I cannot begin to express how incredibly sweet and warm your zelink comics make me feel. I have... something similar going on in my life right now, and it is hard, but hey! at least your comics make it a tad easier to get through, haha; thank you for making and sharing your art with us!!
I'm happy they make things a little easier! <3
Comics helped get me through some of the hardest times of my life- and it's why I make them now- I'm kinda surprised how many people have left comments or messaged me to let me know how the comics touched them emotionally, or made their day a little better- It makes me really happy <3
46 notes
·
View notes
You know...
People talk about drugs like if you give someone who wants them whatever drug they're asking for in whatever amount they're asking for, they'll become hopelessly addicted and ruin their lives
Now I'm not arguing that addiction isn't fucking awful but I fervently believe those in the newer circles of rehabilitative care theory that are putting forward the idea that addiction, at its core, is self medication. Unregulated, self destructive self medication in too many cases, but it's not the drugs themselves in so many cases, huffing paint thinner and other examples not withstanding, but honestly I don't think people would do that if they had alternatives that ARE less damaging.
It's the pain and lack of support that drives so many people to alleviate their pain or stress which really is just pain too by numbing it with drugs. It helps, but they don't regulate, they don't find alternatives to cope with whatever they're medicating that lighten the need for the medication alone, their tolerance builds up, they don't know what they're medicating enough to know how to do that consciously and more safely...
It's a nightmare that is truly systemic, not some moral failing or some contagion inherent to the human spirit. I can't currently think of any example of an organism that wouldn't practice homeostasis when outside of whatever range of normal function they're supposed to be in. Not for some philosophical or spiritual reason, in this sense specifically it is purely biological, and I find it to be DEEPLY disturbing that so many people I encounter in my life INSIST that being in constant discomfort is somehow a state to aspire to and be proud of. Being able to safely handle exiting a space that would provide you homeostasis means being able to MAINTAIN that homeostasis when you go elsewhere or do other things. It's NOT about giving in to the idea that if you prefer to be comfortable that you are somehow weak or inferior. That is not a mark of strength, it's a mark of how damaged a person is.
Grandpa, stop ranting about my generation not wanting to be "triggered" you literally JUST threw a hissy fit because they didn't have your slim jims at the corner store and the cashier wouldn't give it to you for free. Your comfort is predicated on unfairly demanding behaviors from others that is not being reciprocated in a worthwhile way. I don't think that's more valid than my being upset that a man who claims to love me is more interested in mocking a caricature of a trans person that isn't actually me. But I digress
The point my adhd ass is making here is that I think I understand a bit more about what I've been arguing this entire time. Not that I didn't understand it at all before so much as that I've been given new depth. I have a pain condition, possibly multiple, have my entire life, and I have always been rather fixated on whatever would alleviate that pain. When Tylenol stopped working, I stopped using it. Eventually I found marijuana which has done me WONDERS but I've been dealing with worsening health issues due to various reasons and it's not quite doing enough. I had to be taken off all my meds because of a bad interaction and in the month before we start reintegrating meds that might help, my doctor gave me benadryl
Now, I've been taking benadryl on and off for years for anxiety and insomnia. I can't do it long, some toxicity issue I think? Or organ failure. Can't remember right now. The guideline is a two week limit, and I've found by the end of that two weeks it is very hard for me to get the effect I need without running into the 300mg daily cap. And the times I've taken it before it hasn't done much but make me sleep eventually and relax for a few hours
That has changed. Now when I take my benadryl, I can feel it kick in like God Herself just grabbed me by the scruff of the neck, total limpness, the anxiety isn't GONE but it's so much more manageable. The cessation of pain is so fucking nice, which I understand is a HUGE component of addiction outside of the direct chemical alterations over time becoming unpleasant or downright agonizing to reverse. Being so uncomfortable and having it relieved that quickly is amazing. It doesn't make the problem that is causing me the stress or pain go away, but it does give me clarity of mind that lets me take action to make my life better, for myself and my loved ones
Now here's the kicker for me. I HAVE taken benadryl before, but when I did, my conditions were so unmanaged that it just really did not do THIS much. And at that time, I very much required things that were stronger, for both pain and mental distress. I was given them after some hospitalizations, begrudgingly, and surprise of surprises it helped me. I started to improve. Pretty significantly. Years later, they started making me sick, thus the meds having to be changed now, and honestly I was TERRIFIED because I thought the benadryl wouldn't be enough, like it was before, and I'd spend a month in agony. I was so wrong yall
So here's what I think, in my amateurishly educated opinion: if they had just given me the medicine I was asking for instead of taking my agency away in denying my medication that could have helped but could also have consequences that they felt weren't worth the risk. Maybe they were, maybe there weren't, but... Shouldn't that have been my choice? And I did eventually get put on something stronger, which led to me having the strength and spoons and clarity I needed to make changes over time that have led to me being able to be helped by the benadryl now. They couldn't have just handed me a bottle of percocet at 14 and said "Good luck!" because YES that would have been it's own kind of damaging, but I have trouble with authority, and at least the damage would have been mine to cause. After all, it was my body
But... What they could have done, what research is proving again and again ACTUALLY works more than patriarchal denial of bodily autonomy on the basis of my supposed "inherently and deeply lacking ability to make choices for my own health," is just... Giving me the meds I asked for. Tell me the risks, help me manage the potential consequences, trust me to tell you when I feel sick instead of functional. To not just keep taking more and more of whatever drug that is helping me but you've decided I'm having FUN with, to the point that being denied the care I needed was damaging. If you had trusted me, I would have trusted you, and we could have made a plan that would have probably resulted in what's happened now, me finding that benadryl actually is enough now and crying in sheer joy that I've finally worked hard enough to get this far
But that would have implied that I have an ability and right to make decisions about how to take care of my own body, right?
This isn't a story that hasn't been experienced and shared so many times that it all paints a detailed and disturbing tapestry of how little bodily autonomy matters in this system. Too many demographics are judged as being "at risk for addiction" without the judgement being made by people who care that those demographics are at risk because of so fucking many social and systemic inequalities that leave so fucking many deprived of preventative, proactive care that would ultimately ease the burden of emergency care that has to be given once things get to a point considered "bad enough" and that's just... Not okay.
14 notes
·
View notes
I'm curious, what would your ideal FE be?
And do you have any particular FE concepts in mind?
So, fun fact: I actually talked about this a while back.
...and by 'a while back,' I mean 'five years ago,' because time is soup.
So because that's a heck of a lot longer than I remember and a lot changes in that amount of time, let's come at this fresh and see what changes and what doesn't.
So I still really want to keep the lead character concept: dual sword/mage older sister and priest younger brother (with natural promotion to dual healer/mage) is a nice shift on the usual Fire Emblem formula, where we rarely see female Lords in the lead who are set to inherit the throne or male healers (and I can't recall the last time one was a prince, barring Brady with Chrom as his father and I guess Forrest though he's not in the immediate line of succession since he's Siegbert's cousin meaning Xander and Siegbert would need to be removed from the equation before he'd be in line for the throne but since Leo's a prince I think that technically akes him one too and now I'm just going down a rabbit hole of technicalities).
Intro/tutorial would be fairly run-of-the-mill, border skirmish type thing against a small incursion from a neighboring nation and going out to take care of it. But something I think would be fascinating is an expansion on the usual mid-battle recruitment and the option to spare foes that we saw at times in Three Houses: I want every main chapter enemy to have a name and unique portrait. I want there to be a frankly ridiculous number of characters who could theoretically be recruited depending on who approaches them, and I want every enemy to have an option to spare them even if they're not recruited.
Think of it: you go into battle and you see that every enemy is an individual. Every enemy is someone you can engage with. And you can approach any one of them with any of your units and talk to them. As you play, you start to get to know the different personalities of your units: someone may have a kind and gentle approach that's more likely to convince someone who's not exactly keen on fighting -- but that same approach might get steamrolled over by another person that's more set in their ways. Conversely, one of your units might be blunt and straightforward, and could butt heads in a constructive way with someone like that, but whose approach would scare off a more timid foe. Maybe approaching another unit with a character just recruited in the same battle can be helpful -- one of them bringing a friend or close ally over, because they don't want to hurt each other -- or maybe it can backfire spectacularly, with the enemy unit accusing your new ally of stabbing his comrades in the back, which shuts down all attempts at conversation.
It could be an interesting risk/reward system that encourages getting familiar with your various units beyond just their mechanical strengths and weaknesses: knowing their personalities and being able to employ them to take enemies off the field and bloodlessly thin the ranks could be a lot of fun -- plus, it's something that's not required. You don't have to try and bring them to your side -- you can breeze past those little dialogue snippets and just take them out if you want. And at the end of combat, if they weren't recruited, you have an option to spare them or kill them. If you spare them, you might see them again in another battle, and maybe they'll remember you: maybe you'll have another chance to recruit them, and more success the second time around because your actions challenged their preconceived notions about you. If you kill them, though, you might run into someone else later on -- a sibling, a relative, a friend -- who can't be reached at all because their quest is one of vengeance against the one that murdered someone they loved.
And then: what if that built into Supports. What if recruiting units off the battlefield had long-running effects based on how that unit was used? If someone was initially hesitant to join you, and then you bench them permanently, maybe they desert your force after a while because they felt isolated and lacked any kind of community since no work had been done building a new support network for them. Maybe someone else was a little too eager to join based on their impression of your army, and if you build out their Supports it becomes clear that their character has goals that are entirely at odds with the main characters' -- but because those Supports also gave them an understanding of the disconnect, they end up betraying you at some point to get what they want. Recruitment becomes a mechanic that needs to be considered, rather than just a 'collect them all' thing, because indiscriminate recruiting can backfire on you down the road.
With that many characters, of course, it would be completely insane to have all of them as combat units -- so what if some recruits unlock camp options. Maybe they're hesitant to fight against their own people directly, but they want to help and learn more about your force, so they offer non-combat skills: cooking, hunting, fishing, foraging, various sorts of combat/weaponry training, medical aid, merchant services. Similar to Three Houses monastery activities, you can pick a couple of combat units and send them to do different tasks that help keep your forces in fighting shape, building support bonds and learning things about the non-combat units in the process.
One thing I definitely want to see though is a reversal on the stereotypical Divine Dragon and Evil Dragon dichotomy. I want the main characters to talk about their Divine with absolute reverence, I want them to refer to their Divine as their protector and guardian, I want them to make their Divine out to be so kind and compassionate -- and then at some point deep in the game, I want it revealed that their Divine is the one that's seen as that world's Ultimate Evil. I want their Divine to look incredibly daunting, too, big and dark and toothy and terrifying -- but the main characters have nothing but respect for it, and it's eventually proven (maybe through calling it for aid against the threat of the neighboring nation's Divine) that their faith is not misplaced nor mistaken, and their Divine is everything they claim it is.
I still really like the split narrative concept, too, with the two siblings having different stories and different objectives: the kidnapped brother would likely have missions emphasizing escape or endurance (which takes advantage of his status as a healer), while the questing sister would have more objectives to rout an enemy or defeat a particular foe. Odds are that the narrative would begin with a single straightforward story, then split at the kidnapping, and only join together again at the very end before the closing chapters (so you could bring your favorites from both sides of the story to the final confrontation, but wouldn't get all the out of battle/camp stuff).
And above all: I wouldn't want it to be a story that ends with unification under a single banner. A lot of Fire Emblem games have this as their 'ideal' final state, and that's just never worked for me. I would want every nation to remain independent -- maybe with more connections, an openness to diplomatic discussion and free trade, possibly some leadership changes -- rather than having one country dissolved into another.
10 notes
·
View notes