Critical Analysis

It would also show something interesting about Obann and how he perceives the Mighty Nein. Rather than going as a group with all four of them (himself, the Inevitable End, Yasha, and the Laughing Hand) to get the job done, or even going himself or sending Yasha, he sent the Inevitable End alone. It's possible that Obann didn't go because he had to do something to prepare for the ritual so he was unable to go. But I think that this, combined with his quick exit, leaving the Laughing Hand behind, when the Mighty Nein confronted them during their retrieval of the Inevitable End's heart, that he's afraid of them. There seems to be this perception among the Nein that Obann is an incredibly powerful and scary figure, and he might be in some ways, but consider what we've seen of his actions so far. Rather than go through the caves under Bazzoxan himself, he followed the Mighty Nein and let them take care of all of the obstacles for him. During the following battle, they were able to defeat him without too much trouble. The real trouble came from Yasha after she was "activated" and the Laughing Hand. Then his quick retreat at the Lotusden Greenwood, and now his sending the Inevitable End, by herself, to take care of the Nein.

He surrounds himself with powerful, deadly beings. They do his fighting for him, but Obann himself? He seems to be scared of what the Mighty Nein could do. To him, and potentially to his plans.

This would also indicate that he might not be the most clever of planners, considering the fact that they didn't know about the ritual until the attack sparked their fear and suspicion and led to them scrying on Yasha.

I feel like this is probably the most likely case. That Obann isn't the frightening and powerful figure they've built him up to be, that he perhaps works with powerful figures, and certainly surrounds himself with deadly figures, but that he himself is far more frightened and far less clever than originally thought.

I know the response in this specific case might be "why would he be afraid to fight them? He's a fiend, so even if they kill him, he'll just be reborn.". Well, the main problem with that would be that it would set him and his group back. He doesn't have time to go through the process of being reborn again. From what we've seen it's not that long for him, but it's not immediate. They're clearly on a timetable, and having to be reborn after being killed would throw that off. There's also the fact that often the interpretation, depending on the storyteller/DM, of a fiend's process of returning to the Hells and being waiting to be reborn is painful torture. So even if he can come back, it might still be a horrible and agonizing experience that he doesn't want to go through.

So it's entirely possible that Obann, while seeming to think of himself as something really special, is just scared and not all that clever.

I have been thinking that it's possible that maybe this cult in general, at least as it now stands, the people actually actively working to bring forth the Chained Oblivion, might not be as scary and powerful as they've been imagined to be. Yes, it does appear that there are people who have some political/social power in their midst. But that doesn't necessarily mean they're smart or powerful when it comes to matters surrounding the gods.

Tharizdun is... bad. BAD bad. Pretty much as bad as you can get in D&D. Especially Matt's Exandria version of the Chained Oblivion. Worse than the Chroma Conclave. Worse than Vecna. In Critical Role's lore, it's believed he could break the Divine Gate. One of his commandments is "Ruin and raze the realms to prepare for the Epoch of Ends". So it seems strange that the Mighty Nein, at level 10, are being thrown into a fight to stop his release. Unless the people trying to release him aren't very good at it. Maybe this is the case and they'll be able to stop it. Or maybe some of them aren't very good at it and these are the people they'll be fighting when they're still in mid-levels, but they'll come up against far more capable followers once they're at higher levels. Or maybe they'll be able to temporarily stop this group of followers, and down the line when they Mighty Nein are at much higher levels, more intelligent and powerful people will pick up where Obann and co. left off.

If that's the case, that Matt is throwing Tharizdun at them this early because the people trying to release him now aren't actually that good at the whole "worshipping an evil god and trying to release him" thing, then it would make sense that Obann is scared of the Mighty Nein, that he's largely a coward who lets more deadly or skilled people do the dangerous work for him and who isn't as clever as he thinks he is.

But there is, of course, another possibility. That Oban sent the Inevitable End to attack, but not kill, because he wanted to lure the Mighty Nein to Rexxentrum because, for some reason, they're needed for the ritual.

We've seen him do something similar once, when he lured them to the caves under Bazzoxan, so that they would go through ahead of him, taking care of all the traps and scary things that were between him and the Laughing Hand, and he could just follow. While it wasn't an attack that lured them there, he was able to manipulate them into going where he wanted for his personal gain. Which means he knows they can be manipulated and lured.

While I think it's just as likely that The Inevitable End bailed from the fight as an act of self preservation (whether simply because she didn't want to die, or because she knew she was needed for the ritual), it's also possible that the reason she bailed was because that was the plan. Attack, fight, leave everyone alive, get out without dying. Give them enough to hurt but not kill. Get them worried and suspicious enough to scry, to see them on the path to Rexxentrum, to lure them to the ritual.

Why would Obann need the Mighty Nein for the ritual? Who knows. We have no idea what this ritual entails. Violence and aggression surrounds The Chained Oblivion, so maybe part of the chain-breaking ritual is a sacrifice or fight of some kind.

The series starts in 1876, only about half a year after the camp of Deadwood was founded. Many people were flocking to the west in general, some hoping to get rich by striking gold, and others hoping to move to these camps and upstart towns to take advantage of these frontier settlements by starting shops, saloons, or offering their services in fields like medicine. Wealthy and poor alike went West, with poor people hoping to change their circumstances and wealthy people looking for both more wealth and a little adventure. Deadwood, as well as some other settlements, also drew its share of outlaws, as it hadn't even been annexed into the Dakota Territory, so the laws of the territory, and of the US, largely didn't apply. The Lakota people had originally been guaranteed the land of the Black Hills, putting it outside of US laws and territory, but once gold was discovered in the hills, white people moved in and settled, leading to a great deal of conflict with the native people which, sadly, ended in the US taking the land and annexing it into the Dakota Territory.

The series ended after three seasons, without a satisfying conclusion considering writer David Milch had not been expecting it to not be renewed when he was writing the season finale (though the book The Revolution was Televised describes a much more complicated misunderstanding that led to the lack of a fourth season). I'm not sure of the exact year in-story that the third season took place in, but I imagine it was probably 1879 or earlier, and the show had not yet depicted the great fire that occurred in the fall of 1879 that destroyed much of the town and led to many of the people who lived there to leave town. The movie, which was released earlier this year, picks up the story in 1889.

Deadwood was notorious for the amount of crime and, in particular, murder that happened there. The graveyard was quite full for this reason, among others. That's the first thing I want to talk about, since Undeadwood is dealing with the undead, and in this past week's episode they discovered two graves (who knows if there are more) without bodies in them.

Murders were relatively common in Deadwood, especially if we're going by the more popular mythical idea of the town than the reality. While experts and historians say that the crime in Deadwood in recent years, even as the population is significantly lower than its height in the 1800s, is higher than its ever been, even in the days of the Old West, it's commonly said that at its height there was one murder a day in Deadwood. Which means that there would be lots and lots of people buried in that graveyard from violence alone.

However, the violence in the town might not generate as many graves as you might think, as in the series the bodies of murdered people were often fed to Wu's pigs. While there have been cases of bodies being fed to pigs throughout history, there's no evidence that shows it ever actually happened in Deadwood. So the cemeteries in the actual Deadwood might have been a bit fuller than the cemeteries in the fictional Deadwood.

But violence wasn't the only thing that put bodies in graves in the early days of the camp. In 1876 a small pox epidemic swept through the settlement, killing many. This was dramatized on the show, starting with the illness of the character Andy Cramed and continuing on with many unnamed characters taking ill and dying. In the show, Jane helped Doc Cochran nurse the ill, as Calamity Jane did in real life. It also wasn't uncommon for people to die of injuries sustained while working the claims. So that graveyard is going to be filled with bodies of various kinds, various ages, genders, and types. Some with bullet holes, some disease ridden, some mangled from injury. If the bodies in the cemetery are being reanimated, there's sure to be some horrifying sights ahead.

One of the people whose graves we now know is empty is Wild Bill Hickok. By the time Hickok arrived in Deadwood in in 1976, he was already an incredibly well known figure throughout the country, having fought in the Civil War and becoming famous as a marksman, performer, and gambler. He'd become known for not just his famous shootouts, some of which had seen him tried for (and acquitted of) murder, but the wild west shows he put on and took part in. Sadly, by 1976, even though he wasn't even 40 years old, and despite the fact that he was still a well known figure, Hickok had fallen on difficult times. Glaucoma had impacted his marksmanship so much that it was in steep decline, and he'd been arrested for vagrancy one more than one occasion. He married a woman named Agnes Lake and left to travel to Deadwood, joining a wagon train with Calamity Jane and Charlie Utter. He planned to find his fortune in gold and to continue trying to earn income through gambling.

Hickok hadn't even been in Deadwood a month when Jack McCall entered the saloon Hickok was gambling in and shot him in the head, killing him. McCall had been playing cards with Hickok the day beforehand and had been insulted when Hickok suggest he stop playing before he lose all his money, and offered him money for breakfast. While on trial, McCall claimed his motive was revenge, that Hickok had killed his brother. He was acquitted, then tried again after he was caught bragging about the murder. He was hanged in March of 1877. He was buried in Yankton, and when the body was exhumed when the cemetery was moved a few years later, the noose was still around his neck.

Which, honestly, as morbid as it is, would be great imagery for UnDeadwood, if Brian were to take some dramatic liberties with McCall's place of burial. While the show depicts him fleeing Deadwood in light of the town's growing anger after his acquittal, Charlie Utter and Seth Bullock are late shown to have tracked him down so he can stand trial for a second time, with the result of the trial and the execution not happening on screen. For what it's worth, Hickok's body was also moved from the original cemetery in Deadwood in 1879 and moved to a new cemetery called Mount Moriah, which was built on a hill near the town.

Deadwood was accurate in regards to Hickok's time in Deadwood in some ways and not so much in other ways. He was in Deadwood for such a short amount of time,  and most of the accounts of his time there focus on his gambling and his death. There's no evidence that he was even close to successful in securing a claim, and much of the storylines the character took part in during the series were entirely fictional. It doesn't appear that he did any kind of law enforcement work, and considering the fact that his failing eyesight was having such a strong effect on his marksmanship, it's unlikely he would have been able to take part in a shoot out the like of that which occurred with Seth Bullock in the pilot episode. In fact, he probably never even met Seth Bullock, as Bullock and Starr arrived in the camp just one day before Hickok's murder.

But the depiction of the actual events of his death were accurate in a lot of ways. The show depicts the card games that occurred between Hickok and McCall and the growing resentment from McCall. Hickok usually sat with his back to the wall, so that he could always see the entrance. On the day of his death, such a seat was not available, so purely by chance, he sat in a seat with his back to the door, which allowed McCall to come up behind him without Hickok noticing. This is how events unfolded in reality, and they're accurately depicted on the show, as was McCall's first trial and his revenge defense.

Another body that could show up and be important is that of the original reverend, Reverend Smith. While the fictional Reverend Smith was based on a real person, not much of the real Henry Weston Smith made it to the screen. While the real Smith was similar to his fictional counterpart in that he chose to make the move to Deadwood himself without being assigned to the camp, and he was a man of god who truly believed in a preaching the gospel and had no need for material things, pretty much the entirety of Reverend Smith's story is fictionalized.

Which is both a shame and not a shame. The Reverend's story in Deadwood is a beautiful and unbelievably sad one as it leads up to his death. But his death in real life might be even more interesting, as he was the victim of a mysterious murder that remains unsolved today. In August of 1976, he had left his home to preach in a nearby settlement, leaving as note on his door. While many were concerned about the danger of traveling outside of camp without protection, due to both robbers who roamed the roads and the tensions that existed with the native people who had rights to the land, Reverend Smith said that the only protection he needed was the Bible. His body was found to the side of the road outside of town, shot to death. Because he wasn't robbed, the murder was blamed on the native people, but it was never truly solved, and many people within Deadwood having reason to not want a man of god preaching in their camp. Smith was buried in a hillside cemetery, and then he was also moved to the cemetery on Mount Moriah.

In the series, though, Reverend Smith suffered from a brain tumor which causes him to slowly deteriorate as he suffers from hallucinations, headaches, and physical impairment. In UnDeadwood, Al refers to him as being "like a brother". The two weren't close before Smith's illness, but as Al moved from villain into more "anti hero" status, the Reverend reminds Al of his adopted brother, who had seizures and fits like the ones Smith has. He cares for Smith at the Gem as the reverend becomes sicker and sicker, finally smothering him in an act of euthanasia, sending Smith away from his suffering to go with God.

There are also the bodies of the Metz family, who were slaughtered in the first episode by men working for Al Swearengen (though not on Swearengen's orders), as they were on their way out of Deadwood, having not been able to make their fortune and finding the camp too rough. The only survivor was a little girl, Sophia, who would go on to be raised by Alma Garret Ellsworth. So the family's bodies, including those of other children who didn't survive, could possibly also be among those in the graveyard, or among those that are no longer in the graveyard.

The Metz family massacre was an event that occurred outside of Deadwood in 1976, with the family being slaughtered outside of Deadwood in 1876. The crime was initially claimed on the native people, as is shown in the series, but it appeared they were robbed and word spread around town that it was the work of Persimmon Bill Chambers - though not on any orders by Swearengen or anyone else.  Chambers' involvement remained rumors, though, as Chambers was never arrest or tried, and he disappeared, with papers claiming he was killed later the same year. Sources disagree on whether or not there were any survivors of the massacre, and those that do say there was a survivor say that it was an adult man, not a little girl.

Of particular interest, given the events of the end of this past week's episode, is Doc Cochran. In the series, Doc Cochran is a complex character who is ultimately one of the most truly good people in the camp. As the only doctor in town he treats the entire camp, from the girls at the Gem to the smallpox-stricken residents, to a traumatized Sophia after the death of her family, and pretty much everyone else at some point.

Historical records show no evidence of Doc Cochran having a real life counterpart. It's likely that his general existence and relationship to the settlement is a combination of multiple doctors who lived and worked in Deadwood in the first few decades of its existence (and interestingly, at least one of those doctors, Flora Hayward Stanford, who came to the camp to work in 1888, was a woman).

At the end of last week's episode, a hat was found in Wild Bill's grave that displayed the initials D.C., and as the group remembered that Doc Cochran had been unable to find his hat when they knocked on his door, the assumption was made that Cochran must has had some part in the strange happenings of the empty graves and the walking dead.

But there's more to support the idea that he's at least SOMEHOW involved in what's going on than the presence of a hat with his initials on it. In UnDeadwood, while talking to the group about whether or not he had ever seen anything like what had occurred in the shootout, Cochran describes seeing similar things during the war. According to his backstory in the series, Cochran served as a doctor in the war, having to treat the wounded and dying soldiers. He was traumatized by his experience. But the real kicked is a little bit of info that dropped when the leaders of the community were trying to put together a government and assigning jobs. It's revealed that Doc Cochran has been arrested for grave robbing. Seven times.

People hear "grave robbing" and think that it signifies the Doc is not a good person, but grave robbing wasn't entirely uncommon when it came to the medical profession in those days. It was actually a pretty common practice in the 19th century, when those working in the medical field were showing an unprecedented curiosity and making more frequent advancement than ever before, demand for bodies to study and experiment on was high, but the amount of actual, legal product was low. While grave robbing is undeniably a crime and a horrible thing to do, it was a pretty common thing at the time, and not necessarily indicative of whether or not someone was a good or bad person. Doc Cochran shows throughout the series and during the movie that he's a good, decent person, compassionate and ethical in his practices.

The main thing that separates Doc Cochran from the real grave robbers of the era is that, in most cases, grave robbers were never caught. Cochran must not have been very good at it, considering he was nabbed seven times.

So Cochran being connected to an empty grave is not unprecedented. What could this all mean, though? Having a past that includes grave robbing could very well connect him to something mysterious and otherworldly going on that involves graves being found empty. He didn't play dumb when the group asked him about whether he'd seen anything like it before. Instead he was open and honest about what he had seen during the war.

Perhaps what's going on in the game is a result of Doc Cochran's experiments having gone wrong. Perhaps he took bodies from the graves to experiment on, and maybe he took the unburied bodies of the bandits to examine/experiment on before they were scheduled for burial. Maybe wasn't attempting anything nefarious and it's just innocent experimentation gone wrong.

Or maybe it's a red herring. It's possible that while he did take the bodies, and maybe even possible that the bodies he took were or will be reanimated, that he has nothing to do with the actual raising of the dead. That he simply took the bodies for experimentation/examination, and something else happened that he had no part of that reanimated them. It's even possible that someone knows of Cochran's past with grave robbing (as is stated in the series, he was pretty open about sharing it, so it's probably at least somewhat common knowledge), and has stolen his hat, placing it in the grave in an attempt to frame him.

I personally hope that it's one of these options and that he's not up to anything nefarious. Doc Cochran is my favorite character from the show, precisely because while he's a tough and complicated person, he's genuinely good and compassionate. I think it would very much go against his characterization for him to be doing anything intentionally bad or wrong.

But I think that the fact that he does have a history of grave robbing is going to play into things in a major way.

Deadwood was an incredibly violent show, and while the actual Deadwood settlement might not have been quite as violent as legend says, there was a lot of death and suffering that took place there, even in its first year. There are plenty of bodies produced by the series that UnDeadwood can capitalize on for its undead hordes, so I suppose we just have to wait and see what bodies pop up and what from the show is going to effect the narrative moving forward.

As I said, much of what we do know is more along the lines of historical fact. The Age of Arcanum began about 1500 years before the current events of Critical Role's story, and it was a time where mortals had harnessed huge amounts of arcane power, with mages making tremendous discoveries. The gods were not yet locked behind the Divine Gate, so their relationship to the world and those in it was far closer, with the gods being more accessible to mortals, who started to think that the could be just as powerful as the gods. There are two discussed cases of mortal challenging the gods. The first was the Raven Queen, who began life as a mortal. She challenged the god of death, won, and ascended to divinity. In a far more devastating case, a mage called Vespin Chloras released the Betrayer Gods from their prison. These gods sought to defeat the gods who imprisoned them, starting by creating their own kingdom, Ghor Dranas (which would become Xhorhas). They then sought to spread their power and influence, starting with an attack on Vasselheim. After a war that lasted 20 days and 20 nights they were defeated. The war changed the attitude of the mortals and mages who once thought that the gods held no power over them, and changed the way they were using their magic, now seeking to create things that would better protect them.

The Calamity, when the Betrayer Gods once again brought war to the world and the other gods and were finally defeated for good, with Ioun, Pelor, and Evandra completing the ritual to seal away Tharazidun, and then later chose to leave the Material Plane and seal themselves behind the Divine Gate, marked the end of the Age of Arcanum.

Those are the historical facts of the Age of Arcanum, and it is most of what we know. There are other figures we've learned about, like Purvon, the champion of the Raven Queen, and The Laughing Hand, who had been a warrior who fought against Torog and, upon being defeated by the god, was turned into a monstrosity, placed into eternal servitude with his heart being sealed away in an extra planar dimension. But that's most of what we've been told for sure. When it comes to what the culture of the time was like, we've been given some hints, but not much.

One thing I find interesting is that in a time where the gods were so much closer to the world, before they were closed off, and when mortals and non-divine creatures could have such close dealings with the gods, that it seems that there were more people who thoughts they were powerful enough that the gods could hold now power or influence over them than there are in the "current" times of the story, when the gods are locked behind the Divine Gate and unable to have such direct influence. Perhaps it was the very fact that the gods were closer to the world that made people think they could have the same kind of powers. The gods being locked away behind the Divine Gate and not having such direct interaction makes them more mysterious, more "other". It makes them seem far more like gods when they're more unattainable. Maybe having the gods so close demystified them, made them seem weaker. And then having a mortal woman overtake on of the gods and ascend to become a deity probably made this idea that they could be as powerful as the gods much more real.

It's somewhat ironic, that it was ultimately the arrogance that had these mages thinking they were equal to the gods that ultimately brought them to fear the gods. Vespin Chloras set the Betrayer Gods free because he thought he could control them and their power. But by being released, these gods were able to wage a war that devastated the world, and revealed to mortals exactly what the Gods could do, leaving the mages shaken and using their magic to create different things that could protect them from the war.

We've seen some fascinating, incredibly things that magic users in the current times of Critical Role (both in the first and second campaigns) have managed to do, so I'm fascinated by the idea of what magic users during the Age of Arcanum were doing that had them thinking they were on the same level as the gods. We've started to see some of it, through the exploration of Halas' folding halls, but I'm so interested in things that go even beyond that. What was the culture like? What did was the place of non-magic users in the world? What was their perception of the mages and their relationship with the gods?

I think through Halas' writings we've found that maybe the mages were even more arrogant and amoral than anything we've learned about the Age so far would have indicated. What he said in his writings seems to suggest that becoming a lich, or at least planning for that course of action, was common for mages. I suppose that makes sense, as be being a lich they essentially have eternal life, which the would likely think puts them even close to the gods, since it would mean they aren't mortal and therefor aren't confined to mortal rules. Halas was seeking use the Perma-Heart to create a regenerating, never dying clone that he could transfer his consciousness to so that he wouldn't have to put up with the hassle of lichdom. This might suggest that the mages of the time had developed some kind of magic, or at least came close to it, that would allow them to transfer their consciousness into another being.

As a side note, I think the prevalence of golems in the Folding Halls, the golem workshop, etc., suggests that the Folding Halls, or at least some of them, were made at a time following the first war, the siege on Vasselheim. While it's entirely possible, perhaps even likely, that golems were commonly made before the Betrayer Gods' attacking, it was after that attack/war that mages really started to turn their attention to creations of war, and different things that could protect them in the event that the gods tore their world apart. It could be the point of the entire creation of the Folding Halls themselves. Halas could have feared what the gods could do to the Material Plane, so he created a home that existed not just in an extra planar space, but that existed over multiple extra-planar spaces. And that was well protected by both a dragon and golems.

If this is true, then it could serve to give us a very good picture as to the mindsets of mages in the time following that war in Vasselheim. Halas was both trying to achieve immortality and potentially to protect himself within the Halls. So much of the security within the halls, as well as the construction, if not their very existence, suggests a paranoia surrounding his safety. It's kind of surprising, really, that his experimentation room seems to have considerably less security than other areas, like the arcane armory, the tapestry entrance. Which suggests that perhaps the paranoia that led to all the security was less about any mages stealing his secrets than it was about something else.

I think the tidbit of information we've been given that I find most fascinating is the book the Mighty Nein found in the Folding Halls that were a description of a debate from the forum of Zeidel about the moral implications of, as Matt said, arcane experimentation on the prisoners of Ghor Dranas. I'm not sure if he's clarified if he meant that they were discussing experiments being done in Ghor Dranas on prisoners they were holding, or if he meant that they were discussing experiment on prisoners they were holding from Ghor Dranas. I'm going to assume it's the latter, as it makes more sense. Though really, even if they were debating the moral implications of Ghor Dranas experimenting on prisoners, it would all mean the same things: they're debating on whether or not it's okay to use prisoners (likely mortal in nature) for arcane experimentation. This of course means that it was an ethical question as to whether or not this was acceptable, so that would meant that during the Age of Arcanum there was, at the very least, a very strong voice among people of power saying that it wasn't okay to experiment on people. That they were debating on it, though, does tell is that there were people who disagreed and thought that such practices were acceptable. So what would cause the disagreement? What would cause the potential change in beliefs? I think that it would makes sense that during this time mages would grow more and more accepting of using mortals in their experiments, as they had come to believe that they were just as powerful as the gods, who had created them. So they might have felt that because they had such power that the other non-mage mortals weren't at the same level as them, especially if they were prisoners, and were then therefor free game when it came to what these mages considered to be necessary. I really wish that Matt had shared what result, if any, they came do at the end of the debate, beyond just warnings of a war with the gods

And just a note, I am assuming that when they say prisoners of Ghor Dranis that they're referring to mortals, or at least creatures that weren't gods. I find it hard to believe that the people of Zeidel would have any gods as prisoners, and I doubt even more that they'd be considering experimenting on them.

I think it's then telling that Halas had the book that held the descriptions of these debates. While I noted above that he doesn't seem to be the most un-arrogant or un-awful of the mages, it's possible that having this book in his possession means that he was trying to make an ethical decision about whether or not to experiment on other mortals. Or perhaps he had the book as a means to justify such experimentation, although we haven't yet seen any evidence of him experiments on any other mortals other than himself.

Another thing to note about Zeidel was that they were a society that had harnessed the power of crystals to make their city float. It makes me wonder how much magic and arcane experimentation was done with crystals, and how much of it has survived over the centuries. It also made me wonder if some magic users in the current times of the story heard about different kinds of magic being done with crystals and decided to attempt it themselves. We are aware of at least one arcane magic users experimenting with crystals in magic, and it wasn't in trying to make a city float.

While we know the the crystals used on Caleb and his friends when Trent Ikithon experimented on them were Residuum, we don't know what kind of crystals were used to make societies like Zeidel float. It's possible that they used Residuum. It's also possible that Residuum wasn't used to make their city float, but that they'd harnessed power from other crystals for other things. Maybe it's the late night and my currently sick-as-hell mind working overtime, but it's connecting together the fact that this knowledgeable arcane society harnessed the power of crystals, that this society was debating about using arcane experimentation on people,  that Halas had records of some of this society's debates and information regarding these arcane practices (which means he could have more than just the one book Caleb found), the fact that Halas is from whatever the Zemni Fields were at the time of Age of Arcanum, and that Caleb and his friends were from the same area. Maybe the last bit about them all being Zemnian doesn't feel as solid as the rest of it (unless the remnants of Zeidel became Zemnia, as I've seen some speculate), but the fact that this society that harnessed the power of crystals seemed to be starting to, ot at least wanting to start, experimenting on people, and then centuries later Trent Ikithon, an arcane magic user, was experimenting on his students using crystals is something that keeps jumping out at mean every time I look into this stuff.

I think that actually says something important about the culture then vs. the culture in the current times of the story, whether they're connected or not. In the current times of the story, it doesn't seem that experimentation of an arcane nature in people is acceptable. There's been nothing we've seen (yet) to suggest that the Empire as an overall entity (not counting the Academy or Trent Ikithon's own policies) experiments on prisoners, and we've seen two instances of prisoners being kept in Xhorhas without being experimented on. So it's likely not being done, and if it is it's being hidden very, very deeply, which suggests that it's something that would be considered unacceptable. When Trent experimented on his students, it wasn't even an act of the Academy, it was an act of Trent Ikithon, what he was doing to his chosen students. So that tells us that such policies aren't even considered remotely acceptable. During the Age of Arcanum, they were openly debating about whether or not it was right or wrong. The might not yet have started to do it, but it was something they were openly debating in public, with people presenting the idea that it was entirely moral and acceptable to do. This would be yet another thing that gives us a look at the kind of culture that existed in the world at the time, and the mindsets of the mages.

The question is what exactly was (is?) Halas trying to do with the heart? Those clone things are freaky as all get out. The Tal'Dorei campaign guide talks a big about the Age of Arcanum and the power mages wielded at the time. It says that some mages had learned to create life forms on their own, so it makes sense that Halas may have been trying to do this, but maybe wasn't having success at creating life that wasn't absolutely horrifying. If he'd been struggling to create life that was sustainable, he may have found something about the Laughing Hand's heart that was able to further power his experiments. However, I suspect that the reason these clones/lifeforms are so messed up is specifically because of the heart. Perhaps the fact that it was commanded by a Betrayer God had tainted it. Maybe it's that it was still connected to an existing creature and therefor couldn't give enough power to fully support Halas's experiments. It could be something of a combination of both, that because the heart belonged to a creature that had been corrupted by a Betrayer god, the power it put out is corrupted itself.

One obvious question is "why clones"? Why would the life Halas created be clones of him? I think a possible answer to that might lie in one of the books Caleb found in Halas's library the first time they were inside the Halls. It was a transcript of public debates from the society of Zeidel about whether or not it was morally acceptable to use the prisoners of Ghor Dranis for arcane experimentation. Zeidel was an incredibly knowledgeable and educated society of mages during the Age of Arcanum, so it's possible that Halas was either a part of that society or acquainted with them. Perhaps he was on the side of not using prisoners for experimentation, or maybe he was fine with it but due to the debates it was eventually outlawed, or at the very least fell out of favor and became frowned upon, and Halas found that the only subject for such experiments he could use was himself. However, I do think it's also possible that it happened as a result of Halas becoming more and more isolated in the Folding Halls, no longer leaving, and no longer interacting with people in the outside world at all, which would mean he truly had only himself to experiment on. I wonder if he’d tried other experiments where he tried to create life from scratch and was unable to make that final step in actually giving his creation life. Perhaps that’s what the doll in the study with the hair that was strangely realistic was. An earlier failed attempt at creating life. 

Now the big current question is what or who is this hulking, multi-headed creature that the party is due to fight in this week's episode (unless Matt pulls a complete surprise and this guy is a just a big sweetheart who really wants to get out of the Halls)? It might not be a big deal at all, just another of Halas' abominations/failures. But I wonder if maybe this is the final form of what Halas wanted to make, his final success. Maybe, at least by the time he started experimenting in the Folding Halls, he was not a good person and was looking to create a monster for himself, just as Torog did when he took the Laughing Hand's heart and hid it away. Maybe that's why he sought out the heart in the first place. Or maybe he'd started with a relatively innocent and not remotely insane desire to create life in the way the other mages of the time had, and over time, whether it was because  of the isolation of spending all of his time in the Halls, or maybe because the Perma Heart's influence is a corrupting one, his goals changed.

Or maybe this hulking creature is Halas himself. He's been lost since at least the Age of Arcanum, perhaps even before the Divine Gate was created. Maybe he decided to turn from using his own material for experimentation to experimenting on himself and created something horrible. Time moves differently in the Halls than it does on the primary plane. If each hour on the inside is one day on the outside, then it's likely only a few decades have passed for someone who has been inside of it since the Age of Arcanum. (My math, the was very general and based on estimates of time rather than exact counts of days, months, years, etc., came out to about 3 decades, but I am not a math whiz by any means, and I would need to really scour the campaign guide in order to be able to input the exact numbers for the amounts of days, hours, etc. into the equation. But the very estimated equation I had came out to about 30 years). Maybe the reason Halas disappeared was because his creation was stronger than he was and it killed him.

So even if this creature is not Halas, it's entirely possible Halas is still inside of these Halls somewhere. Perhaps Yussa encountered him and that's why he didn't return. A part of me thinks that the state of certain places they've been suggests that if he is still inside the halls that Halas has possibly become lost, both in terms of sanity and location. But with so many rooms, I suppose it's possible that he just hasn't seen to certain areas in some time.

There are a few open ended questions I'm curious about. Particularly, how did Halas find the Laughing Hand's heart? Was he actively looking for it, as many mages were at the time? Or did he just find in the course of creating his giant, extraplanar home? Was he already building his home when he found it, or was the decision made because he'd found the heart in this extraplanar space and he decided to build the manor around it? Perhaps as a means of protecting it and keeping others from finding it?

I also wonder what will happen once the Mighty Nein does have the heart. It seems pretty clear that it puts out some kind of power, but if those clones are anything to go by, it might not be a good power. Torog had hidden it away in order to keep the Hand in servitude forever. Would the Mighty Nein then have control over the Hand if they have his heart? If they return it to him, will he become the man he once was? Or maybe at least get to finally rest peacefully, for good?

I feel like there’s also probably a lot we still don’t know, information they could have found in the study, or that might yet exist elsewhere in the halls, that might uncover more answers. I’m absolutely fascinated by what Halas’s interest in the frozen fields of Eiselcross is (I’m betting it has something to do with the rare and unique monsters that live there), and I’m curious about why he was doing research into corrupted plant life, if it had anything to do with his creepy clone experiments, if he has some other experiment he was pursuing, if maybe he was looking into various forms of corruption because of what the heart was doing to his creations. Who knows?

You also need to make sure you and all of your players can agree to a general schedule. Not necessarily down to planning the exact dates ahead of time, but coming to a general agreement about how often you'll play (will you play every week? More than once a week? A couple of times a month?) will help people know if this is a game they can fit into their schedule. Someone with a lot of responsibilities might not be able to play more than once a week, or even every week. Making sure you get schedule stuff cleared up ahead of time can be a big help in ensuring the longevity of your campaign because it will minimize the chances of schedules not matching up and people getting frustrated about not being able to schedule a game.

Those are all just general things that aren't even necessarily "consent", but they're important things GMs should be doing, and they do set the precedent for gaining consent from your players, because it shows them early on that you care about what they need and what matters to them. It will likely make players who do need concessions when it comes to certain things feel more comfortable in letting you know.

Now, lets get into the actual matter of consent. There are different ways to start the conversation, but there should ALWAYS be a conversation.

DO NOT just sit around the table with the whole group and say "does anyone have anything they need to let me know about before we start so that I know what things to avoid?" For one thing, your players might not entirely know what you're talking about. There are players, especially newer ones, who don't really think about the fact that a role playing game could be triggering to them, so they wouldn't even know to ask. There's also the matter of privacy, and players who do need these concessions might not want the other players to know about their traumas and experiences that have led them to need these concessions.

It's just a good idea, even if we were ignoring the need for consent, to have a one-on-one with each of your players before the first session. It will help them feel more comfortable with as GM, it gives you the opportunity to talk about things like what kind of game they're most interested in playing, and you'll have the chance to talk to them about their character, get ideas about how you can fit that character into the world, and help them out with any character building problems they might be having. So you should already be having a private conversation with each player anyway. This is where you start talking about consent.

Some people use consent forms that their players can fill out. If you look around online you can find a few different versions available that have been made by GMs that you can download. Monte Cook Games has one that you can download from their store for free. 

These forms can be very helpful, but they should not be the end of it. You still need to have a conversation with them. Most forms don't allow for much detail that can be incredibly crucial for you to know exactly what you need to avoid and how to craft your story. However, be sensitive to the fact that some people struggle when it comes to talking about their traumas/phobias/etc., and that some people CAN'T. Don't make them. Don't say anything like "well if you won't tell me how do I know exactly what I can use and how can make a story?" And certainly don't threaten them with something like "if you won't talk more about it then I might end up putting something in my story that triggers you without knowing and then I won't be able to do anything about it."

To start with, if you don't need any clarifications at that time, then you don't need to ask about them. But let them know that you obviously don't have the entire campaign completely planned, so their consent/consent form will remain relevant throughout the entire campaign as you plan. If you need clarifications now, ask if that's okay. If you don't, ask if it's okay for you to ask for clarifications in the future as you're planning. Be flexible with how the clarification discussion happens. Present different ways to go about it than them just opening up about their traumas and phobias. Offer "yes or no" questions as a possibility. Tell them that they don't have to explain their experiences or phobia to you, that they can just answer your questions and if a question is too much they can just say "pass".

But be prepared for the possibility that they won't want to talk about it at all. This can be difficult, but it doesn't have to be a roadblock. It's important that you let them know that without clarification you might come up on something in the story that triggers them without realizing it WITHOUT making it sound like a threat or like you're blaming them. Make sure they know that it's important to you that you don't do anything in the storytelling that upset or triggers them, so that you two need to be able to establish some kind of signal in case you do start to come up on something like that, a signal that lets you know you need to bail out.

If they are willing to discuss it, then that's great! But it's still important to remember not to push and to be aware of their body language and behavior to make sure they're not getting to uncomfortable. If you sense they are getting uncomfortable, pull it back. Let them know it's okay if they don't want to discuss it anymore. Let them know that there are ways you can work around it if they don't want to elaborate.

But if they are open to the discussion, the first thing to focus on is what you need to do to make them comfortable and to make sure they feel safe. A lot of it is going to be clarifying whether what they've checked/listed applies just to them or to other characters (PCs and NPCs alike). Make notes on EVERYTHING so that you don't forget a single thing. Some things are going to be about clarifying the levels as to which something is excluded. If they check/list "sex", clarifying whether that means graphic depictions or any mention of it is important, as it clarifying if it applies only to their character or to other characters as well. If someone lists "car accidents", you'll want to clarify if mentioning them at all is a problem, or if it's okay as long as there are no graphic descriptions.

Never, ever, ever, EVER ask them to explain why they listed/checked a certain thing. NEVER ask them to describe their experience. NEVER make them feel like they have to in order for you to agree to what they're asking. They do NOT have to explain themselves. If they want to share, they will. Do not make them feel like they have to.

Figuring out how all of the players, each person's consent, and what everyone wants out of a game can be where it gets tricky, because you might end up in a place where one players wants and needs are in conflict with another player's wants and needs. And that can be tough to navigate.

Now, some of it can be easy. If someone is of the mindset that they need graphic descriptions of blood and gore in order for a game to be fun... quite frankly that's ridiculous. Graphic depictions of blood and gore are not things that play a major role in storytelling and characterization/development. Now, they might be important things if you're playing a certain kind of horror game, but that's something that should be covered in that first discussion before you even get to the consent conversation. If someone says they need graphic descriptions of blood and gore, or that they need graphic descriptions of murder, or that they need eyeball trauma in order for the game to be fun for them, that is unreasonable.

But when it comes to things that have to do with the way the other players write their characters and their backstories, the way they develop those characters, etc.... it can get a little trickier. Because for a lot of players role playing in these games is very personal, and they put a lot of themselves in those characters. They use their characters to work out their own personal struggles. There are things they can pursue in the game that can be empowering for them, or that can be important wish fulfillment. So if you have players with character aspects that might clash with what a person has listed on their consent form, then there could be a problem. These problems usually come in two forms: conflicting with something in a player's/multiple players' backstory, and prohibiting from everyone else in the game from doing a certain thing for the entire game.

You should be familiar with at least the generalities of all of your players characters and backstories before you have the consent discussions so that you know if something on someone's consent list clashes with someone's character. Here are just a few ways this could happen:

A player lists "homophobia" on their consent list, one of the player's backstories has to do with escaping the homophobia of their family/hometown

A player lists "sexual assault" on their consent list, one of the players backstories has to do with surviving a sexual assault

A player lists "harm to children" on their consent list, one of the players backstories has to do with having been abused as a child

If this happens, let the person with these things on their consent form know that there are players who have these as a part of their planned backstory, but that you're going to talk to them, and then you guys will figure out where to go from there.

Go to the players who have these things in their backstories and ask them if it's really important to them that it's there. As I said, some people work things out through their RP characters, so it could be really important to a player to have that as their backstory. And it can be easy to say "well, they can just do it in a different game where this other person isn't playing." But not everyone has another game, and it isn't fair to tell someone flat out that they're not allowed to play the game in a way that would be meaningful to them, just as it wouldn't be okay to tell someone that they just have to deal with something that triggers or upsets them in a game. As them if they'd be willing to make changes to remove this thing from their backstory. Maybe suggest figuring something out that could work as a sort of metaphor or stand-in.

If they say no, be very delicate in how you move forward. Let them know, without naming names, that this thing they're including in their backstory could be triggering to someone else (everyone should have been given the option of filling out a form or having the consent discussion with you, so they should all be aware that it's a thing). Without demanding they tell you their story, ask them if the reason they want to keep it in their backstory is personal and important to them. If they say no to that question, then it's becoming more and more likely that you're just dealing with someone who wants their way no matter what. If they're saying it's not an important personal thing for them AND they're unwilling to adjust the backstory to use something that could work as an analog, then they're definitely approaching the point of being selfish and unreasonable.

But if they it is important for them to have this thing as a part of their backstory and they're unwilling to change it to something else that could symbolize it, this is when you need to start looking to bringing them together, in some way, to compromise. Obviously, the easiest way to do this is to have a sit down with both of them to discuss it. Ask them both if they would be comfortable doing that. Again, do not frame it or phrase it in any way that would make it feel like if they say no they're not going to get what they're asking for. Accept the fact that on both sides you're going to be dealing with very personal subjects, and that they might not want any of the other players knowing about these particular things.

If either one says no to getting together to discuss it, you're going to have to act as a go between.

Either way, the next step is to go to the person with the consent for and explain that this is an aspect of the other player's backstory that's important to them and ask if there's some way a compromise can be reached where they can both get what they want. Perhaps propose a situation where the other player is allowed to have this thing as a part of their backstory as long it's things aren't explained in detail, or maybe even where there's a signal given when they're going to be talking about this part of their backstory so the player with the consent for can excuse themselves. Or ask if it would be okay if it's a part of the player's backstory as long as there are not further depictions of it in the story.

If the person with the consent form says no to compromise, and the person with this thing in their backstory is unwilling to change it, then you're in a situation where you either have to tell one of them "too bad", which might result in one of them not playing in your game. That's a possibility you have to be prepared for.

So your question is 'which one do I tell no to'? This is tough, because either way, you're going to feel like and asshole because you're going to be telling someone they can't have something that's very important to them. For you it might come down to who you feel was the most unwilling to compromise, and that's a completely valid way to go. I don't think there's an answer that's going to be correct 100% of the time. For me, personally, I would probably in most cases tell the person with the thing in their backstory that they have to change it. It sucks for them that they won't be able to put this personal thing into their character and maybe work out some things they need to work out through it. But the truth is, there are still ways that they can play the game where they can enjoy it and have a safe and happy experience. That wouldn't be true if the situation were reversed, if the one being told no was the one with the consent form. If this thing is triggering for them so much that it can't even be in a character's backstory, then there's no version of the game that's going to be a safe and fun experience for them if it's there.

But that might not always be the answer. You might feel that one party is refusing to compromise not out of what they need, but because they just want what they want and don't care about anyone else's needs. You might not like the way one of them behaved during the whole thing. There's not one, single answer to this question, and you'll have to on how you feel. It's definitely important to take their behavior and attitude into account (if they're unwilling to compromise on this they might be unwilling to compromise about other things, make concessions for other players, and generally work together once the game is going), but it's really important that you look at the situation and consider which one would still be able to find enjoyment in the game if you told them they couldn't have what they're asking for, and which one wouldn't be able to have a safe experience if you told them they couldn't have what you're asking for.

Then there are the times when what's being requested would majorly impact the way the other players are allowed to play the game. Now, you might decide to honor the person with the consent reform's request and just cut that thing out of the game. And that's a perfectly valid choice. But if you're going to do that, you have to let your other players know about it. All of your players need to be aware of what kind of game they're getting into, what is and isn't allowed, so they can make an informed choice about whether they want to play or not.

Usually this type of situation comes down to things like romance/sex. A player might put on their consent form that they're not comfortable with romance or sex in games. And that's one of the big topics you need clarification on. If they just say that they're uncomfortable with those things for just their character, then great! Not a problem. The only problem you might run into is that one of the other players might get it into their head that their character has a thing for this other player's character. In which case you're left with the options of either having the player that is uncomfortable about it letting everyone know beforehand so that doesn't happen, or privately approaching the "pursuing" character once it starts happening to ask them to stop.

But you might find yourself in the situation where they say that they're not comfortable with romance or sex happening at all.

A tiny tangent here as we talk about approaching the matter of sex itself, because it's a little more complicated than just romance. "Sex" is kind of vague when it comes to talking about consent in these games, so before you even get to the point of asking about whether they're just referring to their own character, or if they're referring to everyone, you need to try to establish what they mean by "sex." Obviously, refer back up to the paragraph about how to approach asking them for further detail. If they're willing to discuss it, you need to clarify if they mean no sex, ever, not even mentioned, or if it's okay if it's mentioned but just not shown or implied to be happening, or if they're okay with the "fade to black" type of thing. After you've established that, then you can get into how broadly they expect it to be applied.

If they say that they expect it to be applied to every character, which means that none of the other players can pursue romantic relationships or sex at all, then you're in a situation where you're going to have to ask the other players to completely eliminate something that many consider a major part of the game. Like I said, if you want to just do it, make that decision and make all sex and relationships off limits, that's perfectly find. But  you have to let your other players know before you start the game. Both so that they don't try to do it, only the get shut down, but also so that they can make an informed decision about whether or not they want to play. Removing something that big as a possibility from the game is a big thing, and you very will might end up with people who decide they don't want to play. That's something you have to be ready for if you're going to make that kind of decision.

If you're not going to make that decisions right away, then you're going to want to ask your players if they're okay with it. The best thing to do would be to ask one by one so that they don't feel pressured by anyone else, and so that they can't single out the person who made the request. Do not start by saying "would you be okay with this not being in the game, because it would be triggering for so and so". You don't need to bring the consent form into it right away. Just start by asking how they would feel if you made it off limits. Ask them if it's something they really consider essential to the enjoyment of the game. If they're resistant to the idea, then you might want to appeal to their empathy by bringing up that removing it for the game would hel pin making the player with the consent form feel safe playing the game. (Remember though, don't name names).

Be prepared for the possibility that at least one of them say no, that they consider this thing an important part of the game and they wouldn't be okay with it not being an option. I know in reading these things it's easy to see those people as being unsympathetic and unfair, but I would urge you not to think that way, at least not right away. A lot of people have very specific ways they like to play these games, and for some people the wish fulfillment aspect that they get out of these specific things can be incredibly important and meaningful to them. Now, that doesn't mean that you have to side with them, and that doesn't mean that they're necessarily the right fit for your game. It just means that they're not a shitty person just because they're very attached to this aspect of the game.

If you end up with players who say no, they would not be okay with this thing being removed from the game, then you once again have to make a decision about which way you're going to go. And again, that's going to come down to what you think is fair and reasonable. You might decide to eliminate this thing from the game in order to give the player with the consent form what they need. You might decide that if they need this thing that is an important part of the game to other players gone, then your game and group just isn't the right one for them. Again, it's up to you, what you feel is right, how you feel your players behaved when discussing these things.

It is important to remember that not every game is for every person, and that it's okay if that's the case. If someone doesn't like to be scared or they're triggered by horror, then a Call of Cthulhu game probably isn't for them, and you're not being insensitive for saying so. You're not being insensitive for not choosing another game or removing all the horror elements just so they can play. It's okay to just explain that this game probably isn't for them and that they probably want to find another group. (If you have the resources and ability to do so, help them find a new group as much as you can.)

I think that SOME of the things that might come into question when it comes to discussing consent with your players fit into that. Like the above mentioned issue with romance. I've actually been in this situation before. It's one thing if they just don't want their character involved in any sort of romantic situation. But ask all of the other players to also give up that aspect of the game is a big thing. Some might be willing to do that, but some might not. I had a player who had been in some very bad relationships and romantic situations, and she was still at the point where seeing romantic relationships, even healthy ones, was incredibly difficult for her. So her request was that the option for romance be eliminated entirely. But I had players in that game for whom being able to have romantic relationships was a really important element of the game. One of my players in particular had written a husband into her backstory. All of my players looked forward to the chance to have some fun, in-game romantic relationships that they were in control of, and I just didn't think it was fair to take that away from them, so I told the player with the consent form exactly that. That I didn't feel okay doing that, that I was more than happy to make sure her character was off limits for romance and romantic storylines, but I didn't feel okay doing that to the rest of the players. I told her that if she thought she could handle that she was more than welcome to play, but that otherwise our group wasn't a good fit for her.

And that's okay. Not every person is going to fit in every group, and there's nothing wrong with that. It doesn't make the group or the player that doesn't fit bad or wrong. It just means there's a different group or a different game out there for them.

However, there are some things, a LOT of things, when it comes to matter of consent in TTRPGs where that's not the case, where asking players not to include certain things, or not including certain things in your game, is perfectly reasonable, and where not doing so when someone needs it is entirely unreasonable. There are things that games do NOT need, that players should NOT need in order to have an enjoyable experience. A game does NOT need sexual assault, a game does NOT need graphic descriptions of abuse, or graphic descriptions of gore. A game does NOT need depictions of genocide. Yes, there are absolutely areas where compromise is a possibility. I've talked about a few possibilities of that here. Compromising on things like allowing a player to have a certain thing that's triggering for another player in their backstory as long as it doesn't actually occur within the game, agreeing not to graphically describe the blood and gore happening in battle, agreeing not to give graphic description of certain kinds of accidents or physical trauma. Yes, someone seeking to play a game like D&D and requesting no violence might be unreasonable. But requests that graphic descriptions are avoided is not, and nobody NEEDS those things in order to enjoy a game. You shouldn't NEED to include bugs, you shouldn't NEED to include a challenge where a character gets buried alive,  you shouldn't NEED to include rats, and neither should your players.

And this is especially true when it comes to what you are including in your story. As I say extensively in the first essay I did on this topic, part of being a GM is being flexible with your storytelling, because it's not YOUR story, it's a collaborative story, being told by you AND your players. You should be able to be flexible so you can give your players what they want, what will make them most happy, to let them explore the stories they want to explore. That also goes for giving them what they need to have a safe and fun experience. If rats are important to your world building, there's no reason you can't swap out rats for another kind of animal if a player has a rat phobia. If you've included sexual assault as an important piece of one of your story thread, there should be no reason that you can't swap it out for something else if one of your players is triggered by sexual assault.

The ONLY time you should be thinking about whether or not you should honor a player's consent requests is if what they're asking for would limit or effect the things the PLAYERS get to do in the game. As the GM, you should ALWAYS be able and willing to change things in your story in order to allow the players to feel safe and have fun.

Once you've made all your decisions about your players' consent requests, you need to make sure your players are aware of what's okay for them to do and what isn't. You don't have to say "because this person needs this thing". You don't even need to tell them that any of it is because of the consent requests. You just need to, before you start playing, go over the rules that are specific to your game.

It's important that you don't just worry about consent at the beginning of the game and then treat it like that's it, don't have to worry about it again. You should be doing check ins every few months. Sometimes people will realize that they needed a concession that they weren't aware of until the gameplay actually started. Sometimes people will go through things or have experiences after they originally talked to you before they started playing. You need to make sure that you're constantly checking in to make sure that everything is okay, that all of your players are safe and having fun. You can't always trust that they're just going to come to you if something happens. You need to take the initiative and check in with them. That's one of the most important parts of being a GM.

Dealing with your players' consent requests can sometimes be really easy. But sometimes it can be really tough, and you'll have to deal with other players and you'll be forced to make difficult decisions. But part of being a GM is dealing with the tough things that happen between players, and getting your players what they need. A lot of people think that being a GM is just making up the story and telling the players what they need to do. But a HUGE amount of being a GM happens outside of the game. It's not just about telling a story. You're responsible for your players and giving them what the need, and that takes a lot of interpersonal work. If you're not comfortable with that, or if you're not willing to do that, then being a GM probably isn't for you, and you'd be better off just writing your stories and putting them up online. Being a GM is a responsibility. Role playing games can be an incredibly vulnerable experience, and your players are trusting you to take care of them. Don't put people who are in a vulnerably position at risk just because you don't want to deal with the interpersonal, out-of-game part of the job.

There are actually a lot of really interesting thematic differences when it comes to Vax and Keyleth. The visual contrast alone is fascinating: Vax, the rogue, always decked out in dark clothes, dark armor, which became darker and darker as he entered the employ of the goddess of death, and Keyleth, bright red hair, dressed in warm, deep colors, her appearance reflecting the very earth from which she pulled her power. It's a very interesting contrast, and one that flips the usual dark/light contrast a bit. Usually, in fiction, this trope is typified by one party being very dark in their appearance, with the other being very brightly white, or colors very close to white. It's a visual way to set up the good/bad dynamic. But Vax and Keyleth don't quite play into that. There isn't a "good" one and a "bad" one. Their visual contrast speaks to much, much more.

Keyleth gets her power from the earth, which essentially makes her a servant of life. All of the magic she has is drawn from how alive the earth is, the living things around her, the air and the water that keep things alive. She can revive dead earth (and dead people) and bring life back into a destroyed place. Keyleth is a walking personification of the life that flows through nature and the power that comes from it, and it shows in her physical appearance.

Vax, on the other hand, even before he started to serve the Raven Queen, was a personification of something much darker. Before he made his deal he was all about sticking close to the shadows, the darkness as means of protection. Being unnoticed and killing silently. Staying out of the light was a means of survival for him. And then the goddess of death became his patron, making him literally a servant of death, the darkness of the end.

It's very interesting that their general outlook almost seems like it's the opposite of what they should be, given everything stated in the above. Vax does often struggle with his anxieties and his depressive episodes, just as Keyleth does, but there's a lot of hope and faith in Vax. Not just faith in his goddess, but faith in those around him, faith that the decisions he's made will mean something. His relationship with death (and Death) sometimes causes him sadness and worry about what it means for his future, but he's still always hopeful about what that relationship means. That it will keep his sister alive and that she'll go on to live a long, safe, happy life. He has so much faith in Keyleth, her strength, her ability to lead, and so much hope for her future as the leader of her people. His search for something bigger to dedicate himself to, first Sarenrae, then the Raven Queen, is based in the hope that there's something greater out there for him, Confusion and anxiety are often very present things for Vax, in his search for a path, in his constant worry over his sister, but so much of his decision making is based in hope and faith.

Keyleth, on the other hand, struggles so much with being hopeful and having faith. For a long time, when she looks to the future she doesn't see one where she's a competent leader, she's convinced that she'll never be good enough to lead. She sees the centuries that are stretched out ahead of her not as an opportunity or something to be hopeful about, but something that's almost life-ruining to here, something that automatically ends anything good before she can even have it because she can't think about the hope that it might be good, she can only focus on the idea of the pain she'll feel once it's gone.

Keyleth and Vax both have a lot of fear that influences their actions, but while Vax is able to find hope in that fear, Keyleth is just drowning in it.

One of the most blatant philosophical contrasts the two have is in their approach to the gods. Obviously, when it comes to Dungeons and Dragons and Critical Role, the idea of "faith in the gods" is different than the idea would be in real life as gods are just a historical and provable fact of the D&D world. So the idea of not having faith in them doesn't mean thinking they don't exist, it's more in having faith that they care, that they have the world's best interest at heart and that they want to help. While it's true that Vax went all in on the Raven Queen out of necessity, it's clear that he feels a considerable amount of faith in at least the idea that the gods do care and want to help people, as he had started down the path of following Sarenrae before the Raven Queen intercepted. He then puts so much trust in the goddess of death, even as he has worries about what that means for him and what her intentions might be, because he has faith that she cares.

Vax spent a lot of the first campaign feeling sort of lost. Earlier on in the campaign he was searching for a purpose, he wasn't sure if he was doing the right thing as a member of Vox Machina. And after Vex's resurrection and his deal with the Raven Queen, he was confused and unsure what the deal he made meant. In both instances he sought answers, sought his path, in a higher power. Earlier on it was Sarenrae, and then it was the Raven Queen. When unsure about what the future holds, he's willing to turn over his path to a higher power to guide him.

Keyleth is very much the opposite. She spends a lot of the campaign feeling lost as well, though for a very different reason than Vax. While Vax is unsure about what his path is, what the future holds, and whether he'll have a path that matters, Keyleth knows what her path is. She is fully aware of her destiny to become the Voice of the Tempest. It's actually in that knowledge where her uncertainty lies. She's not sure she wants the destiny that has been thrust upon her. She's not sure if she's worthy of it, if she's good enough to lead. She's not sure she wants the long life that comes with it, and that long life makes her uncertain about allowing herself to have other things in her life that she might lose.

But Keyleth has no interest in turning to higher powers when she's in doubt. She has a deep mistrust in the gods. Even before Vox Machina starts to become entangled in the dealings of the gods she's skeptical, citing the things she's seen people do in the name of the gods as her reason for not trusting them. She believe that the gods have anyone's best interest but their own at heart, and she feels that people use the gods as an excuse for their bad behavior. The situation with Vax and the Raven Queen only exacerbates that feeling, as she views it as, in a way, having something taken from her. She also sees the confusion and uncertainty it causes in Vax, and that only makes her more wary of and angry at the gods.

There were ways in which these differences are actually very good for their relationship. Because their experiences with things like destiny and religion, they have a perspective the other doesn't. A good example of this is after Vax communes with the Raven Queen for the first time and he talks to Keyleth outside of the Raven Queen's temple. Keyleth has seen Vax struggling to find he purpose and seeking a destiny, but she knows that having some grand destiny isn't something that's automatically going to bring someone security, happiness, that a destiny doesn't necessarily make someone great, and she tells him that he doesn't need a destiny or a grand purpose to be the incredibly man she fell in love with.