earth history - as in, the setting of Inver as alternate history, not wholly original fantasy set in a fantasy land.

So then I had to think about the implications of that, and here is where I think a lot of authors adapting extant mythology fall short. A world where faeries/mythological monsters/gods based in real cultures exist and people interact with them is indistinguishable from our own. We already live in a world where people interact with faeries in their own way; I've heard many older relatives recount stories of being trapped in their fields by faeries, how you can only escape by taking off your jumper and putting it back on inside out. There was no question as to whether they believed this was a concrete, meaningful interaction with a supernatural being. We have a motorway that was diverted while it was being built because the builders didn't want to risk cutting down a hawthorn tree. There is a deep stigma against harming hawthorns. Now, tell me how things would be any different if faeries were real irl? ftr I do not believe in the supernatural whatsoever, not even a little bit, but it is impossible to deny that I live in a world deeply shaped by it - I need only look out the window at the stands of whitethorn around my house to know that. because the main expression of that supernatural element is in how the people of that culture react.

you cannot, you cannot pick and choose only the monsters from a legend and leave behind the people who made & propagated that legend. you're only taking a single thread from a rich tapestry. I'm not arguing that other cultures should be untouchable, far from it, I'm just saying that to truly appreciate it, you need context for everything you adapt. you gotta know what you're writing about

in that sense, the people are more important to building Inver than the faeries. a citizen of Inver not immediately affected by the main plotline would likely never see or interact with magic in their lifetime, but their society is still shaped by it. so is mine (though that's more on the catholic church than anything else)

So now that I'd had that realisation, I decided to dump a lot of the traditional fantasy tropes I'd been working with. Think basic fantasy setting stuff, pop culture "The Fae" tropes, even the terminology of 'Fae' at all - that is not something I've ever heard the older generation in my life call them. It's just 'fairies' to them (although I did shift the spelling to match the Yeats poem because I could not handle writing characters making accusations of being A Fairy and have it not come across as a unintentionally homophobic accusation lmao). I did some research; mostly on JSTOR, using my institutional access, because my own university is mostly science and didn't have a big library of anthropological texts. I read An Táin Bó Culainge which is honestly one of the greatest stories of all time PLEASE READ IT if you are at all interested in Irish myth. It is a fantastic story and extremely comedic as well (a canon mmmf foursome lol). In terms of academic sources specific to the Púca, I have a drive folder of pdfs I will share with anyone if they ask.

I decided I was not going to include anything from what people actually think of as pre-christian Irish mythology - no fianna [rangers notwithstanding], no Ulster cycle, no Tuatha Dé, no Irish gods. All the things I include are post-colonial aside from the notion of the Otherworld in general. This decision wasn't necessarily accurate to what might have happened in this alternate history (given that christianity still has no real foothold in Inver) but it is a colonised society after all. It's why I got slightly steamed once when someone filed my Púca art into their irish deities/irish polytheism tag (I have my own issues with iripols/gaelpols for the same reason I dislike people taking myths out cultural context and in this case contemporary cultural context), because the Púca is in fact a postcolonial being - it comes from the UK, and likely the mainland as well

One of the last things I did before starting on my 2nd draft, which is what turned into Said the Black Horse, was decide to always capitalise the word 'Púca'. Because what really clicked from doing my research and remembering what I'd heard as a child was that the Púca is a specific character. Not a species, not a class of monster. A character, one guy. And you'll find this everywhere - the obvious example is the Minotaur being one specific guy, the son of Minos, not just 'a minotaur'. One very funny consequence of speciesifying mythological characters is dnd ppl saying their character is A Firbolg (fir bolg is plural!!). Fantasy bestiary books like Dragonology or Spiderwick Chronicles have done some amount of damage to how people relate to myths and legendary creatures, and I am not immune as someone who loves speculative biology, but in Inver I decided to cut all of that out.

Next once I got that out of the way I had to think about tone, atmosphere, and intended results. I didn't achieve my holy grail of a very atmospheric, undefined, and uncertain story that provides no answers, due to limitations in my own abilities, but I tried. I have given less than 1 second of thought to how magic or faery biology in Inver works because that is not conducive to the atmosphere of a fairytale. Many of these source myths and legends are really about the fear of the unknown. They are rationalisations to explain away something unknown, some mystery of life, and you cannot explain the unexplainable and expect it to carry the same punch as the original myths that you are drawn to adapt. That's also why I try to never actually give facts about fairies, but instead I talk about what people think of them. The word 'considered' does some insanely heavy lifting in that linked post lmao. Is any of what I wrote true with regards to the Red King?? It is for the people who believe it.

I'm saying all of this because these are all points I had to think about before writing that 2nd draft, but also because I think they're worth considering for your own story as well. I'll admit I invented my werewolves from scratch, they have no mythological basis, because they pre-date the faery stuff and also I wanted them to fill a very specific role and appear a little more concrete than the other supernatural elements. It is what it is; I wanted a werewolf element that didn't match myths and legends (and honestly was partially inspired by me rolling my eyes about those posts going around moaning and whining about 'the doggification of werewolves missing the point of werewolf stories'. I thought, well, there's more than one story you can tell with a werewolf - it isn't always 'i fear the beast within', sometimes it's something else! sometimes it's daddy issues! it's okay to make something new)

ok i think that's all i have to say.. modern Inver is a bit different, that worldbuilding is largely the same but with a big dose of actual ecology because the main characters are rangers and in Inver in 2017, rangers mostly do environmental monitoring. and that's a whole different sort of worldbuilding lol

good luck with your story!!

[fairuzfan]

Your post about how many people are unknowingly falling for & spreading propaganda... yeah. I typed up a whole spiel of a comment on one of your posts the other day that I ended up deciding not to not actually post because it felt like detailing, but seriously. The amount of well meaning, genuinely anti-zionist people ignorantly sharing zionists' posts because they just don't pick up on the leading undertones is honestly more terrifying than than the amount of actual zionists in some ways.

I'm someone who was born into a doomsday cult, and seeing all these people falling for the exact same blatant (or so i thought lol) recruitment/manipulation tactics I've seen used by them my entire life has absolutely fucking terrifying. These are people who are actively trying to combat zionism, but I guess the general public is so uneducated about propaganda/cult tactics that what immediately reads as blatantly manipulative, misleading bullshit to me just doesn't even register as strange to most people. Not to be repetitive, but seriously: fucking terrifying.

There's so much focus on the way people/groups who want to manipulate you will use language of fear, but in this case especially, people need to realize they will almost always appeal to your compassion before they appeal to your fear.

It's all peace and love and happiness because that's what gets people in the door. You preach (or post) the mushy, happy, fun stuff that makes people feel good to draw them in, and you slowly start peppering in the ideas you actually want to lead them to believe later on once you've got them wanting to believe you.

This also has this added effect of helping the group or person's image. Even the people who you don't manage to draw in will have the impression of you as someone who runs their mouth 24/7 about how you're full of love and want the best for everyone, which is especially useful for when you inevitably want to frame yourself as the victim to demonize the people who will inevitably oppose you. If your first and only exposure to a person is seeing them calling for world peace and universal love, you are much more likely to be inclined to believe they (and by extension their cause) are the sympathetic, loving, peaceful good guys being unjustly targeted.

Sorry for rambling, but like... really. It won't always be something nefarious, of course--the vast majority of the the time, it won't be--but I think we would all be in a much better situation if people took it as a general rule of thumb that you should always be a little suspicious of overly vague talk about peace and love.

You're EXACTLY right. I really appreciate this message, because you put to words a lot of my inherent analysis of arguments and ideas. I like grew up with this rhetoric so it's easy to spot for me, but the way that people speak about "peace" as the overall goal when they're zionist is so blatant to me because there is no material change in the scenario they propose but rather a calmness where Palestinians are ignored.

And picking up on subtext of a lot of messages is something you have to have a muscle for kinda because of how subtle it is. The frightening part is, you're right, that the indoctrination part of zionism is the most harmful part because you appeal to their pathos — their fear, their sense of safety, etc — and you go on down the rabbit hole and slowly start being radicalized and pro-zionism or you might not even be pro-zionism 100% but enjoy... soft zionism as a mutual of mine put it once (if you read this and want to be tagged, lmk). Which soft zionism is the MAIN opinion in many liberal circles btw, its not an uncommon opinion.

I even remember once sharing a post by a zionist because i saw them talk about esims but when i went on their blog a few days later because something rubbed me the wrong way, I noticed their pinned and I was like "oh dam I gotta delete that other post" like that's how often this happens.

Idk, I try to combat this by putting sources or approaching from a standpoint of logical arguments rather than identity-based politics (although, sometimes i think there are some things that people who are a certain identity can be the only true experts on) so that I try to encourage actual engagement with ideas and walking them through thought processes rather than "I'm palestinian so just trust me."

Like even with my one fact checking list, idk if I succeeded but I wanted to emphasize that there are multiple factors you should consider when confronting ANY sort of information and should not blindly trust things. News sources have regularly burned or ignored Palestinians so I know a lot of us are really sensitive to these things, but I don't know! I hope people can engage with ideas more than just surface level thinking in general because it helps everyone when you actually interact with the point of view the other person is providing rather than just blindly trusting/distrusting people.

[cosmerelists]

Would Cosmere Characters Drive the Speed Limit?

You know, if cars and speed limits existed for them. (Potentially necessary context: I am a USAmerican)

For a different but hilarious take on Stormlight Characters driving, please check out this @saffronique post, which I spent forever looking for because I vaguely remembered someone else doing a driving post and wanted to make sure I hadn't copied them! Anyway it's funny; go read it: https://www.tumblr.com/saffronique/719947907049127936/was-just-struck-by-the-overwhelming-urge-to-rate?source=share

But now for a much more limited question: just, do they go the speed limit?

1. Nale: Yes but also no

As Mr. Beholden-to-All-Laws-of-the-Realm, Nale would of course drive exactly the speed limit! Except that he would also go immediately to the local jurisdiction, get deputized or whatever, and then obtain permission to speed all the time so as to Apprehend Criminals. So he'd actually be almost exclusively speeding but, like, legally.

2. Vivenna: Only at first

Vivenna does drive the speed limit when she first gets her license, because she wants to Follow the Law and be a Good Example for Siri. But, like, everyone is always so mad, and eventually she starts going just like 5 miles over the speed limit, which isn't even breaking the law, really. It's going with traffic! And then maybe 10 miles over, just occasionally 15 but only on a highway when it's safe! 

3. Siri: No

Like, going a bit faster is not a big deal, especially if all the other cars are doing the same thing. It's actually safer to go with the flow of traffic! 

4. Elend: Depends on who's in the car

Elend drives moderately above the speed limit like most people except if his dad is in the car and then he drives under the speed limit just to piss him off.

5. Vin: No

Vroom, vroom to be honest. Vin doesn't do things slow.

6. Dalinar: Yes

As a young man, Dalinar's speed demon ways led to the deaths of many people. So now he does drive the speed limit and insists that his sons do as well, whether they're in company cars or not.

7. Kelsier: No

Kelsier? Follow a law? I don't think so. He taught Vin to drive, you know.

8. Adolin: Not anymore

When his dad was really into Car Laws, Adolin did drive the speed limit per his dad's instructions. But he's since loosened up a bit. He figures he needs to find his own way to drive!

9. Shallan: No

Shallan drives the speed she needs to drive. Veil definitely drives the fastest, and Radiant is most likely to follow the speed limit. But on average...not so much.

10. Navani: No

Adolin can still remember being in the car with his aunt for the first time and being SHOCKED that she speeds. (In my head this is related to Adolin being shocked when he sees Navani wearing a glove rather than a full sleeve. This may not make sense to anyone else but it feels right to me).

11. Moash: No

Moash always wants to get to his destination as fast as possible. Also I just can't imagine him trying to follow the speed limit. 

12. Wax: Depends on the geographic location

Wax drives the speed limit in the Roughs but not in Polite Society (except in dense urban areas where he wishes to avoid, like, killing children).

13. Wayne: Does not have his driver's license

I feel this in my soul. 

14. Lirin: Yes

I think Lirin would argue that "getting to your destination thirty seconds faster is no reason to speed and put everyone else on the road in danger! Drive safe - arrive safe! That's what matters!" And then he would go exactly one mile under the speed limit at all times while everyone behind him honks. 

15. Kaladin: No

Kaladin spends three months driving very slowly after his dad shows him videos of horrific car crashes but eventually he just can't do it. He NEEDS to get there faster! People are DEPENDING on him! And he likes to feel the WIND in his HAIR as he cruises down the open highway! 

(Kaladin and his dad cannot drive together.)

[wannaeatramyeon]

Hi, there it's so great to find an amazing writer who enjoys Lookism so much! Please keep at it, your HC's are so much fun to read! If it's not too much to ask for the boys like Gun, Samuel, and Vasco with s/o who is a foreign girl, a very capable fighter, and honorable in combat but outside the fight she is quite self-conscious and a bit naive.

Not me reading the first part of this and thinking you're being sarcastic af lol

Thanks for being so kind anon :') I'm glad you're enjoying it, I have SO much fun writing them and putting my stupidity out! Thanks for the ask! I had a little difficulty writing it.... this really isn't very good but hope this hits the spot.

Lookism with non S. Korean S/O

You're from somewhere vague and overseas. Scenario with your partner (Gun, Samuel, Vasco, Jake)

Gun

Your boyfriend was asking you to fight yet again. You're getting pretty tired of it.

You only moved to South Korea not too long ago and ever since he discovered you picked up your skills from overseas, all he makes you do is fight him. And he doesn't go easy on you.

What happened to dates? What happened to romance?

You thought your boyfriend was growing colder towards you, now always in his own head or just studying martial arts.

"...Gun?"

He peers at you over the top of his sunglasses. Your words are hard to say aloud.

"Do you ... do you not want to be with me anymore?"

"What makes you think that?"

"All we do is fight... Literally! I can't remember the last time you even asked me for anything else."

He pulls you into his arms, "You're actually challenging me. Do you know how rare that is? I'm more turned on than ever."

Samuel

You transferred from overseas after helping source partners to help grow Workers into the behemoth it is today.

Back in your field days, there wasn't anything that couldn't be solved with some violence, but your morals and fairness made you stand out amongst would-be enemies.

Even with the 3rd and 4th Affiliate President as your boyfriend, no one could deny your competence or throw around accusation of nepotism.

But you still had to get your head around the working culture in this country.

"Sammy, do I really have to call you Mr. Seo in the office?"

"Yes."

"Isn't that a bit weird? People have seen us together."

"No, I'm your boss. You need to show respect and address me properly here."

"Oh... Do you actually not want anyone to know I'm your girlfriend?"

Samuel pinches the bridge of his nose, can't quite believing he's going to give in on this.

"Fine. You can call me Samuel,"

"What about-"

"Not Sam. Not Sammy. Samuel."

Vasco

You had agreed to meet in the park for a date with Vasco.

The first time you kissed him, he nearly jumped out of his skin claiming that wasn't how dating worked in South Korea. You found out later it was just his eccentricities.

Vasco texted you that he was running late when a group of guys start harassing you.

You threaten to call the police, but when they put their hands on you, you weren't left with many options.

"Y/N?!" Your boyfriend was staring at you in shock.

"No! Euntae, I didn't want you to see me like this!" you hide your bloodied fist from him.

"What! That was amazing!"

"Thank? you?"His compliment made you blush, you knew it wasn't what 'ladies' do but he liked it?

"Y/N! I thought people only had street fights in South Korea! Do they fight overseas too?"

Jake

You think this might be the first time Jake treated you to a meal. A job well done, he had said after you beat up some thugs who were harassing the girls.

Jake's often running off to god knows where to get god knows what done, leaving you to look after the street.

Is this the supposed Girlfriend Privileges? You having to fight in his stead? You reckon you're getting the short end of the stick.

You stare at the violently red pot of stew in front of you, with some unidentified vegetables floating around

"Jake...? What is this?"

"Oh! You've never tried many Korean dishes, right! It's kimchi stew, my favourite. Here." He spoons some into a bowl for you.

With your boyfriend's loving gaze on you, you had no choice but to take a sip.

"ACK!" you spit it out immediately and grab your glass of water to wash the vileness out of your mouth

Jake rolls his eyes at you, "You've got no taste" and takes his own mouthful.

"I know, I'm with you."

[nerves-nebula]

OK im still thinking about if sun wukong actually killed macaque. at first i was like... probably not, right? that seems pretty brutal for lego monkie kid and wukong doesn't really seem to act like it, like i don't recall him saying "you're supposed to be dead" when we're introduced to macaque, and idk if he's ever said anything that implies macaque has ever been deceased. So at first I was like. ok he probably didn't kill this guy there's prolly something else going on.

but then in season 4 wukong off-handedly mentions that he sent azure to the underworld himself in like the finale (i dont remember if he brought it up before then) which implies that he did actually kill Azure and that having done so wasn't so important to him that he felt the need to mention it before then. so ok. maybe he's run into macaque since macaque was revived and has already had his "but you're supposed to be dead!" moment. or maybe he's just not easy to catch off guard in that way since he knows people can be brought back from death, i guess.

HOWEVER the EXACT WORDING Wukong uses when talking to Azure is "I put you in the underworld myself, how did you get out?" which is just vague enough that he could mean that he imprisoned Azure there, but didn't like. KILL him. SO THE JURY IS STILL OUT.

an of course there's also this tweet, which seems to imply that wukong DIDN'T kill macaque

but then you gotta think well, if wukong didn't do it then who tf did? *SOMEONE* had to have done *SOMETHING* because Macaque has the scars to prove he was fuckin, bludgeoned to death through the eye. unless we're supposed to believe that Wukong just scarred him and didn't actually kill him (which would be disappointing to me only because i really like the idea of a guy dying by getting a staff shoved through his eye but makes the most sense for a kids show i guess)

or maybe this tweet is only implying that Macaque wasn't actually resurrected by LBD but maybe some other force working for LBD? that would be a bit confusing but it's a possible reading, considering that Azure also isn't entirely sure who resurrected him. seems unlikely tho since LBD corroborated this part of the story herself, though I guess she could just be playing along with whoever it was that actually raised Macaque.

anyway i don't have a conclusion here other than "probably didn't kill macaque, probably just wounded him" but i did want to mention that while using google to try to find the tweet above this happened

so i guess I'm googles fucking. preeminent Did Lego SWK kill Lego Macaque scholar out there. fantastic. EXCEPT. WHEN YOU CLICK ON THIS LINK? IT'S NOT ACTUALLY QUOTING MY POST. IT'S QUOTING A REPLY SOMEONE MADE TO MY POST. I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW OR WHY GOOGLE WOULD DO THIS? WHAT IS THE AI BEHIND THE SCREENS UP TO THAT IT'S SCOURING THE REPLIES OF A TUMBLR POST AFJSDILFMDSGKASMGD

oh but also when i added "tweet" a the end to try to find the sceenshot in images, this happened.

also the post referenced there is good. i like it. it does less rambling and wishy washy ranting than mine and we basically came to the same conclusions, except they have better photos to prove it sfdfdsf. idk when google started pulling tumblr blogs as sources but i guess we're the only ones talking about damn show.

anyway thank you for coming to my post where i overthink stuff and screenshot google results instead of doing my work

[lukevonhagen]

my take on marius von hagen: part one, his approach to romance

marius has been with me for over a year now and he pretty much occupies my thoughts 24/7, and this was something i have been itching to write for a while. so... strap in, grab your juice box and your cheetos and let's get this show on the road yeah?

Fair Warning, this will not be under a read more, so i apologize in advance if it gets pretty lengthy. (edit: this post is abt 1.8k words long, wow sorry lol.)

this is going to be a character analysis... sort of; it's an analysis of the version of marius that lives in my brain rent free. given that this is an introductory post to what i believe might be a series of my insane marius ramblings, i think i should provide some insight as to what said marius is like in order for the rest of this post to make sense.

first of all, i embrace realism and i reject canon. in marius' sweet wonders card, he finally reveals the significance of the z dog tag he's always wearing. while i think it's really magical that he was able to move on from blaming himself for his mother's death by having an epiphany staring at the ferris wheel... well, i like to make him worse and i just don't think, ultimately, that it's likely or realistic. the marius in my head has a very hard time trying to justify his own existence. i'm not saying he doesn't want to live, or that he'd put himself in any kind of danger, but i believe that he works very hard in order to justify being alive (to himself). not only does he still grapple with the loss of his mother and the role he believes he had to play in that, but there's a part of him that also blames himself for giann's disappearance.

marius believes that he is a vortex that sucks in everything, that destroys everything in its wake. we know for a fact, above all else, that marius doesn't want other people to have to go down with him.

i also believe (especially due to this description) that marius personally manufactured the image he has as a playboy, as opposed to it being a reputation that was given by others which he eventually leaned into.

allow me to elaborate.

marius, in his desire to avoid people being chewed up in his life and spat back out, would want to control the situation as much as possible. there are a few reasons why i believe he'd make this reputation for himself, which are 1) having control of the narrative of himself and making sure people do underestimate him is precisely how he maintains the upper hand in many scenarios (because let's face it, no one expects ditzy, arrogant marius von hagen to be able to outsmart them), and 2) it's much easier to push people away when he makes himself seem incompetent and undesirable. he may be one of the richest men on the planet, but sometimes money isn't enough to redeem an awful composition.

all of that having been said, marius additionally has to have severe trust issues due to the fact that he has a lot of influence and wealth people undoubtably want to use him for, and said influence is the source of a traumatic experience he went through as a child that would forever change the way he'd interact with others in the future. if you remember, marius vaguely alludes to an incident in will of the trees.

he mentions it again in the card in the darkness when he and rosa get trapped in a dark cave and he begins to panic, only this time he's a little more detailed about what happened to him in order to explain his anxiety to her.

then, he actually gives the details of what happened in his personal story.

mc remembers the hints marius had dropped to her a couple of times regarding this incident, so she then asks:

i don't believe marius actually blamed himself for his mother until this was said about him. his mother is the root of all things; he thinks that if he was never born, she would have never died, and perhaps she and giann would still be around and would be happy and healthy. he convinces himself that his existence destroyed his family. the stress of his feelings and anxiety makes him extremely sick as a kid.

all of this was too much for a young marius; now, remember when i said that i reject canon? that's important, because i don't think he ever properly recovered from this episode. i fully believe that marius does need and should go to therapy as an adult, and hasn't done so. my headcanon as to why he didn't, and why he gives off the impression that he's fine now and everything is fine now, is because he wised up and realized that he was being a burden on others and his mother's death would be in vain if he did so.

marius, tired of being a strain on the people he loves, pretends to be mentally sound to avoid his father and brother worrying about him. the way he chooses to cope with this is to disassociate himself with these events that happened to him, to the point where he talks about them like it wasn't him personally that experienced it. (i might touch upon this again in a future post if it becomes relevant.) he can't let others know that things bother him, because it can be weaponized; it would make him look weak, and the last thing he wants is anyone worrying about him but himself, or anyone to take advantage of that weakness. consider this as a strategy he adopted from the "conceal, don't feel" philosophy.

that having been said, a personal acceptance to "get over it" to stop feeling like he needs an emotional babysitter in his relatives =/= a lack of resentment towards others for how that was handled. marius nearly died due to the cruelty of a jealous relative, and his family was right in trying to protect him (as burdensome as he feels he may is), and he learns pretty quickly that he cannot trust others.

he still is one of the most influential people alive, and that means there's going to be a slew of people walking in and out of the revolving door leading into his life that are going to want to take advantage of that fact. it also goes beyond just people wanting to manipulate him, but he doesn't enjoy playing along in this circus of social hierarchy, and doesn't enjoy the people hanging around in these spaces. because they're ingenuine, they have no merit to him, and quite simply put he's looking to fill his life with color and sincerity.

i propose that... in order to consider a romantic relationship with someone, despite how much he longs for one, he would need to deeply get to know the person first and it would take a significant time to do so... and i know what you're thinking, it's just like a regular relationship, right? getting to know someone before deciding if you want to be with them? except, to marius, this is extreme; this social sphere he occupies has effectively chewed him up and spat him back out, because he's at the top of the top. his father is the wealthiest man in the world. marius by virtue of being a von hagen is essentially on the same level as royalty, and his family name is not enough to protect him. he has to be sharp, and he needs to be alert and constantly on guard.

he'd have no idea what someone's intentions may be with him when he meets them and he knows better than to blindly trust a person's seemingly apparent good faith, but also... he's so worried about dragging people down that he'd be almost afraid to consider it. it isn't enough that people want to use and abuse him to their hearts' content, but they'd try to tear up anyone else who went in there with him, and marius would be afraid of that outcome. he's already ruined the lives of his mother and his brother in his failure to protect them from the circumstances that removed them from his life. he would be unwilling to cause someone else he cares about to be put in the same situation, and he wouldn't be able to bear it if they also ended up abandoning him.

all of that leads me to say: i believe he would be more scared and avoidant upon realizing he was falling in love with someone, rather than immediately trying to pursue it with all he's got like he would his other endeavors.

the reason? it's so simple to pursue art. art is an arbitrary passion of his that doesn't impede on anyone else but himself, nor is it influenced by any outside forces; marius has full control over it. the same goes for his company; no one is going to sit there and hold his hand with his newfound ceo duties. he's always been capable of pursuing things on his own. romance is different; romance involves putting his young and fragile heart on the line to go after a whole other independent and outside entity not knowing whether or not he's going to face rejection.

eventually, i believe he'll completely learn to get over the hurdle, but in the interest of transparency... i think he's going to need a nudge from the other person first. a sign it's reciprocated, before he has to put his heart on ice.

i think it's on brand for marius to be a tease when you meet him; it is a genuine facet of his personality, but it's also something that feeds well into his reputation. he's assuming that people are going to know exactly who he is when he runs into them on the street, so he doesn't even bother dropping his pretense. but, i do think that extends... he doesn't drop that mask right away, it takes months and months, and lots of patience and understanding in order to unravel the mystery that is marius von hagen. he's going to want to gauge whether or not it's something he wants to commit to, and if it is, he's going to have to be prepared to unpack all that baggage. he would have to believe that this is going to be a happy ending for him, that his fairytale won't be a tragedy, in order to see a path forward. once marius goes into something, he doesn't step out.

so, he won't put up that much of a fight if he starts to fall in love with you, but that doesn't mean he would be eager make that leap of faith without getting a hint that there will be a safety net ready to catch him when he falls.

[sophieinwonderland]

I don’t even know how to respond more articulately to this person. You don’t have to answer my ask if you don’t have the spoons btw. So this person posted a TikTok in response to my previous comment to not invalidate people’s experiences on a pro endo video that that person put an anti comment in. Here’s the link:

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8GFtegk/

Here’s my reply but idk what to say really. I probably sound stupid. Plus I think someone mentioned you in the comments section there too.

I think this is a fine answer. Although I might have added that there are other sources that do confirm endogenic plurality. And even the DSM references it in the form of possession states.

Although if you want, I guess I could go into the video a bit more in-depth.

Actually, yeah, it sounds kind of fun! 😁

Let's get into it then!

Thank you for that! Although I'm confused why you think explaining this so we can understand involves a robot reading in a whispery demonic murder voice.

How are you defining a "system?"

If this is going to be a semantic argument about how endos aren't technically systems because "system" is a DID/OSDD word then I'll point out that endogenic systems have called themselves systems since the 90s. And Internal Family Systems therapy has been around since the 80s, referring to people having multiple autonomous parts of their personality. The word has always been pretty open, even in this context.

If you read closely within the DSM-5, you will find exemptions for spiritual plurality in the form of possession states.

I believe this exemption can be found in "carteria" D.

And remember that the DSM-5 isn't the only diagnostic handbook in the world and the ICD-11 states that you can experience multiple "distinct personality states" without a disorder. This is the same wording the ICD-11 uses to refer to alters.

And endogenic plurality was originally referred to as "natural multiplicity" which has existed since the 90s.

Additionally, Kluft speculated in 2001 that there could be a nonpathological endogenous forms of dissociative identity disorder.

Wait... commit what?

A felony?

Commit to marriage?

Just... commit in general? Don't leave me hanging!

Oh wait, you were going to throw out the S-word, right? "Don't say endogenic systems exist or some DID system might unalive themselves." 🙄

This is fearmongering BS and emotional manipulation.

DID systems aren't going to be "harass" because people acknowledge endogenic systems exist. These things have nothing to do with the other. People were fakeclaimed and harassed for being systems long before the internet was a thing, and there's no indication the presence of endogenic systems has contributed to this in any way.

Come on! I already showed you the ICD-11 and the quote from Kluft. I swear, it's like you're not even reading what I wrote. 😔

But sure. How about Eric Yarbrough, Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, in a book reviewed and published by the APA themselves?

Is that enough for you?

I could go on, but you did only ask for one. 🤷‍♀️

Actually, you know, as a bonus, I will just link to Varieties of tulpa Experiences. Written by a psychiatry professor at McGill University, and published by the highly-reputable Oxford University Press.

Repeatedly asserting something doesn't make it true.

This appears to be vaguely referencing the theory of structural dissociation.

Assuming it is, I'll point out that even the creators of this theory have stated that it may be possible for someone to have multiple self-conscious dissociated parts of the personality from things other than trauma. Such as in hypnosis and mediumship.

No. No it's not.

Didn't you imply that you had read the DSM-5 earlier? Because while trauma is highly associated with DID, trauma certainly isn't in the "carteria." Nor is it in the criteria either.

And while it does mention that studies have shown that upwards of 90% of DID cases are linked with trauma, there are no such statements made for studies into OSDD.

Please, tell me what culture is supposedly being appropriated by just believing in the very concept of mediumship and possession?

This is something that exists in nearly every single culture on the planet in some form or another. (Some positive, some negative.) Nobody owns it. And you can't just say literally all spiritual systems are appropriating a culture by virtue of being spiritual.

By that logic, you may as well say reality shifters are appropriating every culture that believed dreams would take you to other worlds.

[rise-my-angel]

Defenses of Rhaegar are always like, "if you just ignore his in text, canonical actions which include abandoning his wife, that had almost died giving him a male heir after he put her through two back to back pregnancies, along with his two babies to be brutally slaughtered....and listen to the words of *checks notes* Jorah the Slaver, Dani, Viserys, Jon Con, Cersei, and Barristan Selmy (all of which either never knew him or were never in his inner circle) than he is a good guy."

Hmmm....it's almost as if GRRM only having the most delusional targ bootlickers that lie to themselves in their POVs and only speak of Rhaegar in the most vague terms being Rhaegar cheerleaders will be a plot point in the later books, should they ever be published lmao. None of these men can give actual examples of Rhaegar's supposed honor or goodness, just the most vague terms being used to describe him. This is basic reading comprehension, 'consider the source 101,' and a lot of the fandom failing concerns me. And even if GRRM intended Rhaegar to be a tragic hero....he has done a piss poor job at actually depicting that in the books, so I don't care. Martin can attempt to spin this however he wants, but readers are a lot more discerning than they were in the 90s.

Jorah didn't know him, Dany only knows what Viserys told her and Viserys was too young to know him, Cersei only remembers him in spite beacuse she had to end up marrying Robert.

Barristan doesn't speak badly about him, but he also takes his job seriously and doesn't even speak badly about Aerys when we know he disaproves of what he did. He seems to prefer to see better of people and he was a Kingsguard not a close friend.

JonCon is the closest we get but it's marred in purposeful subjective opinions. It's very likely he was to some degree, likely in love with Rhaegar and he remembers him in a way that we know is false. We know Rhaegar didn't care about him as much as JonCon still cares about him, but he's been dead for so long and JonCon feels guilt over being exiled and thus feels he failed to save his life. He has a very survivors guilt view of a man he was in love with and it's been so long that JonCon has tricked himself into thinking that his cope is just the truth now. He was never meant to be taken literally, he clearly speaks of Rhaegar from the point of view of someone like Robert does Lyanna.

Robert didn't really know Lyanna, but lost her in a way that was out of his control and thus has obsessions about her decades later that do not correlate with the truth. He feels like he knew Lyanna in a way that he never did, beacuse he feels a guilty loss over not being able to save her. JonCon views Rhaegar in the exact same way. He knew him better, but he clearly is seeing those memories through a lens of lost supressed romantic feelings and trauma of survivors guilt.

Rhaegar when he is brought up in the first book always feels like a blight. Something that correlates directly to trauma, especially with Ned as he only ever thinks of Rhaegar when he is in situations that he can directly connect to him, Robert, and espeically beacuse by that point Ned is struggling with traumatic flashbacks of his sisters death.

The only thing said about him they can quote is the brothels thing but they exclude massive context. That Ned is at a brothel, beacuse he is looking for Roberts bastard children. He thinks of Robert having so many bastards around the city due to his behavior, he correlates it to Lyanna and then it leads him to Rhaegar. Why? Beacuse Ned in my opinion, wonders if Rhaegar visited brothels a lot beacuse he is now wondering, are there more Jon Snow's out there? And he decides that is unlikely. He isn't trying to figure out if Rhaegar not sleeping around a lot was better for Lyanna as a pairing. He's trying to figure out whether or not there are other half Targaryean children out there that haven't been protected the way Ned has raised and protected Jon. He thinks of Robert, leading to Lyanna, leading to Rhaegar beacuse he is surrounded by this mystery of bastard children and it can all be tied into Ned having this innate fear of Jon's secret being found out and whether or not he could still protect his son should it all come out.

Ned doesn't even think badly about Aerys when talking about him despite what he did to his father and brother, and it's beacuse Ned simply internalizes a lot of grief and trauma. It's why being so plauged with flashbacks of Lyanna stands out to him beacuse he's long since developed the ability to push back such painful negative emotions for his own sanity. Something we see with Jon, who internalizes a lot of grief over losing his family so far out of his control.

I just hate that R+L=J has turned into a direct association of it as a love story, when that theory literally only states that Jon's mother is Lyanna by way of Rhaegar. It was never meant to be a theory that it was a love story, only a theory of direct identificaiton of Jon's true parantage. I do not beleive for a second that a character who one of the first things we learn about him, are that everyone beleives he kidnapped and raped Lyanna Stark was always meant to be a good morally upstanding guy.

Most characters who are intrinsically good, do not get introduced with the accusations of kidnapping and rape.

But gods be good maybe I wouldn't feel so strongly about the way they screech about Rhaegar, if they didn't obsessivly attack people who just want to talk with like minded anti Rhaegar people.

I hate Danaerys, but I'm not going onto pro Dany blogs to scream in their asks about how they are totally wrong. No, they prefer to come to me and get mad that they intentionally read a post they knew would make them mad.

If you like Rhaegar that's fine. I don't. And I shouldn't be accused of writing "fanfiction meta" just by stating general opinions of what I think of his canonical behavior.

Every Rhaegar stan are just JonCon's alt accounts, change my mind.

[heartstringsduet]

I adore your Let Me series and I was wondering if you've ever found writing that dynamic to be daunting in any way, and if so how did you deal with that?

Also, do you have any advice for writers who want to take on a large project but are too intimidated by it to get started?

I've noticed that you’ve had moments in your writing process where you've struggled and made difficult choices, and yet you still power through. I really admire that!

Hi Harley <3 You're such a sweetheart for asking! And for the compliment 😭 I've actually never found it daunting despite being on the ace spectrum and having no personal experience with bdsm. I was just always fascinated with the dynamics especially outside of the bedroom. The room for tension but also for comfort and growth it can bring. I maybe should feel a bit anxious about representing this right but honestly, I try not to stress. And that works for me. This is a hobby, for free. I'm hopefully never the source for people who want to go into the scene lol.

Initially, it was just about Carlos having interest and a past with it and that creating opportunity for TK to explore it. But it has spun out to this whole thing where I try to show the complexities of relationships and a dynamic like this. What I found daunting AFTER starting it is how it really runs with me like no other fic ever has. I think I only find a red line through writing in it so that means cutting a lot. Also now they're kind of their own characters in that universe and I have to remember all those details about them but also stay in the timeline of 911LS (as if it has one lol) like...wait who wanted to try breath play when ooops. As for the question of large projects...I wish I had a better answer but I think that's so individual. I'm pretty sure most people plan with an outline. Lose or detailed. I don't. I have a beginning, a few middle parts and a vague end. But as with Let Me, my hands just do what they want sometimes and I think of a better angle or notice that shit, I did not have an idea for the core concepts until the middle. For me, what helps with long projects is honestly having other WIPs. Which again, I know some people can't do. It's all because I want to have FUN writing. And long projects definitely have a few scenes that are necessary but not fun when you write them. It's tricky, ngl. It's a lot of "I want to delete this. No one even reads this. Everyone reads this and hates this" and putting it aside, wait for better mental days when you hate it a little less. I PROMISE you, sometimes two weeks can transform what you have written and hated before to something you think at least has potential. Put as little pressure on yourself to make it the best work ever. This is for you. You. You. For you who likes writing. For you who wants to read the story you're writing. Yes, you want people to engage with it but ultimately, even a work you only think is 'okay' is very satisfying once it's done when it's a long project especially. Like I'm proud of my longest work. I completed it. Like wow. But also: series are easier. Less pressure to finish 100k before posting. If I ended Let Me after the last chapter that would be fine. And if I open it back up in a year or two, that's awesome too. Maybe that could be less daunting for a large project?

[esther-dot]

I sent the show!Jonsa ask! Yeah, I was toying with it because one of the sticking points for me is figuring out why the show did or didn't do Jonsa and why that may or may not happen in the books. That to me is really some of the most damning stuff, and I can't point to Dany's arc in the show or Stannis' etc. (many of the examples you use) as argumentation for what makes sense in the books but have yet to have happened without, too, including Jonsa.

Anon asks are limited by length (and I would not want to waste your time with adding caveat after caveat lol) but I do also have complicated feelings about D&D; on the one hand I think there were serious problems on set and I have a lot of capital F feminist problems with them, but that doesn't belie all the creative work they put into the show (I do think there are Choices they made about how to portray romance without the source material at hand, and even before that honestly, but I already wrote that ask lol).

You're definitely right about the heaping of romantic parallels; one or two of those relationships alone could be written off, but the Sam/Gilly one is very weird, and Kit's acting choices are... very weird lol. Re: Sansa's jealousy, I had read that more as Dark Sansa foreshadowing as opposed to Jonsa jealousy, so I don't know???? When it comes to show!Jonsa I mostly only like the S6 dynamic anyway, so that might be down to some of my bias.

Basically I'm trying to entertain alternative ideas that might explain things as opposed to genuinely arguing for show!Jonsa being an accident, and I was thinking about this as well because it is an issue I've encountered with shipping/romance/fandom in general before. The male-gazey tropey dynamic ends up feeling off, but by virtue of the romance goggles of the author not being applied to another dynamic, it ends up feeling more mutual and less objectified and more interesting lol. A good example off the top of my head, given you've just watched the MCU films, is that I shipped Steve/Natasha (yes...) because the dynamic in Winter Soldier was above and beyond any other M/F pairing in the films. Naturally everybody goes on about ~platonic soulmates~ but I love good guys with sad/evil/redeemed ladies so I can't help it. Not saying it's at all canon though, I think they absolutely stumbled into that one.

I'm glad your nephew enjoyed the MCU films! I remember when I rewatched Endgame with my best friend, her dad came in and we had to keep explaining who the 'blue one and the green one' were. It made the film much better.

Anyway, thank you so much for entertaining my ask, and as always, being such a good sport. 🥰💝

(continuation of this convo)

You have no idea how much I sympathize with the caveat issue. I write answers and then delete entire paragraphs because I have such a tendency to try to clarify everything that it makes things less clear because I bury the point, but then I regret it when the vague blogs start. We all have limited time though, and every answer can't be thousands of rambling words! Sometimes I've literally just said "insert caveat" lmao!

I do also have complicated feelings about D&D; on the one hand I think there were serious problems on set and I have a lot of capital F feminist problems with them

I read this article about Emilia's experience on set for GoT (I have not been able to relocate it, but I did actually read an article with her quotes--it wasn't just a tumblr post), and I felt that she was taken advantage of when it came to the nudity/sex scenes. I actually think she meant for some of the stories to be amusing, but I felt sick reading it. She didn't say it was D&D, but apparently when she wanted to do less nudity going forward, she was told her fans expected it and it became a fight trying to move away from it, and....I just worry about the power dynamics with all these young actresses and what they're told they "need" to do. The fact that even if they ultimately agree to certain things, it still may be a result of coercion or they aren't actually being taken care of/feel safe when doing it...it left a very bad taste in my mouth regarding the behind the scenes stuff. And obviously, we all noticed the changes they made to the story, what they did to Sansa...plenty of things we can take exception to purely on what made it to our screens.

Basically I'm trying to entertain alternative ideas that might explain things as opposed to genuinely arguing for show!Jonsa being an accident

I enjoy doing that too! Groupthink is boring! I don't expect everyone to think the same way/come to the same conclusion, and I've changed my mind on a few things which only happens if we're willing to entertain different ideas instead of shutting people down. I mean, I'm not easily persuaded to a different way of thinking, but I try to be open to it. With the condition that someone interprets Sansa in a way I can live with which excludes most of the fandom/their theories tbh.

I basically work myself to one position and then back to where I started when it comes to show Jonsa. If it was an accident, I don't love it any less, if it wasn't, I'm curious what the hell happened. I didn't get what I wanted there, so it really doesn't matter to me what people conclude. I genuinely thought it was amusing when Kit acted surprised when he was asked about Jonsa because it was his face that was saying "not normal sibling feelings here." Silly man. 😂 And, D&D fucked up enough I don't like to take them too seriously, so I can't say, "this doesn't make sense therefore it was an accident" because, uh, a lot of their choices ultimately made no sense.

it is an issue I've encountered with shipping/romance/fandom in general before. The male-gazey tropey dynamic ends up feeling off, but by virtue of the romance goggles of the author not being applied to another dynamic, it ends up feeling more mutual and less objectified and more interesting lol.

I certainly agree about the general male v female view of romance. I found that a problem when I said that they didn't write a romance for Jonerys, and the guy I was talking to was like, "they had sex tho???" There was just...a massive gap between what we were looking for when talking about the characters/relationships. Although, he did know what I meant when I said "well, they filmed Jon and Sansa like a ruling couple." He immediately understood that. And, considering what they did to the sandsnakes (I'm not saying the line), I do understand the argument that if they meant for there to be a romance, they would have done it in such a way that we would have objected.

I think part of the reason I believed Jonsa was intentional was because I don't ship non canon pairings. My brain isn't one to think, "oh but what about those two" as I wasn't even involved in fandom before, and I generally just took what a story was and reacted to it, rather than re-configuring it. Obvy, having been in the fandom for so long now, that's changed somewhat, but for me, s7 was a total puzzlement, and Jonsa / some variation of poljon was the only way it connected to everything we had established before. In a bizarre twist, we didn't get the story that would make it coherent, but we still got the endpoint: Jon betraying Dany for Sansa. It's still weird to me, all these years later. Now I'm mainly bemused rather than angry though.

[psychic-refugee]

OK, so I don’t give money to garbage articles, I’m mostly pulling from what I can remember seeing people post about it. Some things to look out for when trying to disseminate information over the internet. 

First off, be very weary of “anon” sources for gossip. PHW isn’t Richard Nixon, and this isn’t Watergate. There’s no need for anyone to be anonymous if they’re stating facts or speculating/giving an opinion. Tim Burton isn’t Kevin Feige, who employs cloak and dagger tactics for an 8-episode tv series only on one streaming network and will never be syndicated.  

NDA’s might be part of employment contracts, but they’d be hard to enforce, especially if part of the alleged information had already been leaked by a third party. If this person did have “insider” information worth anything, then their paycheque and job benefits are worth more than anything some rando clickbait gossip site could give them. Even minimum wage jobs aren’t worth risking in order to gossip about a C+ and rising star.

Secondly, beware of incredibly vague descriptions such as “Netflix Insider.” According to google, Netflix employs 12,800 people. I don’t know if this counts people they contract out to, such as people who do closed captioning or ratings wrangling, but this could range from the CEO to sanitation staff, to make up artists and PAs on sets of their movies/series.  

Or could it be an independent contractor that works for Netflix, so not technically a Netflix employee.

Or it could be some guy who has a Netflix account.

We don’t know what job this person has or from whom they heard this gossip from. Hell, it could be some rando who wandered “inside” of Netflix HQ. WHO KNOWS?!

If there is no legally regulated definition of something, then anyone can slap that label on anything and be done.

They keep it intentionally vague to bypass anyone claiming they actually said anything.

If some dumbass uses the article as a reference in a defamation suit or say to harass someone on Twitter, then the writers can say “well, we technically didn’t say that or mean it in such a way, so don’t get us involved or blame us in any way.”

Thirdly, if there is CYA (Cover Your Ass) language, just assume they’re pulling everything out of their ass. If the “insider” wasn’t vague enough, then they simply tell you “this hasn’t been confirmed by…” and they generally put this at the end, where they assume after you read the juicy stuff, you’ve stopped reading. Or they’re counting on you not caring because you just want something that confirms your bias.

Either way, they muddied the waters of whether or not they are for sure standing behind anything they wrote. They’re basically saying “We’re claiming this sensationalist drivel…but don’t quote us on it.”

Remember, any asshole can create a website and sell ad space to create a gossip site. Literally. Just because it's online, doesn’t make it actual news.

Like with the accusers, these rag sites are normally not worth going after even if they post the biggest lies because 1) they don’t make any actual money to cover attorney fees much less punitive damages. 2) No serious or reasonable person takes them seriously, only gullible dumbasses.

So @heyharoldsboo is correct. Do not click on these pages, don’t give them money, or encourage them to write more with your internet traffic.

[prouvaireafterdark]

do you have any tips for new fanfic writers. the iwtv bug has gripped me and iim planning to dip my toes in but ive no idea no how to start. thanks and love your work xxx

Ahh, thank you! :)

And, well, I don't really think there's like perfect or universal advice on how to write because everyone likes different things and has a different process that works for them, but I'll do my best to list some things that help/have helped me!

Know your source material. Whether you're writing a canon compliant fic or something wildly AU, rewatching the show can help you get the character voices down and might make you feel less nervous about figuring out how you want your dialogue to sound or how the characters would behave in the situation you're putting them in.

Make yourself some tea. Idk what it is about a warm, caffeinated drink, but when I'm sitting at my desk with one it really helps me stay focused.

Start small if you're worried about finishing something big. There's no rule that says in order to be a fic writer you have to write 100k word masterpieces. In fact, my attention span is so fucked I usually don't write anything longer than 5k word one shots and I'm perfectly content with that. If all you want to do is try to get your feet wet with a 500 word ficlet to see how it goes, do it! Short fics are fun to read and much less pressure to finish.

Make an outline. No need to go crazy with it, but I usually sketch out the rough plan I've got with a few bullet points just to organize my thoughts and make sure I don't forget something.

Don't be afraid to write scenes out of order. There's also no rule that you have to begin at the beginning. I usually end up jumping around and making the parts I've written meet in the middle. If you vaguely know how you want your fic to start, but have a really concrete idea of how you want a specific part to go, just start there and work your way backward/forward.

If you get stuck, write the gist of what happens next in brackets and then move on to the next part. This goes with #5. I cannot even tell you how often I end up doing this and it helps maintain my writing flow so much bc instead of sitting there like "fuck, how do I wanna say this?" I can just be like "well, that's future Lynne's problem" and keep going with what I do have the words to write lol. You can also like just write a skeleton of dialogue and then go back and fill in the descriptions/their internal thoughts and reactions later if you don't know how you want to go about it yet, I do that a lot too.

Write what you want to read. Everyone likes different things and it's not really helpful to get caught up in trying to find an idea you think other people will like. Like I bet there are people who opened my fics, went "nope," and then backed out, but the thing is, I didn't write those fics for them, I wrote them for myself and whoever else ends up enjoying them. It also sucks trying to write something that doesn't inspire you, so if an idea isn't working for you, just... move on to something that does. You can always come back to it later (she says, avoiding eye contact with the WIPs in her folder).

Write. Even if you don't end up posting it, just giving it a go and seeing what happens is the only real way to start. You can always worry about editing later (either by yourself or with the help of a beta reader) or even scrap the whole thing and start over if you're not happy with it. I literally have docs that are basically just graveyards of whole paragraphs I deleted from WIPs but wanted to save just in case. The main thing to remember is that you're never gonna finish your story if you don't actually sit down and write it, so try to take the pressure off of yourself to make it perfect and just see what you come up with.

[the-great-elwisty]

Day 29: How your adventure(s) should have really ended

A/N: Here's a bit of meta which, despite the claim in the first sentence, I've been writing in fragments over a few months. It's quite appropriate for today. Please join in with your own ideas!

Over the last couple of days, I’ve found myself wondering at what point Rocks Fall Everyone Dies became the plan for the end of Neverwinter Nights 2. Was that always what Obsidian were working towards? Or was it something that happened as they were struggling to get the last Act done in time for Atari’s deadline?

Here are a few different ideas for an alternative finale, some of which segue into Mask of the Betrayer, some of which would be more suited to the earlier, abandoned idea of a Planar adventure involving the githzerai/githyanki. (No source for that; it’s something I vaguely remember reading about fourteen – aaaaargh!!! – years ago.)

After the final battle, rocks do not fall. It turns out that the ancient architects of the final dungeon really knew what they were doing when they put in the foundations. Instead, the PC and companions are victorious and return to the surface. Big reception a la Dragon Age in Crossroad Keep. Dialogue with the companion you have the highest influence with. “So what will you do if you survive?” “I’m going to look for another adventure/stay in Crossroad Keep/restore West Harbour etc.” End game, role the epilogues. XP1 could start with a new character, or have the old one being kidnapped from their chosen life. Would this have been too vanilla for Obsidian devs? Probably. It’s much more of a Bioware-style ending. I think I could have been happy with it though.

The King of Shadows is dead; rocks are starting to come down. Zhjaeve or Ammon approaches with a desperate escape plan depending on who has the highest influence. They open a portal, the PC and companions go through to Limbo (Zhjaeve) or Stygia/somewhere really nasty (Ammon), and doubtless end up scattered all over the place, giving the devs a chance to introduce a new set of characters in XP1 without killing all the old ones. Regardless of your starting point, you would ultimately visit Limbo/the Hells as part of the campaign, thus not wasting a location on just half of all PCs.

The final battle changes – it’s not just about defeating the King of Shadows, but about freeing him from the Shadow Weave. This scenario could end with the person-who-became-the-Guardian restored, like Akachi, to his former identity, and the PC taking on the mantle of Illefarn Guardian, perhaps in a ceremonial or more real capacity: the spirit of the Guardian-that-was refuses to depart until the PC in some measure accepts the burden. If the PC doesn’t want it, a high-influence companion could accept it in their stead. (Grobnar as supernatural protector of the Sword Coast along with his Wendersnaven assistants??) Actually, I could see anyone except Zhjaeve (too extra-planar) and Sand/Qara (too self-interested) in the role. A chastened Bishop might do it if he could be persuaded back after his betrayal. The downside of this scenario is that most of the OC appears to be saying that lone heroes are a bad idea. The Guardian was not a good plan; no society should allow one person to turn themselves into a sacrificial lamb for their benefit – and those that do (like the Illefarn) will find it has unpleasant consequences. Also: do not be like Casavir. Do not be like Ammon Jerro. (And maybe with foresight: do not be like Akachi.) The PC wins by relying on their companions, their connections, and the apparatus of the Neverwinter state. So a campaign that ends with a single character taking on the job of Guardian would be more of a tragic ending than anything else – it’s just a matter of time until they make a big mistake and fuck up. Unless we are meant to believe that the person who inherits the mantle is just super special and can do what they like, as many politicians seem to believe of themselves with alarming ease. As you might guess, I don’t like that idea.

A final fun idea, again stealing from Dragon Age (I’m thinking of the escape from Fort Drakon sequence). Again, we use companion influence to determine the ending. This time, your companion with the most influence will take the lead and successfully work out a way for you to get out. Precisely how they do this will vary in line with characterisation. (Elanee’s druidic instincts lead her to the correct exit; Sand conjures magical protection; Khelgar uses his dwarven knowledge of how underground structures work/encourages the PC not to give up/Qara blasts through pile of rocks blocking a passage/Grobnar…summons the Wendersnaven to our aid…?) Maybe they all cooperate. Who knows? Rather than end with That Cutscene, you get to play through an extra escape level before stumbling out into sunshine and party-time on the surface.

But I have also asked myself – do I really want the ending changed? Perhaps the sudden collapse of the final dungeon is the natural end point for a game that can’t quite bring itself to be a complete heroic fantasy.

And then I answer my own bloody stupid rhetorical question. Of course I want the sodding ending changed. After sixty hours of play, my protagonist deserves more than some stills and a droning narrator, all assembled on a ha’penny budget at speed, in the moment that they’ve won the final battle and should be having some sort of catharsis.

If the rocks have got to fall, I want my PC sitting with their companions in a hidden refuge waiting for rescue. It’d be Waiting For Godot if Vladimir and Estragon were a ten-person collective of bad temper, irony and curious fashion choices. Bishop is allowed to join the squat-in if he walked away from the final battle.

PC: Well, shall we go?

Casavir: Yes, let us go.

[They do not move]