ohsoverylittlehoneybee reblogged
ohsoverylittlehoneybee reblogged
This scan took a while to clean up, because I wanted to redo the linework in the border to make it crisper, but! This is the final version of Card #00 in the MXTX-themed major arcana I'm working on; Shen Qingqiu as The Fool. One of the challenges I've set myself with this series is to incorporate as much of the "standard" iconography as I can; the Fool is generally depicted as a young man on a mountain path, carrying only a single bag and with a small brown dog at his heels. The Fool stands for a lot of things, but the big one is "new beginnings".
This was done mostly in watercolor - I used some marker for the skin, and there's some colored pencil in the final touchups, but otherwise, this is pen-and-ink and watercolor, and I'm quite pleased with how the composition and colors came out.
ohsoverylittlehoneybee reblogged
Yes! I like her so much!!
ohsoverylittlehoneybee reblogged
Golden Trio + Pinako and Den by Arakawa Hiromu
ohsoverylittlehoneybee reblogged
first time bingqiu doodle : )))
ohsoverylittlehoneybee reblogged
Lady of the Eyrie
ohsoverylittlehoneybee reblogged
after the storm ends
ohsoverylittlehoneybee reblogged
yes I know that he's my ex, but can't two people reconnect?
I only see him as a friend-
(-i just tripped and fell into his bed)
post-686 ichiruki x olivia rodrigo 'bad idea'
ohsoverylittlehoneybee reblogged
Do you happen to know the origin of the fantasy trope in which a deity's power directly corresponds to the number of their believers / the strength of their believers' faith?
I only know it from places like Discworld and DnD that I'm fairly confident are referencing some earlier source, but outside of Tinkerbell in Peter Pan, I can't think of of any specific work it might've come from, 20th-c fantasy really not being my wheelhouse.
Thank you!
That's an interesting question. In terms of immediate sources, I suspect, but cannot prove, that the trope's early appearances in both Dungeons & Dragons and Discworld are most immediately influenced by the oeuvre of Harlan Ellison – his best-known work on the topic, the short story collection Deathbird Stories, was published in 1975, which places it very slightly into the post-D&D era, though most of the stories it contains were published individually earlier – but Ellison certainly isn't the trope's originator. L Sprague de Camp and Fritz Leiber also play with the idea in various forms, as does Roger Zelazny, though only Zelazny's earliest work is properly pre-D&D.
Hm. Off the top of my head, the earliest piece of fantasy fiction I can think of that makes substantial use of the trope in its recognisably modern form is A E van Vogt's The Book of Ptath; it was first serialised in 1943, though no collected edition was published until 1947. I'm confident that someone who's more versed in early 20th Century speculative fiction than I am could push it back even earlier, though. Maybe one of this blog's better-read followers will chime in!
(Non-experts are welcome to offer examples as well, of course, but please double-check the publication date and make sure the work you have in mind was actually published prior to 1974.)
Origins of the "gods strength comes from their worshipers" trope?
I always liked the depiction of gods and worshipers as a sort of symbiotic relationship. Especially the idea of older gods whos power has waned because they are all but forgotten. It is something that has almost become the default relationship in modern fantasy.
Is this a modern phenomenon though, or does it have roots in older mythologies? I'm no scholar, but I don't recall much about Greek or Norse gods being particularly dependent on worshipers for instance. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can enlighten me!
My favorite example from there is Tinkerbell, but it also points to “Gods Need Prayer Badly” on TVTropes
Most of the responses in that Reddit thread are talking about the idea of gods deriving physical sustenance from sacrifices made in their honour, rather than the modern literary trope of gods gaining their miraculous powers from the strength of their worshippers' faith; the former is, of course, an ancient notion, but uncritically conflating it with the latter may result in misleading conclusions.
I had been thinking that in response to the original prompt, because it's an interesting difference, right? Modern religions often focus on orthodoxy, believing the right things; but ancient polytheisms didn't care about that. They cared about orthopraxy, which is doing the right things.
Ancient polytheistic religions were fairly functional and transactional. They didn't spend much if any time thinking about "belief"; at least in the Mediterranean, atheism basically didn't exist, and the closest you got was believing the gods didn't care about you. (Bret Devereaux writes about this, and other differences between D&D religion and real historical polytheisms, here.)
Cultures do ritual sacrifice because "it works". (Yes, it doesn't "work" in reality, but it "works" in the sense that the cultures are performing these sacrifices and surviving, therefore the sacrifices are at least compatible with surviving as a culture.) And that comes before the theory, honestly; but the purpose of ritual is to make things happen. They're tools. And "just as a hammer and a wrench do not very much care if you think the ‘right things’ about hammers and wrenches, so the ritual does not care if you ‘believe’ in it, or have the ‘correct’ doctrine of it, so long as – like the wrench and the hammer – you use the tool properly."
And then the sacrifice is an exchange.
Do ut des is Latin and it means, “I give, so that you might give.” ... The key here is the concept of exchange. The core of religious practice is thus a sort of bargain, where the human offers or promises something and (hopefully) the god responds in kind, in order to effect a specific outcome on the world.
So then we can ask, what was the theory for why this stuff worked? And that varied.
Now, why do the gods want these things? That differs, religion to religion. In some polytheistic systems, it is made clear that the gods require sacrifice and might be diminished, or even perish, without it. That seems to have been true of Aztec religion, particularly sacrifices to Quetzalcoatl; it is also suggested for Mesopotamian religion in the Atrahasis where the gods become hungry and diminished when they wipe out most of humans and thus most of the sacrifices taking place. Unlike Mesopotamian gods, who can be killed, Greek and Roman gods are truly immortal – no more capable of dying than I am able to spontaneously become a potted plant – but the implication instead is that they enjoy sacrifices, possibly the taste or even simply the honor it brings them (e.g. Homeric Hymn to Demeter 310-315).
Now you can see how e.g. the Aztec take relates to the "gods need belief" thing, but it's also very different, because the Aztec gods needed sacrifices. They don't care about the belief, they care about the stuff and the actions.
So the "gods need belief" thing is sort of a weird fusion of ancient polytheisms, which posited gods who needed or wanted sacrifice, with modern religions, with their focus on belief and orthodoxy. So it can basically only happen in a modern-invented pagan or polytheistic religion—which is, presumably, why we see them popping up in mid-century sword and sorcery stuff. It's a vague recreation of the shape of ancient polytheisms, but filtered through a very modern take on what religion is and how it works.
The short story "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Man_on_the_Subway" by Isaac Asimov and Frederick Pohl was originally written in 1941 and fairly explicitly posits gods powers as fueled by followers' belief, but it does so in a way that feels to me like it's exploring an idea from other fiction. So I doubt it's the first example, but being originally written even earlier than the previously cited A E van Vogt story (although it wasn't published until 1950), it might be useful to look at Pohl's other early stuff or extant work he might have been drawing on.
Well that's handy - someone actually just asked Neil Gaiman and got an answer which cites Deathbird Stories as expected, but also a book from 1888.
Interesting. I haven't read Richard Garnett's The Twilight of the Gods, so I can't personally speak to where it falls on the "gods derive physical sustenance from sacrifices made in their honour" versus "gods derive their miraculous powers from the strength of their worshippers' faith" continuum – it'd certainly be a considerably earlier example of the latter than I'd previously been aware of if it qualifies.
ohsoverylittlehoneybee reblogged
Henryk Płóciennik (1933-2020) — Honeymoon [oil on canvas, 1979]
ohsoverylittlehoneybee reblogged
I did! and suree, also my reference for this illustration is this picture haha
ohsoverylittlehoneybee reblogged
I regret to inform you that Discord's new Terms of Service includes an arbitration clause. You can find it here https://discord.com/terms/#16. This clause includes an opt-out, which I have transcribed here:
You can decline this agreement to arbitrate by emailing an opt-out notice to arbitration-opt-out@discord.com within 30 days of April 15, 2024 or when you first register your Discord account, whichever is later; otherwise, you shall be bound to arbitrate disputes in accordance with the terms of these paragraphs. If you opt out of these arbitration provisions, Discord also will not be bound by them.
These clauses are underhanded ways that corporations seek to deprive you of your right to participate in class-action lawsuits and your right to a jury trial. (This does only apply to us users ,other people still spread the word though )
Bad news, @noodelzmop. Arbitration basically means that if you want to sue Discord for whatever reason, the dispute needs to be handled in house. Specifically, in their house. If you don't get this email out, you're basically signing away your right to legal recourse if they do criminally shitty stuff to you, like with the McDonalds app.
I have been told that emailing "I am confirming that as of the date of this email, I am choosing to opt out of binding arbitration to settle disputes with Discord." With the Email you used for your discord account is enough for the notice but take this with a grain of salt as this was not said by a lawyer
reiterating that this only applies to US users
THIRTY DAY LIMIT BTW. I suggest taking sixty seconds to fire off a quick email with op’s recommended text. I have no plans to sue discord but better safe than sorry
ohsoverylittlehoneybee reblogged
Auntie Ethel's Race-Specific Vicious Mockeries
Because of this post by rpgchoices, I figured I'd compile all the other Vicious Mockery lines Auntiel Ethel can hit the player with. These don't include the origin companion specific ones. You can find those in the linked post.
DROW ELF
- Filthy underscum!
- Just another of Lolth's pretty harlots.
- Slaver. Sadist. How dare you judge me?
DROW ELF (MALE)
- Bare your throat, spider-bait.
- Kneel, boy. Just like the matriarchs taught you to.
- Bow to your betters, boy.
HALF-ELF DROW
- Even the Underdark doesn't want you, half-breed.
- Surprised you show yourself in public, abomination.
- A half-drow? How grotesque.
DWARF
- More beard than brains, the lot of you.
- Bet you'd trade your friends for a trinket or two, gold-eater!
- I'll squeeze that stone heart until it bleeds, dwarf.
DUERGAR DWARF
- Bow your head, slave. You remember how, don't you?
- Grey and useless as a stone comb.
- Need a new master, illithid lover?
DRAGONBORN
- Aww, where's your clan? Bet they'd exile you for that brainworm in a blink.
- Bet that honour of yours shatters easy as your scales.
- You foul-breathed little lizard!
GNOME
- Disgusting burrow rat.
- Bet your clan's happy you're gone!
- Try laughing after I rip your throat out, gnome.
ELF
- Fancy yourself immortal? We'll see how long that lasts.
- I'll show you what a true fey does, dearie.
- Elves are so pretty. Pretty worthless!
HALF-ELF
- I wonder which parent regrets you more, half-breed.
- How revolting. Another thin-blooded mongrel. Half-elf. Half-human. All useless.
HUMAN
- Another human rat infesting Faerûn.
- A human! So desperate to be special.
- Pity. That tadpole actually made you interesting.
HALFLING
- No flabby dwarf's a threat to me.
- Come closer, little softie. You'll be tender.
- A tiny, sweet morsel. Just for me.
HALF-ORC
- Come now, tusks-for-brains! Doesn't this make you angry?
- All that bloodlust. A little tap, and I bet you won't know friend from foe!
- Lumbering half-orc. Twice as ugly as your parents combined!
TIEFLING
- I'll burn you alive and everyone will celebrate.
- You're everyone's punching bag and no one's favourite.
- I see the Hells spit out another tragic little tiefling.
These were included in the dialogue document and the races listed are exactly what's in the dialogue's trigger flags.
PLANAR (githyanki, warforged)
- What kind of botched portal brought something like you here?
- Are you lost, little one? Maybe your soul will make it back home.
- I'll banish you for good, outsider!
RARE (aasimar, dragonborn, firbolg, genasi, githyanki, half-drow, half-orc, tiefling, triton, warforged, yuan-ti pureblood)
- I'm one step closer to wiping your kind off Faerûn for good!
- Freakish thing. I bet everyone stares when you walk by.
- Not a lot like you. You'll be my prettiest trophy.
BEASTIAL (aarakocra, kenku, lizardfolk, tabaxi, tortle)
- Think you're a person because you're walking on two feet? Adorable.
- Can't wait to throw a collar on your neck and make you my familiar.
- I'll tan your hide, beast!
BONUS: MINSC? FOR SOME REASON? I don't know why there seem to be unlabeled Minsc-specific Vicious Mockeries. Maybe Ethel played BG1/2 and just really hates him.
- How quaint! The hamster has a pet.
- Only evil here is what's inside you, ranger.
- Go rub your rat, soft-skull.
ohsoverylittlehoneybee reblogged
animated heroines appreciation week: favorite heroine from other studios
I am a little afraid to go home. I have been mortal, and some part of me is mortal yet. I am no longer like the others, for no unicorn was ever born who could regret, but I now I do. I regret. — Amalthea
ohsoverylittlehoneybee reblogged
been really into carnival glass lately
apparently these used to be given out as prizes for winning carnival games, hence the name?
tell me you don't want to eat that just a little bit. go on, tell me