What are your thoughts about Laudna coming back, I’m curious because this seems different from the Molly situation, the group seems incredibly determined
Oh boy, what a question.
Okay to set up for the first bit, I'm gonna address the second part of the q first:
Yeah, I think this is different. I think this is very different. I think its different in all the ways that the Bells and the M9 are so drastically different and the ways that they are two very distinct camapigns. But also in the more obvious ways- when the M9 lost Molly, they were lower leveled. They didn't have a cleric with revivify, they didn't have half their party. They didn't have anyone to turn to.
I'm trying to avoid this turning into a meta about the M9 but I think that last detail is just- so important. The Bell's have Eshteross, they have random shop owners to ask, they have distant but powerful figures who might help. The M9- did not. It was part of how they operated. More than once in early campaign they went from being mistrusted to marginally trusted and they would just- leave. Authorities were so rarely friendly. They were accusing people more than they weren't.
When Molly went down, on a snowy hill at the sword of someone who wanted to send a message- there was so, so little they could do.
And so we look at the Bells and- they've got more options. They had half their party killed but they got two of them back up and, in theory, left the battle on their own terms.
They're also, like you said. Incredibly determined.
readmore bc this got long im so sorry
Its both incredible and a little sad, honestly. I said this somewhere already, but by the end of the episode- they aren't quite grieving yet. They're hurt, they're aching from the loss, they're sad, but they haven't started grieving yet and part of that is because they are still acting. There are still things to do, avenues to exhaust. They aren't grieving Laudna yet. They can still get her back. They will, they have to. They're taking the time to sit and check in with each other and ask questions and comfort, where they can, but. Very little of that comfort has even entertained the notion of this loss being permanent. About Laudna being gone, not just lost.
(Except maybe for Orym, who is looking at Imogen and thinking of losing a loved one, having that absence be a fixture instead of an aberration. Thinking of a warm embrace, and "Not yet.")
And Imogen-
Imogen, more than the others, is probably painfully aware of Laudna's absence. A silence in her mind, an empty space at her side.
i'm not sure she can even consider the possibility of that absence becoming permanent, right now.
Im not sure any of them really can.
So... uh. on Laudna coming back: I don't know, right now. I don't think it will be too easy, but I think the Bells are going to be fighting for it, hard, for the foreseeable future. And whether it fails or succeeds in the longer term, i think (I'd hope?) itll have pretty long lasting effects.
I've deleted like an additional five paragraphs of my ~thoughts~ on it for the purposes of length and keeping it as 1 meta instead of two tacked together but:
- Some of my thoughts on Laudna's death can be found here.
- Story wise, narratively, campaign-as-a-whole/ externally, is a whole separate conversation, and one that plays a lot into personal preferences and wants and likes and... probably shouldn't go into this post.
- I think there's a lot of the ways this can go and still be done "well", by a subjective metric.
- I'd like for Laudna to come back. I also can see a world where she doesn't, and narratively thats juicy as hell, and also devastating. (edit: like full honesty, devastating and also chock full of potential, yknow?)
- No matter the specifics- Laudna mattered, and will continue to matter, and I think that's the main thoroughline I'm looking for.
- edit: and- alongside that- id want her death to matter too- whatever that might look like.
97 notes
·
View notes
terfs when a study shows literally anything positive about trans people/transitioning: 'hm i think this requires some fact-checking. Were those researchers REALLY unbiased? Because if they were biased this doesn't count and if they weren't knowingly biased they probably were unconsciously biased, woke media affects so much these days. Have there been any other studies on this? Because if there haven't been this could be an outlier and if there have been and they all agree that's a bit odd, why aren't there any outliers, and if there have been and any disagree we really won't know the truth until we very thoroughly analyze them all, will we? Were there enough subjects for a good sample size? Did every single subject involved stay involved through the whole study because if they didn't we should be sure nothing shady was going on resulting in people dropping out. Are we 110% sure all the subjects were fully honest and at no point were embarrassed or afraid to admit they didn't love transitioning to the people in charge of their transition? Are we 110% sure none of the subjects were manipulated into thinking they were happy with their transition? In fact we should double-check what they think with their parents, because if the subjects and their parents disagree it's probably because they've been manipulated but their cis parents have not and are very unbiased. How many autistic subjects were there because if there weren't enough then this doesn't really study the overlap between autistic and trans and if there were too many then we just don't know enough about what causes that overlap to be sure this study really explains being trans and isn't just about being autistic. How many AFAB subjects were there because if there weren't enough this is just another example of prioritizing AMAB people and ignoring the different struggles of girls and women and if there were too many how do we know sexism didn't affect the results. Was the study double-blinded? We all know double-blinded is the most reliable so if this one wasn't that's a point against it even if the thesis literally physically could not be double-blinded. Look i'm not being transphobic, i want what's best for trans people! Really! But as a person who is not trans and therefore objective in a way they cannot possibly be, i just think we should only take into account Good Science here. You want to be following science and not being manipulated or experimented upon by something unscientific, right?'
terfs when they see a study of 45 subjects so old it predates modern criteria for gender dysphoria and basically uses 'idk her parents think she's too butch', run by a guy who practiced conversion therapy, 'confirmed' by a guy who treated the significant portion of subjects who didn't follow up as all desisting, definitely in the category of 'physically cannot double-blind this', completely contradicted by multiple other studies done on actual transgender subjects, but can be kinda cited as evidence against transitioning if you ignore everything else about it: 'oOOH SEE THIS IS WHAT WE'RE TALKIN BOUT. SCIENCE. Just good ol' unbiased thorough analysis. I see absolutely no reason to dig any deeper on this and if you think it's wrong you're the one being unscientific. It's really a shame you've been so thoroughly brainwashed by the trans agenda and can't even accept science when you see it. Maybe now that someone has finally uncovered this long-lost study from 1985, we can make some actual progress on the whole trans problem.'
5 notes
·
View notes