Palestinians are blamed for not being kind enough to their occupiers again and again. For not using the right words to describe them. And then they turn around and try to preach politics to us, how we're "oversimplifying" things. I promise you — we know how the system works better than you do. That is why it is all of our dreams to change it. To continue to play in this system is acceptance of the occupier's logic and practices. We will not accept such a thing because their goals are antithetical to our lives. Do not fall for their propaganda — their goal is to obfuscate the truth with half truths and incomparable circumstances.
3K notes
·
View notes
In the wake of FCG' fate I've been thinking about death in ttrpgs, and how it kind of exists on three levels:
There’s the gameplay level, where it only makes sense for a combat-heavy, pc-based game to have a tool for resurrection because the characters are going to die a lot and players get attached to them and their plotlines.
Then there’s the narrative level, where you sort of need permanent death on occasion so as not to lose all tension and realism. On this level, sometimes the player will let their character remain dead because they find it more interesting despite there being options of resurrection, or maybe the dice simply won’t allow the resurrection to succeed.
Then, of course, there’s the in-universe level, which is the one that really twists my mind. This is a world where actual resurrection of the actual dead is entirely obtainable, often without any ill effects (I mean, they'll be traumatized, but unless you ask a necromancer to do the resurrection they won’t come back as a zombie or vampire or otherwise wrong). It’s so normal that many adventurers will have gone through it multiple times. Like, imagine actually living in a world where all that keeps you from getting a missing loved one back is the funds to buy a diamond and hire a cleric. As viewers we felt that of course Pike should bring Laudna, a complete stranger, back when asked, but how often does she get this question? How many parents have come and begged her to return their child to them? How many lovers lost but still within reach? When and how does she decide who she saves and who she doesn’t?
From this perspective, I feel like every other adventurer should have the motive/backstory of 'I lost a loved one and am working to obtain the level of power/wealth to get them back'. But of course this is a game, and resurrection is just a game mechanic meant to be practically useful.
Anyway. A story-based actual play kind of has to find a way to balance these three levels. From a narrative perspective letting FCG remain dead makes sense, respects their sacrifice, and ends their arc on a highlight. From a gameplay level it is possible to bring them back but a lot more complicated than a simple revivify. But on an in-universe level, when do you decide if you should let someone remain dead or not? Is the party selfish if they don’t choose to pursue his resurrection the way they did for Laudna? Do they even know, as characters, that it’s technically possible to save someone who's been blown to smithereens? Back in campaign 2, the moment the m9 gained access to higher level resurrection they went to get Molly back (and only failed because his body had been taken back by Lucien). At the end of c1, half the party were in denial about Vax and still looking for ways to save him, because they had always been able to before (and had the game continued longer it wouldn’t have surprised me had they found a way). Deanna was brought back decades after her death (and was kind of fucked up because of it). Bringing someone back could be saving them, showing them just how loved and appreciated they are. Or it could be saving you, forcing someone back from rest and peace into a world that's kept moving without them because you can’t handle the guilt of knowing you let them stay gone when you didn’t have to. How do you know? How would you ever know?
452 notes
·
View notes
to be clear, I think Rose Tyler being an often-selfish character is great. I think it's great because real women are selfish. Real women get petty. Real women hear their ex boyfriend say he's going out with a mutual acquaintance and get unfairly jealous and real women then say things like "she's a bit big" when they shouldn't and they have no right. Real women can be monsters, and Rose Tyler is relatable and I love how she is written and I love her, thanks for listening
1K notes
·
View notes
thinking about how dean making the deal was out of love for sam and of selfishness. he did it for sam as much as for himself. i think they pretty much blatantly said it in the crossroad blues where he and sam were once again paralleled to a married couple (dean chewing out the guy that made the deal to save his dying wife by saying “did you ever think about her in all this?” and “i think you did it for yourself so you wouldn’t have to live without her” and “guess what, she’s gonna have to live without you now”. and then he did the same thing to sam). he wanted his little brother back so bad he didn’t care about the consequences and how it’d affect sam (remember mystery spot and how dean’s death was driving sam insane?), or how sam would feel knowing his resurrection costed such a price. he just did it. because sam was always the centre of his world and he wanted him all to himself and to keep him forever. he couldn’t imagine or even handle living without sam and he didn’t care or didn’t think about sam having to live without him. and i love him for that. yes, it was selfish, but also beautiful and tragic and sexy
112 notes
·
View notes
'I flirted with the idea that instead of being trans that I was just a cross-dresser (a quirk, I thought, that could be quietly folded into an otherwise average life) and that my dysphoria was sexual in nature, and sexual only. And if my feelings were only sexual, then, I wondered, perhaps I wasn’t actually trans.
I had read about a book called The Man Who Would Be Queen, by a Northwestern University professor who believed that transwomen who were attracted to women were really confused fetishists, they wanted to be women to satisfy an autogynephilia. And though I first read about this book in the context of its debunkment and disparagement, I thought about the electricity of slipping on those tights, zipping up those boots, and a stream of guilt followed. Maybe this professor was right, and maybe I was only a fetishist. Not trans, just a misguided boy.
About a year later, on the Internet, I come across a transwoman who added a unique message to the crowd refuting this professor. Oh, I wish I remember who this woman was, and I wish even more that I could do better than paraphrase her, but I remember her saying something like this: “Well, of course I feel sexy putting on women’s clothing and having a woman’s body. If you feel comfortable in your body for the first time, won’t that probably mean it’ll be the first time you feel comfortable, too, with delighting in your body as a sexual thing?”'
-Casey Plett, Consciousness
101 notes
·
View notes