#pip rambles

Every other ships I’ve seen people get to the point of death threats over not agreeing on a pairing and then us over here with our polyamory:

doing a new save since 1.6 is now on switch!

and i decided to marry sam!!

i waited until year two so kent could be and the wedding and i do not regret it!

(except maybe the fact that the wedding was on kent's birthdya LOLLL)

bur anyway, here's the dialogue. kent's made me burst into tears.

also abby and penny had one, too!

but not sebastian, which i found odd..

So, I'm a huge DnD nut.

I've been playing for at least 4 years.

Some of my favorite characters to play are Aasmir, which have a tendency to veer into the Paladin and Lawful Good spectrum of play.

My first character I ever played, RIP Constance you were a real one, lived so strongly on the Lawful Good spectrum that I actually told our DM that if certain in-game parameters were met she would just self-destruct ... literally.

And, those parameters were in fact met.

Her health auto dropped to zero with no death saves - as was planned with my DM - and it was one of the most epic things I've ever played as a person who acts semi-professionally, and who is trying to learn improv and voice acting as a hobby.

It was awesome.

Her backstory would go on to inspire another character, one I'm playing in a current campaign, who, unlike her, breaks free of his Lawful Good Aasmir nature to get adopted by a royal family of Elves after an accident causes him to flee his homeland. He ends up getting trained as a wizard subclass that basically combines dance, martial arts, and music to cast magic as a ... kind of Elven soldier/ detective unit person? Sorta-ish? (For DnD people - He's a Bladesinger.)

Anyway, he was a man servant to his adopted older brother, and his whole goal is to get his little poop apprentice back where she belongs and then **FINALLY** get his butt home to see his mother again - by any and all means necessary.

No matter how unhinged his plots might be to get them where they need to go.

Still a good dude, for the most part, but he's not above, or beneath, disguising himself as the people who are threatening him and his friends (or other people in general) and then ... you know ... casually singing their sins to them while piercing them with a blade made of darkness and causing psychic damage?

Casually?

But, the guy this character killed was basically threatening his entire crew on his ship with undead that he did not disclose that he had on board. He spent money lavishly, and he was willing to give up the lives of his crew recklessly to make extra money.

Where Constance would have been content to do this captains bidding if she couldn't appeal to his better nature, because she promised him payment and the object they were told to give him was his payment, my current character was willing to assist and tip the scales on a mutiny that needed to happen for the good of the safety and lives of this fictional crew.

However, what this got me thinking about is that there are a lot of places the "lawful paladin trope" appears in media, and there are times in which you can actually see the *FLAWS* in this "lawful good" logic come through because the "good" of the "lawful good" doesn't always end up doing good.

And, I find it kind of interesting.

Note:

When I analyze from this place, it's not that I think the characters I'm about to reference themselves are bad, or are badly written, necessarily, I just think that this logic has flaws in it that can lead to some misplaced actions done out of something the character thinks is good but ends up having outcomes that are NOT good.

The only time I actually criticize the writing of a character is because I liked the character, but I felt the narrative for said character felt incomplete and actually affected the likeability of the character as a whole.

Fantasy Tropes: Knights And Mentors Who Think They Know Everything Because They've "Lived Everything"

Where you see this trope it most commonly is in fantasy stories.

Particularly, it's common for older, mentor, characters to hold this concept surrounding lessons, or morals, or views that they think the young person needs to adopt. It's interesting when, throughout the course of the story, this idea of "What is Lawful? What is Good? What is my Lawful Good, and does it need to change?" is challenged and/or IS changed by the characters over time.

One of my favorite book series of all time is Protector of the Small by Tamora Pierce.

I'm not *overly* fond of the other quartets in that series, in particular, I dislike the Immortals because I think the ending is stupid.

But, Protector of the Small is an amazing quartet of books.

(The best part about Tammy's world building is that she sets up the books such that you really can jump in just about anywhere. So, you can read Protector of the Small without having to read the previous quartets.)

But, the Protector of the Small books surround a young woman named Kell who wants to be the second female knight in hundreds of years after the practice of having female knights fell out of favor with the sensibilities of the nobles of the kingdom.

The King, Jonathan, does eventually allow her to apply and try for her shield, but, at the insistence of his nobility, he forces her to undergo a period of probation.

Lord Wyldon, who has one of the best slow burn character arcs, ends up doing everything in his power to ensure Kell fails while also not *actively* stopping her from succeeding.

Yet, through every single trial, despite every single obstacle placed in front of her by those noblemen, like Wyldon, neglecting her, or her peers actively trying to stop her - Kell succeeds.

One of my favorite examples of this is the bond she creates with Gour, the sort of like ... for lack of a better term ... cross between a hall monitor and the head of staff for housekeeping and his niece. When his niece, Lelassa (my queen), ends up in a bad situation due to her previous employment causing her some trauma with a "T," he all but begs Kell to take her on as basically a handmaiden/ chambermaid to help her hem clothes and such things.

Well, when Kell finds out that she's *responsible* for this servant of hers. She takes that VERY seriously.

So seriously, that when she finds out that one of her classmates and fellow knights in training has used Lelassa as a pawn to ensure she couldn't sit her exam by threatening her and putting her in danger that Kell forgoes sitting her exam to save Lelassa. Yet, in forgoing sitting the exam, it would require Kell to repeat all four years of her Paige training instead of moving forward to become a Squire and receiving a Knight Master.

Kell goes after Lelassa anyway because she loves her, and she loves her uncle. (Seriously, I LOVE ALL THREE OF THEM, BUT ESPECIALLY LELASSA, ALL SO MUCH YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!)

Yet, my point is all Kell's peers try to tell her to do the "Lawful" thing. Sit the exam. Don't repeat four years of school. We'll help you sort out everything after we're all done.

But, Kell looks to the spirit of what is "lawful."

"Chaotic" alignments aren't just about causing chaos. They're about characters following their hearts instead of a structured set of rules.

(Though, they can have some degree of morality - hence - being "Good," "Neutral," or "Evil." My current character is, technically, "Chaotic Good" - he follows what he believes will do the most good, in his heart, at any moment. Whereas, Constance had a pretty strict moral code that she attempted to stick to, however she was bound to an Chaotic Evil goddess, so, in the end, that's what ended up causing her problems.)

Kell continually refuses to be bound to what people assume or think chivalry is MEANT to be.

Therefore, in the end, she does more good by questioning the "Lawful Good" of those around her and beating to her own, somewhat Chaotic, little drummer.

In challenging others sense of what is "Lawful" and what is "Good," she presses up against the boundaries of the status quo. And, she ends up changing so many minds in the process - by her grace, by her humility, by her wit, and by her strength.

Lord Wyldon, by the end of the story, has grown so much.

And, it's one of the most satisfying moments when you see how much Kell thinks things are going to suck for her, how her former Knight Master has gone full beast mode to throw hands for her, and how much Lord Wyldon has changed in his understanding of what is "Lawful" and "Good" because of her.

Delightful set of four little books. It's quite a dark set of books though written in the late 90s/ early 2000s. But, it's really well written. I'd say best if you're ~15-16+ based on the level of violence described in the story as well as some of the content in the final book/ the boss at the end of the story.

"The Nothing Man" is a surprisingly real feeling villain for a YA fantasy story. (Especially in light of certain things going on today.)

Yet, these tropes don't just exist in the fantasy worlds of DnD and YA novels.

You see them present even in kids fantasy media.

I've often questioned why we don't see more episodes like Fancy Nancy's "Viva La Revolution" - which is about the kids standing up to their parents for not being allowed to climb their favorite tree, very cute - or more films like "A Bug's Life" - which I wrote about previously.

And, my spouse made an excellent point the other day:

We often only see kids stories, especially in a fantasy setting, from the perspective of the people in power.

So, it's really awkward to have people actively challenge those in power as "bad," or make your people in power actually bad, in the script, when your protagonist is the one in power.

One day, I hope someone is brave enough to have a kids' show where we actually have someone suck bad enough that they deserve to have the barricade put up outside their castle and get taken down a peg.

(Avatar: The Last Airbender was a one off and I want more.)

However, even if we don't have that, I still see this trope of "Lawful Goodness" having terrible effects on people as I watch shows with my kid all the time.

Sometimes, that gets recognized in the script. Sometimes, it does not get called out by the script.

Sometimes, it's done in a way that's satisfying at one point in the plot, and, then, later on, that "Lawful Goodness" trope appears in a different way and is not challenged in a way that feels satisfying. And, 9/10 that comes down to scripting, plot, and what I think people were going for with the story.

But, sometimes, I think the scripting, plot, or other things surrounding the problems with characters with strict adherence to "Lawful Goodness" not having adequate screen time, does those character(s) an injustice because they end up losing out on having a complete arc.

Why Roland II Works and Chrysta Almost Does: Arcs Need Space To Grow, And Questions Time To Be Asked

My kiddo is a huge Sofia the First fan, and I have also found myself really drawn to the story. It really does feel like a visual novel, and I love it.

Both of these characters are "Lawful Good" characters who end up having their perceptions challenged in various ways by the characters around them throughout the story.

Yet, to me, Roland's changes feel very satisfying. They feel earned as his plotline progresses.

However, we, as audience, have SO MUCH time to watch his growth.

We see Roland challenged from literally episode 1 about what girls vs. boys should be able to do, and we see him instantly respond and check his biases surrounding the "Lawful" nature of girlhood and boyhood.

We see him challenge his nature of "Goodness" as he responds to the way the Trolls help him and Sofia out.

We see him challenge his perceptions of "Lawful" and "Good" in the way he responds to Cedric in Season 4. But, specifically, we see his ideas of what is "Lawful" - both in terms of the nature of creatures and people - challenged in "In Cedric We Trust."

And, because his arc in challenging his perceptions of "Lawful" and "Goodness" gets to take time, it feels really satisfying when he grows in giving Sofia more space to express herself and have freedom, or rekindles his friendship with Cedric, or recognizes how much his own choices and thinking for himself matters.

When The Protectors, as a group are introduced, they have a sort of "Paladin" feel to them. They are ... exactly what they're branded as - a special force of magical creatures/ individuals meant to defend the Realms from bad stuff happening.

But, this job is dangerous?

Like, there is a genuine peril to be had when it comes to defending Realms from Evil?

Naturally.

As you do.

So, it makes sense like genuine sense that the people in charge of doing the training are going to be tough, hard, and are going to push the people they're training because like, in the middle of the battle field, you don't have **time** to do anything other than push?

It's like a Li Shang situation: We gotta get down to business.

Like, this is a really cool concept!

Also, when you combine the sort of Paladin mindset, a prefixed idea of "Lawful" and "Good," and a character who, through their definitions of "Lawful Good," creates biases so hard against your main character that it causes tension between the mentor and the mentee that we haven't seen previously in the show?

Also, an AMAZING concept that can be used to teach kids to stand up for themselves - even against adults in their lives.

However, when you start that arc so late in the final season that it's really difficult to give a satisfying wrap on that relationship between your protagonist and that mentor?

That's where I struggle a little with how Chrysta's arc is written.

The concept for what her character was meant to convey was SO cool. I don't actually mind her character, though she's not my favorite.

(I actually feel like she could have been if her arc had been flushed out more tho. /genuinely. She has a lot of what I like in characters, generally speaking. There just wasn't enough plot to bond with her & see her resolution. I say this because she has a lot of what I love **most** about True Pacifist Undyne in her.)

But, we don't t have the **TIME** to settle into how she has adapted her ideas of "Lawful" and "Good" in the same way we do in Roland's story, or True Pacifist Undyne's, or even Lord Wyldon's in Protector of the Small.

The first time I read Protector of the Small, I HATED Wyldon with the fire of a thousand suns. I left that series weeping over him.

The difference between him and Chrysta?

How much time they had on screen to show how they'd changed. The final scene with Wyldon and Kell in Protector of the Small doesn't have an equivalent between Sofia and Chrysta in StF, and I think that's a HUGE SHAME. And, I am so serious, that final scene with Wyldon changed my ENTIRE perspective on him. Because, he's a WAY bigger butt-head than she was. But, his ending has a punchline and hers, because of how much runtime she was allotted, doesn't get to have the same sort of satisfying conclusion.

What do I mean by this?

We see in "Undercover Fairies" where Chrysta's perspective fully starts to shift, and why she holds some of the biases she does, but this is the last time we really fully get to see her at all before the Finale episode.

In the Finale, we see Chrysta and Sofia together for all of a few seconds, bonding a little, before additional plot action starts happening and that moment of potential catharsis for them is interrupted by the action. After that, Chrysta is mind controlled, and after that, she becomes a part of the background without having a meaningful moment again.

I really think that's unfortunate because she's a fantastic character with a really unique perspective as well as having something to add to the plot of the story.

However, we needed at least one more episode with her to see her settle into that shift in perspective and to give that sort of catharsis for the audience. We needed just that one more moment to see how Chrysta could be both "Lawful" and "Good" in this new way as well as how she could retain her toughness and softness based on her experiences.

As an aside, this is why I don't buy Goodwyn's change in perspective much from the same show either. (I think in part because of the way Through the Looking Back Glass was inserted after Mystic Meadows?)

Love his character.

Wish we'd had a moment to see a little more of his actual shift in POV because I don't buy it.

I don't trust it.

We only get one more like little itty bitty one liner from him too in the finale, and that's it. It's the same problem.

Shifts in perspective take time, and they deserve to take up time.

That's all I'm trying to say.

Javert: A Tragedy In "Lawful Goodness"

My final character I want to bring up is someone who succumbs to their own "Lawful Goodness."

All the other characters I've brought up (other than the one I played) are characters who move **BEYOND* and who learn to adjust their thought patterns surrounding the "Lawful" and the "Good."

However, Javert from "Les Miserables" is incapable of doing this, and, thus, succumbs to his own inability to comprehend mercy.

Now, I have a few reasons for bringing Javert into the conversation as my final character to discuss.

One, he's a non-fantasy character, and I think bringing in a perspective set in reality is important.

Two, he's got a pretty "ordinary" job.

Three, he's also the only character that doesn't directly interact with children because he is not a parent or a teacher in any way shape or form.

Though, I think the last point has the most to do with why he might succumb to his "Lawful Good" mindset.

Kids have extraordinary neuroplasticity. It's why they learn things so quickly. It's why kids develop so many crazy skills seemingly all at once, generally speaking, when they're in the early years of life.

Therefore, when characters who are, generally, "Lawful Good" thinkers end up working with young people, especially young folks who think outside the box, they have a tendency to be forced to think in new and interesting ways.

Sometimes, this can be good for them and those around them. Sometimes, this can suck for those around them. Sometimes, over time, this can be a good thing for everyone.

What Javert doesn't have are people to challenge his belief sets.

Instead, he has people who frequently encourage his overzealous behavior.

Therefore, when his entire world view gets rocked with one incredibly powerful act of mercy, he doesn't actually understand what to do with it.

He literally cannot comprehend what's happening, and he ends up self-destructing when he tries to show any semblance of mercy in return.

When I say I love every single character in Les Miserables just about equally (except for the Thenardiers, they're awful), I mean it. I love every. single. one. of. them.

They are all flawed.

They are all beautiful.

They are all impossibly human.

And, I love them.

In his heart, Javert really thinks he's doing the right thing.

His intentions, despite his actions, are good.

He wants to see justice done and enacted, even when that justice lacks mercy.

What we come to find is that Javert's scrupulosity is so strong that he is crushed by the weight of it. He literally cannot handle being forced to choose between sparing the man who spared him, or letting a "convict who broke parole" go free.

He cannot understand the true gift of mercy.

His perception of "Goodness" won't allow him to do that.

And, he has never had time in the narrative, or in his "life," to interrogate what is "Lawful" and what is "Good." He has never been able to challenge those thoughts. He has never been allowed, or allowed himself, the space to move beyond his scrupulosity.

So ... he dies.

And, that's the tragedy of Javert.

As a character, there's nothing left for him.

He serves the purpose in the narrative to ask US to challenge ourselves to move beyond "Lawful" and "Good." (Or, at least, to widen our definitions of "Lawful" and "Good.")

Yet, I like to think that, if Javert had had a child, if he would have had someone to challenge his world view, or at least if he had someone to ask him questions earlier on in his story, he may have had a different ending.

All three of the previous characters, as I mentioned, interacted - either as parents, teachers, or mentors - with children. And, I do think it's the wisdom and neuroplasticity of kids that, when we let it, allows us to overcome the biases we carry and the ruts we may often find ourselves in, no matter what Realm or world we inhabit.

What All These Examples Show About "Goodness" Getting In the Way Of The Good?

I intentionally chose characters who are all over the map in terms of perspectives to focus on and sort of compare and contrast:

Javert is probably the most traditionally "conservative" and one-track minded of all the characters selected. He also is the only character who is not a parent or teacher, as I mentioned, and he is the only character in his story who dies. He is also the only character who is so bonded to his work that he doesn't give himself any opportunities to challenge his biases or his concepts of "Goodness" and "Lawfulness." Thus, he may change a fair bit from beginning to end of the story, but it's mostly in a way that shows mental deterioration because he won't allow himself to grow, expand, or redefine his definition and application of "Lawful Goodness."

Wyldon is pretty "conservative" as well, but he's also so bonded to his moral code that, at one point, when he thinks he showed undo bias to the boys over Kell, he actually tries to resign his position. He's very honor driven, but, by the end of the quartet, he sees a new ways to apply his ideas of "Lawful Goodness" that are more inclusive of women, like Kell, as well as more spirit-driven approaches to what "chivalry" means.

Chrysta is tough. This is due to what she has seen as well as what she has experienced in her life. These experiences have caused her to build biases in, around, and through her concepts of what is "Lawful Good." She has perceptions about the "Laws" of princesses and their culture vs. the Protectors and theirs. She has strong ideas surrounding what is "Good" for the Realms based on these "Laws."

Roland is much easier to convince than a lot of "Lawful" characters generally are, but he definitely has ridged ideas about certain things. Early on, Roland shares similar biases to Wyldon based on some of their shared definitions of what is "Lawful Good." (However, Roland's code surrounding what is "Lawful" means being a far better listener.) In this sense, Roland is "Lawful" by way of a strict code of social laws that he thinks ought to be followed, but he is willing to be challenged on those social perspectives in favor of the "Good."

Yet, what's most interesting is that Roland's true "Lawfulness" appears when under duress. His "Lawful Goodness" appears most often in a way that can - when watched - feel chaotic. This is in no small part because he will not stand for people he cares about being threatened, and he WILL act accordingly - immediately - using whatever weapon is closest.

Thus, not all "Lawful Good" characters act in ways that cause stability.

(There is something specific I have in mind, but it doesn't actually have anything to do with Tumblr.)

So, what I find most interesting is that so often these characters are good!

Their hearts are good.

Their intentions are good.

So much about them is good and/or is seeking good!

But, they don't end up, necessarily, doing good in practice.

Why?

How can someone who wants to do good, has a good heart, and who, for all intents and purposes, is a good person end up doing things wrong?

The answer is because of rigidity.

Inflexibility and being immovable in perspective - "conservative" thinking and ideology or no - causes problems in being able to PROBLEM SOLVE.

It's why these characters need more time in a story to change meaningfully than others.

Certain villains can be redeemed more quickly, and more satisfyingly, than a "Lawful Good" character can be shown to meaningfully change their biais IF (AND THIS IS A BIG IF) they are shown to have a certain degree of plasticity to their thought process.

Especially when we as audience/reader/whatever, see the impact of a character's rigid "Lawful Goodness" on the narrative in any kind of negative way, it really affects the things people look for in both what the characters come to understand as well as some kind of meaningful catharsis in the relationships between the "Lawful Good" character and those impacted by them. If we don't receive that catharsis and meaningful resolution, it's hard to accept the arc as one that feels narratively complete, unless, like Javert, there's some kind additional lesson to be learned FROM the discomfort.

In all other cases, we're constantly looking for more where none exists.

This can make certain characters who have nearly completed arcs feel flatter than they actually are.

It can make characters come off as harsher than they're meant.

It can also make their actions feel worse than they actually are because we don't have the soft final cathartic landing place we're meant to have in a narrative that feels more complete.

Final Thoughts

Honestly, there are probably more, and maybe even better examples that I could have chosen. But, these are the ones I thought of initially, and I'm sick, physically, and kind of tired.

So, if I sound a little crazy, I'm sorry. I did my best.

I just found this a really interesting phenomena as I was thinking about how to type up my recent DnD notes.

I suddenly realized how pervasive this was across all genres of literature - historical fiction from the 1860s to my kid's favorite TV show from the 2010s - and I was like: "Wow ... that's kinda neat."

So, here you go.

My mind is an enigma.

I'm exhausted.

Flames will be used to roast marshmallows.

Yes. That tells you exactly how old I am.

Except for Badlands Rumble Vash. Someone arrest this menace. He should not be freely walking around.