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?
472 notes
·
View notes
I jokingly thought before that reading Junie B. Jones as a kid turned me into a feminist, but unironically, it kind of did.
I honestly think it comes down to the fact that Junie B. was not only allowed to be "weird," but her character arc never concluded like other girl characters would. In other media featuring "weird girls," the girl always ended her arc tamed - by force or convince, she would be prettied up, she would smile and be polite, and she would never speak out of turn. She would be perfect then, and would shed her veneer of individuality with the freedom that is conformity. As a kid, I noticed that girls weren't permitted to be "weird" like boys were. So when I read Junie B. Jones, I loved that she was frankly just fucking weird. She said things out of turn, she was rambunctious and imaginative and she was a realistic portrayal of a little girl. I loved reading those books because the narrative taught her lessons without punishing her for being weird, if that makes sense. So often, narratives punished weird girls for the crime of being a socially unacceptable girl, not for any true wrongdoing like lying.
Anyway, I just think it's interesting, because I watched and read a ton of books and shows and movies featuring girls and women, but none of them truly empathized with (or even tried to empathize with) weird girls on their own merits and capabilities and terms, or embraced the idea of a "socially inept/unacceptable" girl without punishing her in some way for her supposed ineptitude.
202 notes
·
View notes
Natalia literally met Buck while he was on duty and he dressed a wound for her and everything and then she says “shouldn’t we leave that to the professionals” like two episodes later and he has the nerve to think THIS is the person that Sees Him. Sorry but Eddie is so brave and strong for not going ballistic in that graveyard personally I would have just started swinging
352 notes
·
View notes
I know it must’ve really gagged Rhaenys when Vaemond told her that it was a queen that sat the throne. Like I bet it truly boils some Targaryens *cough Daemon cough* blood that little miss sad brown eyes with no dragon managed to peacefully rule over something they see as a right or a power only someone who is like them should have. They lash out at her because she is the outsider in ‘their’ territory.
And it’s extra sad bc Alicent literally tried with all of them. She dressed in red and black, she wanted to show Daemon those nasty tapestries, she supported Rhaenyra’s claim till she just couldn’t anymore. She wanted to ‘assimilate’ bc often that is all you can do when you are in a hostile environment or powder keg situation. It’s why I hate the ‘alicent’s kids aren’t real targs’ or ‘she’s trying to get rid of targ culture’ arguments. On top of just not making sense, it’s not true. She TRIED. All she was met with was resentment, often for decisions that were out of her control.
It is easy for them to use Alicent (the outsider) as a scapegoat bc if they didn’t they’d have to look at their own behavior and how their ‘Targaryen exceptionalism’ has done nothing but make them greedy and stupid
1K notes
·
View notes
EMPRESS ELISABETH OF AUSTRIA
by Franz Xaver Winterhalter
‘the Empress, as I have often told you before, is a wonder of beauty - tall, beautifully formed, with a profusion of bright brown hair, a low Greek forehead, gentle eyes, very red lips, a sweet smile, a low musical voice, and a manner partly timid, partly gracious.’ John Lothrop Motley, 1864
642 notes
·
View notes
its so weird to me personally that some people think that it doesnt make sense for craig to be nice to wildernessa but still hate jason (up until scout guest), but to me the worst thing wildernessa has done is say that craig doesnt know shit about nature vs jason whos basically like "ok tony now hit the second tower" for the majority of his screentime, and people wonder why craig doesnt trust him most of the time huh
62 notes
·
View notes