#you may just be a background character to some

[ghouldtime]

Neighbor! König Part 2

Follow up to this:

After you expressed interest in his miniature collection, he actually actively OFFICIALLY invited you over one evening (and inside!)

It may not sound like much to most to be invited into someone's house but for him, it's the ultimate trust. His house is his private space, his sanctuary, where he goes to be without other people

He doesn't ever invite anyone inside unless necessary or they've truly gained his trust and being invited INTO his house, and actually into a shared space of one of the hobbies that matter the most to him?? Yeah, that's how he says he likes you

He's been working on his models and dioramas for so so long he's incredibly proud and can't help but to want to actually show them off to someone who wants to see

Usually most people don't care :( or think it's weird

But you've embraced it! You're so excited and he's over the moon, he's having the best day ever, if you do research and bring him gifts or show him some new ideas

He has exquisite attention to detail and INSISTS on everything being exactly the way he envisions it. And you notice! You actually notice. Which means you care about his hobbies, the work he puts in, and therefore him

It might be a bit early to say the L word but he's feeling certain ways

He may be a big dude but that doesn't mean he lacks fine motor skills. He's laying those tiny pieces of moss onto the cobble stones like a PRO

Miniatures allow him control over the environment, even if it's on a smaller scale, and offer a way to keep his hands and mind busy so he often throws himself into it

It also helps him relive happier memories. He's afraid of forgetting them and when he's stressing, it's his happy place because he can look at them and simply remember the things in life that matter

He'll ask you about a story you like or a favorite show or book or movie. That's his next miniature planned (in secret. Can't ruin the surprise, he needs to have it all perfect. He will either read the book, watch the movie, will study EVERY detail)

He will start to invite you over when he's having a painting night or is working on them. You don't have to follow his rules or do what he wants! He's just happy you're there and appreciating it

He will always have your favorite snacks and drinks in stock too. Need to make it fun and can't have you going hungry

If you want, he'll put on background noise! He's happy to make it immersive and to light a candle or put something in a diffuser to really set the scene you're going for. But he's perfectly happy to hangout with you as is

You'll finally get to hear him laugh and hear his really, really bad jokes. He has a dry sense of humor and most of what he says isn't even close to funny, he's awkward like that

But if you laugh? That's it, he's sold.

Time flies so fast when you're over, you don't even realize it's 3am

You don't need to go home! I know it's right across the street but he has a guest room and it saves you the trip in the morning. You have a whole nother round of characters to paint :)

Okay maybe it was an excuse so you could see the curtains he'd made and the pillows and he decorated the guest room with! Like actually tried decorating. They're made with love, that's what counts right?

Did he spray the pillows with his cologne before you came over? Maybe, but he won't ever admit to it

You can't complain. Not when he insists it's no trouble at all, you should stay over, and he does everything he can to make you comfortable.

And you're certainly not complaining when you wake up to breakfast in bed

He's so happy to finally have someone to share his life with, even if it's nothing official. He might not say it because words are hard, but he'll always show it in every way that he can 💚

If you look closely at the replica he made of his childhood home, you'll notice two figures in the kitchen who just so happen to look like you and him

Proud believer of König being just a guy! A guy with hobbies! A guy with a calm domestic life! Just because he's a private military contractor doesn't mean he's a constantly violent dude or a guy who lacks an immense amount of respect for boundaries. Sure, he gets really into his job when he does it, but that's his realm! That's his zone. That's why he's confident and having fun, he knows he's good

Outside of work, he's just a guy with a troubled childhood making the best of life and trying to find his own sense of belonging, happiness, and peace

Justice for König, he's not an insane perv or some freakytron or some stalker :(

[chocodile]

Are there ghosts in your amaranthine world..? Or ancient sailor’s curses?

I may be interested in inventing a character… is that allowed? I’m not much of an artist but I could write something for you!

"Ghosts? How absurd! An educated wizard like myself would never entertain such superstitious nonsense!"

(...Now, if you'll excuse him, he's gotta go research ancient eldritch powers hidden beneath the earth's surface and finish working on a potion made out of his unicorn buddy's magical blood. You know, reasonable, scientifically grounded stuff like that!)

So, to answer your question: Real ghosts = not canon, curses = yes canon, and could resemble a haunting. More explanation of how that would work under the cut:

You can attach enchantments to objects, so there would be nothing stopping you from attaching a baneful curse to something instead. A lasting enchantment generally requires a power source or some kind of upkeep to keep it "charged"... ones worn by a living creature can draw upon the body's own magical energy field... but can also be powered by the "background radiation" present in unusually magically charged environments. There are absolutely "cursed" forests where travelers suddenly find all the food in their rucksack spoiling overnight, areas of ocean where compasses stop working and the wind won't blow, that sort of thing.

So, you could also have a magically charged area that was "haunted" and caused visitors' minds to start playing tricks on them, perceiving illusions, hearing murmurs and clips of nonsense speech, experiencing objects falling over/moving on their own, etc. Any naturally generated "haunted" location would be pretty basic in its illusions, though. Something with more structure (recognizable figures, coherent speech) would have to be an enchantment engineered by a wizard on purpose, and would take quite a lot of skill.

Non-wizards often refer to locations with unsettling or dangerous enchantments as cursed or haunted, though wizards who understand the underlying magical mechanics behind those phenomenons might roll their eyes at that framing, insisting it's no different than when the town healer enchants a necklace to ward off sickness--just undirected and on a larger scale.

ALSO to answer your other question: You are absolutely welcome and encouraged to invent a character if you are so inclined! I would love to see what you come up with!

[darknightsblog]

Dark Nights DLC F.A.Q

1. Will the WHOLE story be changed? Like different arts and all? Will be old art still be there? The whole story will NOT be changed. Both Roya and Chain's route follow the same plotline as the main game. You will view the story from their perspective and discover details never shown before. I did rewrite the prologue, but just changed minor details and order of events. The LIs from the main game will appear again and they have side roles. I changed the art, but the characters have the same personality and background story. Old sprites can be viewed in the main game. Their range of expressions is limited so I prefer not adding them at all. Some of the background art is the same. You'll find a lot of new locations like Roya's room and Chain's basement.

2. Will my save files be reset? 

The DLC is going to be a new game file. I realized it's very complicated to program old and new elements in the same script. To make things easier, see this as a separate game. You have to start over because everything is new. The prologue alone has 5 choice menus.

3. I actually play this game using Joiplay on mobile so wanted to know if that still be possible?

I plan to add the DLC on Steam so people with Steam Deck can play it. Regarding a mobile app, I'm not sure yet. I have to figure out how to add it to the app store and import the files to joiplay. It takes time and I would appreciate any guides on how to do it. This whole project is run by 1 man, so please bear with me.

4. Will there be ways to download old versions of the game?

The old (main) game is forever available to download for free. I won't remove it from any platform. You can enjoy the old stories and art to your heart's desire! Upon many requests, I will add a patch with the new sprite art. In settings you can switch back and forth between old & new sprites. Old CGs won't be updated, so it may look a bit disconnected.

5. When is the release date?

Originally, I planned to release it on October 31st 2024 (Dark Night's anniversary) but it's no longer feasible. I still have to draw 8 background illustrations, 18 CGs, code all sprites & the script. On top of that, I'm working on a 2D animated opening video. In October, I have 2 conventions planned overseas. It's impossible to finish all of this work in merely 2 weeks of free time. On October 31st, I'll post an update of my progress and schedule!

[dungeons-and-dragon-age]

ok sorry i'm just. ????

rant and spoilers ahead because i gotta yell into the void a little

first of and most of all. WHY does it sound like Solas front and center of everthing now??? Including both Inky's and Rook's stories/motivations???? Like okay i understand that Solas will inevitably be important in Rook's story and that's chill! We knew he was gonna play a part in this story! But why do they make it sound like half or Rook's purpose is just there to further Solas's story/character

and it quickly becomes clear that Rook will have their own unique relationship with Solas, as the Inquisitor did before them. I think what's been fun for us, too, is trying to build Rook as kind of almost a mirror of Solas.

Epler also acknowledges that the Inquisitor “obviously has a very personal relationship with Solas,” one that will need to be reckoned with in The Veilguard.

“And I'd say the Inquisitor, to some degree, feels guilty or responsible for what Solas is doing to the world. So while we're not going to get too far into details about what role they may play, they absolutely are somebody who is going to be interested and invested in the outcome of Rook's journey in The Veilguard.”

Why. are you telling us how our Inquisitor is supposed to feel about this?? When you play DAI you agree to play The Inquisitor, yes, but you don't agree to play someone who Cares About Solas. Like. Yes. I get that he is important. That much has been clear since Trespasser. And i'm ok with that! But how come you say "this is a game about Thedas and a world in conflict" and then also talk like this story is About Solas, Actually.

The other thing i absolutely do not get and do not like. At All

Those decisions are: who your Inquisitor romanced (with the options gender- and lineage-locked in the same way that they were in Inquisition), whether or not you disbanded the Inquisition, and whether you vowed to stop Solas or save him.

?????

No "who drank from the WoS"? No "who is Divine"? No "does OGB Kieran exist"? No "is Hawke alive" (Varric is there. SURELY he cares about this a lot)? No "what happened to the Mages & Templars"? No "were Wardens banned from the south"? Arent't those uh. Really Relevant Decisions???? WHY is one of the whole grand three (3) decisions that carry over if Inky wants to save Solas or not. I mean ok i guess i get it cus that was The Big Decision TM at the end of Trespasser but again. Why is that the big thing that matters. out of all the things that SHOULD matter.

There's not as many decisions you have made up to this point that have an impact on what's happening in Northern Thedas.

But it’s also part of the advantage of moving the setting up to Northern Thedas, Epler says, with the prior games in the series taking place in Southern Thedas, a significantly different region both geographically and sociopolitically.

Uh. Yeah they do. See above points and also some that i forgot probably. Northern and Southern Thedas don't operate independently from one another that's not how this works. Especially again with things like the WoS or the Divine decision. Also half our companions from the other games are from the north?? Like yes ok i know get what you mean kinda and it's true to an extent but not like this

for one, the team focused on choices that they felt they could react to meaningfully – not just a cameo or one-liner.

“There's never a sense of, ‘Oh, that decision doesn't exist.’ But maybe we don't touch on it in this particular title,”

The. Cameos and one-liners are what make it special though?? You can't say "We want those stories to be personal." and then say you're not making any of those small decisions matter. And i don't mean matter as in having A Big Impact TM but i know that a lot of us LIVE for those small tiny nods to previous decisions that make the world feel actually alive and connected. I understand that we can't have full on-screen cameos or questlines or whatever for every little tidbit but not even. idk. Background convos about what's going on in Orzammar? Gossip about Ferelden's monarch? A line from Varric about Bartrand? Dunno man. Again not to mention the Big Things like Kieran. or the Well of Sorrows consequences. Or the Divine (which. yknow. is directly relevant everywhere except maybe Tevinter??). Those were always the things that made importing a worldstate so charming! because you could see the small little impacts that you have on the world. The tiny things like the line about the pigeons in Ferelden in DA2 or a wartable mission with Wade and Herren in DAI are so so special to me

[galadrieljones]

"Bet on Hope": More Thoughts on Isabelle

This is a response to @frangipanilove's post about Isabelle as a Beth Proxy. I agree 100% with everything frangi says and had to type up this quick follow-up, regarding Isabelle as a "proxy" for Beth.

I want to add that this may feel a little out of left field, but I believe that Beth and Isabelle are connected even in the hard wiring of some of the symbols we've seen over the years. What I want to talk about here is one of the last things it seems we will hear Isabelle say in the series, which is: "Bet on hope." She can be heard saying it in the trailer, and it also appears in the *leaked* script from episode 2.6.

The language "Bet on hope" is unique and uses gambling rhetoric and essentially conjures an underdog situation. To bet on hope is to call the enemy's bluff, and to hold out "hope" that you can win, even against all odds. The opposite of betting on hope would be to fold, to give into your fate, even if you still have a chance to win, or if your chances are, essentially, no worse off than your enemy's.

First, I have to wonder, what "hope" they are betting on here. I maintain there's a connection to the actual character Hope Bennett from The World Beyond, who, as a distiller and a scientist currently hiding out with T.B. Ellis, I think will be instrumental in curing Wildfire or finding a remedy for it. I think we should literally "Bet on Hope" (capital H).If you rewatch the WB coda to season 2, you'll notice that the French scientist (who has a folder full of T.B. Ellis papers on her laptop) uses the word "hope" multiple times, mainly in iterations of the phrase: "Hope beyond hope." She is "hoping beyond hope" that the Primrose Team will return to France and "end all of this."

We also see in episode 1.4 of The Ones Who Live, at the "Greenwood" laboratory where Rick and Michonne find themselves after exiting the helicopter, a poster that urges residents to "Keep Hope Alive!" None of this is coincidence!

Hope Bennett aside, when thinking of the phrase "Bet on hope," I am also reminded of episode 10.19 "One More," which TD pounced on long ago as containing a huge number of "Still" callbacks, including alcohol consumption, drinking games, golf, color parallelism, and cards. The episode revolves largely around Father Gabriel's slow loss of faith, a conflict which he will confront in season 11, and Aaron's struggle to believe in himself as a survivor. Their dynamic mirrors that of Daryl and Beth in "Still."

In "One More," FG and Aaron play a game of poker while drinking whiskey. At the end of the scene, FG bluffs his way to a win, because, instead of calling his bluff, Aaron folds. Episode 10.19 is all about foreshadowing and setting up characterization for the future, just like so many of the episodes in 10c. It is also the episode that comes directly after "Find Me."

What's so interesting about their poker game is not JUST that Aaron folds in the face of adversity, but the way that the hand goes down. Mind you that they're not playing for money. They're playing for bottle caps, so essentially, there's nothing at stake. Aaron, in a very Beth-esque "bullshit" moment, accuses FG of bluffing, so FG urges him to call his bluff.

Aaron, however, is afraid. He "doesn't have enough" to call. In a game with no cash pot, FG, however, realizes one has to be creative. He tells Aaron to bet his whiskey.

At this point, Aaron considers it. He even starts to push his cup toward the pot, but then at the last moment, he folds. You can see in his hand that he has a jack, just before he throws his cards down. It doesn't mean he has a better hand than FG, but it does mean he could have something, and that it's worth soldiering forth. He will not "bet on hope" here, so to speak. He gives up.

After FG wins, Aaron then demands that FG show him his hand, and what are the cards that FG holds? An 8 and a 2.

In the shot above, you can see in the background of FG's hand a mini-golf set. Apparently a game of mini-golf was among deleted scenes for this episode. The 8 and 2 here, which is a terrible hand, and which beat Aaron (who was too afraid to call FG's bluff), is yet another callback to Engine 82, the firetruck that mysteriously disappears without any explanation after "Coda." The firetruck that Abraham's group previously fights tooth and nail to defend from walkers. Where did it go?

Whatever happened to the firetruck may explain what happened to Beth. After "Coda," both Beth's body AND the firetruck disappear without a trace, and we never learn what happened or why.

"Bet on hope" could mean, essentially, hold out for the long odds. You could still find the one thing that's been missing all these years, which could solve all of your problems and deficiencies. Even if it is hidden behind a major, major "bluff." You must see through it and be brave enough to call it out. You may have to be creative, to bet everything. And to do this, you need all the hope you can muster. Unsurprisingly, Isabelle, a woman of faith, just like Father Gabriel, gets it.

It could also be important, especially as this is in response to a frangipanilove post and contains the reference to "Hope" Bennett, that in "One More," Aaron considers betting his alcohol to call FG's bluff. Alcohol, we are all pretty sure, has some connection to the "cure" for Wildfire, as the "Staff of Life" (quoted by Jim, the beer brewer from Fear season 4). I've also written a post comparing the French herbal liqueur Chartreuse to the potential cure for Wildfire. Essentially, I think "Bet on Hope" also means "Bet on a Cure." It also just means, "Don't give up. To get the happy ending you desire, you have to take the long odds."

Alcohol, Engine 82, and golf all in one shot. Both a nun and a priest encouraging a doubter to bet on hope. Idk if it means what I think it means but I'm going to "bet on hope" a little longer.

[triciaisonline]

I have a crazy theory, based on literally nothing - just something I think would be wild to do... IT INVOLVES KNOWLEDGE OF THE ALLEGED FUNKO LEAK (which we don't know the validity of yet) so do not read if you want to remain unaware of it

This is just a theory, and it's probably totally wrong - but I was just thinking of all these pieces and a way they could fit... this is also going to bounce all over the place as I type in a stream of consciousness.

Okay, so it's not fully formed yet - and it connects to another theory that has been circulating. This is just being written off the cuff, so it's not going to properly formulated but....

The alleged leak, shows two pop figures: Rio as Lady Death (just labeled as Death) and Teen as Wiccan. Now these things are not entirely shocking as people speculated these for a bit.

SEE HERE

Now, I had a mini theory that Teen was so obviously Wiccan that it would be really funny if the character took the Wiccan mantle but then wasn't Billy. I'm not saying I think that's what's going to happen - just that it would be a good twist because it toys with out expectations and would remind audiences of the twists with Pierto and Agatha in WandaVision. So, this sort of follows that - but in a different way.

My new clown theory is: Teen is Nicholas Scratch - but leaning into the villian background of the character, is trying to make Agatha think he's Billy. Wild to say, I know - but my crazy clown theory goes as follows:

I think there's more symbolism in the Agnes of Westview part than we believed. When "Agnes" is first seen in her house, she's having the end of a terrible day and is pissed off at the appearance of Rio. She goes to a bedroom that's meant to symbolize the loss of her son, and that's when Rio shows up at her door. It's in the scene that follows that Rio asks her: do you remember why you hate me?

I think this line got forgotten a bit in the fight scene that ensued - because it seemed to imply that Agatha had done Rio wrong at some point, which may be true - but perhaps it was in response to something Rio did first. Why would Agatha hate Rio if Agatha was the only one at fault? We see Agatha interacting with other witches while she's not the most friendly, there's something deep there with Rio.

I am positing that Rio is the one who caused Agatha to lose Nicholas - not Agatha. Now, I'm not saying this to remove Agatha's agency in her wrong doings - but that's something that could justify that hatred. I also think the timing of that initial scene makes me think we are meant to connect subconsciously the two events. I think Agatha's response is what somehow led her to getting on Rio's bad side and perhaps led to her gaining the Darkhold (or book of the dead, I'm forgetting atm if they are one and the same in this version of things). Which Agatha has tried to use to get her son back/get revenge... and as it's want to do, it took Agatha preexisting flaws and exacerbated them in its corruption as we saw with Wanda.

Now, how does this connect to my bold guess? Well, we assume that her son is dead - like a child sacrifice, as that's the comments others have made. But there's more than one way to suffer loss. Nicholas is an antagonist in the original comics, he even frames his mother at one point for horrific crimes. Is it possible that Nicholas was offered up not for death, but taken by whomever is at the center of this to and turned against her?

Teen's comments in the Agnes of Westview interrogation about the homelife she lives are very interesting and seemingly out of character for the rest of his portrayal as an Agatha fan boy. Teen has clearly done a lot of research, and the events of Westview are implied to be public knowledge. Could Teen be Nicholas - either of his own volition or working for someone else (put a pin in this part) - intentionally trying to trick her? The sigil, was it placed by himself or someone he's working with, in order to not be recognized?

"Okay, but how about the Wiccan pop figure leak?" --- okay, so the show is being so obvious about who Teen is possibly.... but the team has done this bait and switch before in WandaVision. Maybe it's obvious because it's meant to trick us and the characters? Maybe Teen is trying to invoke the idea of Wanda's kids - someone Agatha has complex history with, but also knew the kids of. The pop has Teen in very Wanda looking costume pieces. Could it be that it's meant to be on the nose on purpose?

What about Rio? Well, the leak depicts Rio as Lady Death. We have also seen the Tarot card promotional images that back this. Now, if Rio is a fake identity or becomes possessed by Death- no way of knowing. Lady Death often is an antagonistic figure as well, could this plan of Teen's be connected or guided by Rio/Lady Death? Perhaps in some sense of vengeance? It's implied Agatha has killed many in her long life - that could be a connection as well. Plus, it's a small note - but the trailers have that line from Rio focusing on how the bodies are piling up.

TAROT PROMO HERE

Lilia had the vision/hallucination that expressed a desire/need to Protect Agatha. Why? Because she's being played. Rio sets the Salem Seven on Agatha, which makes her desperate enough to go on the Road. The thing Teen wants to get her to go on. Rio also seemingly has interacted with Teen while Agatha was Agnes. Since so much of that was happening in Agatha's house - and she didn't react to them at all? That's strange, unless she already expected him to be there. The Salem Seven are Nicholas' kids in comics, turned against their Grandmother Agatha as additional antagonists. Now, they might not be his kids in this version, we don't know yet - but there might be a connection. "But the Seven attacked Nicholas?" Well, either it was an act or his sigil has him blinded to them as well. So, they could all be working on the same team to sell it.

Teen was also strong enough to break Wanda's spell. Something we've only seen Agatha do in this specific corner of the MCU. Similar magical power, perhaps because of powerful influence and/or being related to her.

Another note - how does Rio end up on the Road? She's not with the coven. If Rio is Lady Death - the death of Sharon Davis might be an opening for her to arrive...

This is all over the place, but I feel there's a possible link here. It's likely not, but it was fun to think about !!!

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

Game night ruined.

[First] Prev <–-> Next

[thunderboltfire]

I have a lot of complicated feelings when it comes to what Neflix has done with the Witcher, but my probably least favourite is the line of argumentation that originated during shitstorms related to the first and second season that I was unlucky to witness.

It boils down to "Netflix's reinterpretation and vision is valid, because the Witcher books are not written to be slavic. The overwhelming Slavic aestetic is CDPR's interpretation, and the setting in the original books is universally European, as there are references to Arthurian mythos and celtic languages" And I'm not sure where this argument originated and whether it's parroting Sapkowski's own words or a common stance of people who haven't considered the underlying themes of the books series. Because while it's true that there are a lot of western european influences in the Witcher, it's still Central/Eastern European to the bone, and at its core, the lack of understanding of this topic is what makes the Netflix series inauthentic in my eyes.

The slavicness of the Witcher goes deeper than the aestetics, mannerisms, vodka and sour cucumbers. Deeper than Zoltan wrapping his sword with leopard pelt, like he was a hussar. Deeper than the Redanian queen Hedvig and her white eagle on the red field.

What Witcher is actually about? It's a story about destiny, sure. It's a sword-and-sorcery style, antiheroic deconstruction of a fairy tale, too, and it's a weird mix of many culture's influences.

But it's also a story about mundane evil and mundane good. If You think about most dark, gritty problems the world of Witcher faces, it's xenophobia and discrimination, insularism and superstition. Deep-seated fear of the unknown, the powerlessness of common people in the face of danger, war, poverty and hunger. It's what makes people spit over their left shoulder when they see a witcher, it's what makes them distrust their neighbor, clinging to anything they deem safe and known. It's their misfortune and pent-up anger that make them seek scapegoats and be mindlessly, mundanely cruel to the ones weaker than themselves.

There are of course evil wizards, complicated conspiracies and crowned heads, yes. But much of the destruction and depravity is rooted in everyday mundane cycle of violence and misery. The worst monsters in the series are not those killed with a silver sword, but with steel. it's hard to explain but it's the same sort of motiveless, mundane evil that still persist in our poorer regions, born out of generations-long poverty and misery. The behaviour of peasants in Witcher, and the distrust towards authority including kings and monarchs didn't come from nowhere.

On the other hand, among those same, desperately poor people, there is always someone who will share their meal with a traveller, who will risk their safety pulling a wounded stranger off the road into safety. Inconditional kindness among inconditional hate. Most of Geralt's friends try to be decent people in the horrible world. This sort of contrasting mentalities in the recently war-ridden world is intimately familiar to Eastern and Cetral Europe.

But it doesn't end here. Nilfgaard is also a uniquely Central/Eastern European threat. It's a combination of the Third Reich in its aestetics and its sense of superiority and the Stalinist USSR with its personality cult, vast territory and huge army, and as such it's instantly recognisable by anybody whose country was unlucky enough to be caught in-between those two forces. Nilfgaard implements total war and looks upon the northerners with contempt, conscripts the conquered people forcibly, denying them the right of their own identity. It may seem familiar and relevant to many opressed people, but it's in its essence the processing of the trauma of the WW2 and subsequent occupation.

My favourite case are the nonhumans, because their treatment is in a sense a reminder of our worst traits and the worst sins in our history - the regional antisemitism and/or xenophobia, violence, local pogroms. But at the very same time, the dilemma of Scoia'Tael, their impossible choice between maintaining their identity, a small semblance of freedom and their survival, them hiding in the forests, even the fact that they are generally deemed bandits, it all touches the very traumatic parts of specifically Polish history, such as January Uprising, Warsaw Uprising, Ghetto Uprising, the underground resistance in WW2 and the subsequent complicated problem of the Cursed Soldiers all at once. They are the 'other' to the general population, but their underlying struggle is also intimately known to us.

The slavic monsters are an aestetic choice, yes, but I think they are also a reflection of our local, private sins. These are our own, insular boogeymen, fears made flesh. They reproduce due to horrors of the war or they are an unprovoked misfortune that descends from nowhere and whose appearance amplifies the local injustices.

I'm not talking about many, many tiny references that exist in the books, these are just the most blatant examples that come to mind. Anyway, the thing is, whether Sapkowski has intended it or not, Witcher is slavic and it's Polish because it contains social commentary. Many aspects of its worldbuilding reflect our traumas and our national sins. It's not exclusively Polish in its influences and philosophical motifs of course, but it's obvious it doesn't exist in a vacuum.

And it seems to me that the inherently Eastern European aspects of Witcher are what was immediately rewritten in the series. It seems to me that the subtler underlying conflicts were reshaped to be centered around servitude, class and gender disparity, and Nilfgaard is more of a fanatic terrorist state than an imposing, totalitarian empire. A lot of complexity seems to be abandoned in lieu of usual high-fantasy wordbuilding. It's especially weird to me because it was completely unnecessary. The Witcher books didn't need to be adjusted to speak about relevant problems - they already did it! The problem of acceptance and discrimination is a very prevalent theme throughout the story! They are many strong female characters too, and they are well written. Honestly I don't know if I should find it insulting towards their viewers that they thought it won't be understood as it was and has to be somehow reshaped to fit the american perpective, because the current problems are very much discussed in there and Sapkowski is not subtle in showing that genocide and discrimination is evil. Heck, anyone who has read the ending knows how tragic it makes the whole story.

It also seems quite disrespectful, because they've basically taken a well-established piece of our domestic literature and popular culture and decided that the social commentary in it is not relevant. It is as if all it referenced was just not important enough and they decided to use it as an opportunity to talk about the problems they consider important. And don't get me wrong, I'm not forcing anyone to write about Central European problems and traumas, I'm just confused that they've taken the piece of art already containing such a perspective on the popular and relevant problem and they just... disregarded it, because it wasn't their exact perspective on said problem.

And I think this homogenisation, maybe even from a certain point of view you could say it's worldview sanitisation is a problem, because it's really ironic, isn't it? To talk about inclusivity in a story which among other problems is about being different, and in the same time to get rid of motifs, themes and references because they are foreign? Because if something presents a different perspective it suddenly is less desirable?

There was a lot of talking about the showrunners travelling to Poland to understand the Witcher's slavic spirit and how to convey it. I don't think they really meant it beyond the most superficial, paper-thin facade.

[doodleodds]

Me? Uploading a Halloween comic on November 18th, almost four whole-ass weeks late???? Yeah that’s uh. yup. yeah

Thanks for reading! :) <3

[keeps-ache]

and we go right back at it !!

[omaano]

I wouldn’t have been mad if this was the first or second episode of the season tbh

[kalloway]

you know, at this rate my Necromancer numbers amongst my custom heroes are growing in a way that isn't unlike how they can multiply in the actual game... lmao

anyway, WIP of Theodora the Blighted - my human Necromancer who is just blatantly evil all the way thru. Destruction master and Shadowborn adept and as much as I love Mina's design... Theodora has better synergy with the class itself since it leans all-in into Evil hahaha

[darkiecat]

Sometimes you read a fanfic so good it just floors you.

Shout out to all those fanfic writers out there!

[keepitdreamin]

I don't think I ever posted these but this campaign just had a big battle tonight (we won but it looked pretty dicey for a minute) and made me think about them again. After our first game, I decided that my character Coinin, a harengon paladin, keeps like a nature journal where he does watercolor illustrations of his adventures, so then I actually made it (mainly so I could do little character portraits of everybody)

[phospolipid-bilayer]

Avery's not supposed to be cool. He's had 2 appointments and said like less than 20 words in the entire story and all of those radiate incompetence. He is a spoiled rich kid but he's not of the frat boy bully variant. Gets humbled very quickly once he has to face the real world outside the comfort of home. My favorite depictions of him are Fourth Man Avery (an old theory that's canon. To me), and Avilius Avery from Falling Apart (he is my baby son)

[tossawary]

One of my personal nitpicks for historical fantasy is a lack of servants, staff, subordinates, and... idk... subjects? Like, their absence is not... a total dealbreaker for me, depending on the situations the characters are in and whether or not I can just assume that other people are there in the background... but so many of the protagonists in historical fantasy stuff are higher-ranking (very often royalty), and/or have busy jobs, and/or have enormous houses that would necessitate having at least part-time staff.

Like, girl, you should have a maid! WHERE is your chaperone?! WHO is driving this carriage?! Where are your footmen? Are you trying to imply that a WEALTHY DUCHESS is taking a CAB?! You know that you probably have tenants, right? Where is your steward?! Where is your lawyer? Your accountant?! (Like, yeah, you're not going to have your lawyer living in your house, but you HAVE one, right???)

Or, man, you're supposed to be a military commander and you don't even have a single secretary?! Where is your SQUIRE?! (In the spirit of historical fiction, I am jumping wildly across time periods with every sentence here.) Man, I know you aren't looking after your own boots. Where are your GUARDS?! Who set up this tent for you?! Who is looking after your horse?! Who is making and carrying the incredibly valuable maps people are recklessly stabbing daggers into?!

SOMEONE has to be scrubbing these floors and delivering the mail and cooking the meals and doing laundry, and they're probably all DIFFERENT people! My dentist has at least three different receptionists and we can't even get ONE for our court wizard here? A sorcerer's apprentice to take notes? Someone like Sherlock Holmes could get away with just having a housekeeper and taking taxis, sure, but your character is supposed to be a KING?! Why is he answering his own front door? He's going to get assassinated. His SERVANTS should have SERVANTS.

Like, yes, I understand that a lot of servants in certain places at certain times were supposed to make their labor invisible, but there have always been servants who still had to interact directly with the masters of the house?! Yeah, there are potentially really messy ethics here, class divisions are bullshit, but I don't think that completely ignoring the reality that humans have ALWAYS been doing work for other humans is better than just including some well-paid and well-treated servants and employees? Because a complete absence of them, especially where logically for the worldbuilding there MUST be servants (and probably exploited servants, or worse, for some particular worldbuilds to work), often makes me think that your main characters just don't care enough to notice the "lower class" people or know their names.

Also, even Frodo Baggins had a gardener and Samwise Gamgee might be the best damn character in the story?! Sam saved the world?! Servants are PEOPLE. Servants are often the funniest and most interesting characters, tbh, with the most to say about a society and its workings (yes, Discworld is a very good book series, highly recommend), and also the joke of some romantic scene being carefully orchestrated by a stage crew of servants frantically diving into bushes to stay out of sight never gets old to me. Teamwork makes the dream work!

I don't want to gatekeep historical fiction, especially not historical fantasy, because the worlds don't necessarily have to conform to our own and may have magic and characters are often in very unique circumstances, but... sometimes I pick up a story and it's like... "Author, please tell me that you know there is a difference between a butler and a valet?!"