when i was like 6 i made a poptropica character and the oldest age you could pick was 15 and i distinctly remember saying “good thing nobody lives that long”
I love how the 5e corebook is very clear about how dragonborn do not have tails and literally every player and DM since has unilaterally said “That’s fucking dumb give them a tail :/”
if you give them a big stupid dragon head but no tail theyll be top heavy and fall over. this is so sad 1000 like
I love how the 5e corebook is very clear about how dragonborn do not have tails and literally every player and DM since has unilaterally said “That’s fucking dumb give them a tail :/”
you ever think about how we are literally so starved for complex female characters with actual agency that it’s literally got to the point where every other post is like “DROWN THE DOCTOR!!!!!! PLEASE, CHIBBS, LET HER LOSE CONTROL AND HURT SOMEONE. LET HER TERRIFY HER COMPANIONS. JUST LET HER GO APE SHITTTTT”
like, this is totally understandable. this is what we already know about the doctor as a character. they do have a dark side and they do get hurt. and yet because she’s a woman now it’s like — this intrinsic part of their character feels almost out of reach. and to me it’s v clear why.
Here Is What Is Happening — the thing i think a lot of writers don’t understand is that female pain within media isn’t inherently reductive or a negative stereotype when it is being felt by a character who is strong and has agency. the perverted pain of the hollywood ‘damsel’ that’s most obvious in horror films is only reductive because these characters only exist to suffer. their pain isn’t for the audience to understand or relate to, it’s to be viewed from the outside voyeuristically and usually from a male POV.
here’s a question. why do u think ‘hero’ archetype characters like sam/dean, sherlock, the doctor etc., are always suffering like every gd episode of their respective shows? it’s because they’re seen as fundamentally strong, powerful (intellectually/physically/possessing extraordinary talents etc.,) and emotionally complex. weakness is then seen as interesting and subversive. you want to see characters behave in ways that are against type — that’s storytelling. so what happens is that if you don’t build up a female character so that she’s got these elements (and nine times out of ten she won’t because women aren’t written within the ‘hero’ archetype to begin with) her pain, if portrayed at all, will inevitably come across as redundant, and therefore depraved.
so that’s how we end up with all these cookie cutter female characters who are strong and that’s it — their whole personality is ‘strong’ maybe with a few ‘flaws’ tossed in. often ‘flaws’ are what’s pointed to as being what you need to write a good character — however they’re not just supposed to be window dressing. story isn’t about characters having flaws just because Good Characters Have Flaws™ — it’s about the psychology behind why people enjoy these specific narratives. the point is to see a heroic character vulnerable enough that they have the opportunity to grow. and the thing is, if you view all women as intrinsically vulnerable at a fundamental level the stories you tell about them are going to be incredibly limited.
🍓🧀 (archive) 