u/Void-Cooking_Berserk

I don't get how he thinks it's going to work out for him. Like, I get the basic premise: take the flesh of strong foes and add it to his own, using his magic Numen flesh.

I have two issues with his plan:

1. He can only take the flesh from enemies weaker than him. This won't actually help him get stronger. Yes, his soldiers can overwhelm some foes with sheer numbers, but the really powerful enemies, like Malenia and Radahn, cannot be overwhelmed with numbers alone.

2. Why TF is he adding so many fucking arms to his body? Shouldn't he be replacing specific bones and muscles in his body? This should be precision surgery, not a fever dream of a Lego-building ten-year-old. Hell, he got his hands on the corpse of a young dragon, shouldn't he get himself a new pair of dragon legs? Just Grafting its skin onto his own would've been a better solution than what he came up with. Hell, he should've Grafted his own head onto its neck and be done with it!

Anyway, his idea was stupid to begin with, because the power of warriors depends on their minds just as much if not more than on their bodies. But even in the limits of his stupid idea, the way he went about it was so stupid I can't even.

"You're a wizard, Harry!"

It was amazing. A giant man gave him an invitation letter from a magic school, it had his name on it and everything.

Mr. Harry J. Potter, attic bedroom of a small farm on the edge of Surrey

He had always known there was something different about him, what with all the strange things that kept happening when he was scared or angry... Now he knew what it was.

He went with the giant to Diagon Alley and claimed his inheritance, got his first wand, cast his first spell. Heard the story of how his partner really died, instead of his mom dying during his birth and his father walking into the woods never to be seen again.

Except, the man kept getting details wrong. Everyone kept getting details wrong.

His second name was Jacob, not James. His parents names were Jeremy and Lianne. His green eyes were from his father, and his scar was from when his cousin Dorry dared him to smash his face against the window.

"Are you sure you have the right Harry Potter?" he asked Hagrid.

"Of course, there's no other Harry Potter! You look just like your father, I couldn't be wrong." the man said, which was also wrong. He looked like his uncle, and nothing like his father, who had been his uncle's half-brother.

He couldn't get through to the man, nor could he disappoint his family, who were so relieved he'd finally learn to control the strangeness around the farm, and they didn't have to keep inviting an exorcist (which never did anything for him anyway).

So he went to Hogwarts.

Do I need to justify why I have this question? I don't know, it would make sense of why the Jars were being made in the first place. I'm really just asking you if it makes sense, because I don't have the attention span to sift through all the relevant lore and maybe someone did it already?

I'm just going by the words of the spirits from the Bonnie Village:

"... it's the only reason life was afforded to you."

Which I understand as "we would've just killed you but we found a better use for you." And, you know, for all that I heard the "Jars are meant to reproduce the Crucible" theory, they don't actually do anything in that cold dungeon.

That, and the Gate of Divinity is shown to be fresh and bloody in the Marika-ascension cutscene. So maybe the Gate itself is just one (two) big "saint"?

Tell me if I'm tripping or not.

When Percy is sent to return the Master Bolt, Annabeth and Grover offer to join him, Luke offers as well. Annabeth prefers Luke, as her tried and trusted friend from back when it was just the two of them and Thalia, but the decision belongs to Percy.

The stakes are preventing a war between the Gods, and saving his mom from the underworld, and Grover had just failed to deliver him safely to Camp and was indirectly responsible for his mom's "death". And Luke was a more experienced demigod, his mentor, possibly invaluable on the quest. Percy chooses Luke.

Grover isn't about to give up on his dreams to become a Seeker, and he feels like he owes Percy for his mom, so he sneaks out and joins the trio. Percy lets him, despite Luke's and Annabeth's warning that "when there's more than 3 heroes on a quest, one will inevitably be lost". But the decision belongs to Percy, because it's his quest, and who said Satyrs count anyway?

Luke's goal is to meet up with Ares and deliver the Bolt to Tartarus, framing Percy in the process. Before that, he doesn't sabotage the quest, it goes pretty smoothly, at least from his end.

Grover is the one who keeps getting them in trouble, in the process of trying to prove himself. This deepens the rift between Grover and Percy on one side, and Luke and Annabeth on the other side.

By the time they meet Ares and Grover says he has a bad feeling about it, the others aren't inclined to trust his instinct, and Percy decides to try and trust the more experienced demigods this time, since his decisions kept getting them in trouble before.

It turns out the sidequest gave them the additional time/speed they needed, so Grover was extra "wrong" and eventually Percy decides to leave him behind and tell him to go home. They're going to go into Hades and he doesn't want anyone to get killed. Luke may or may not have talked him into it.

They get to Hades and Luke does the great betrayal, trying to push Percy into Tartarus in an epic sword duel. Luke is the better swordsman at this point, but Annabeth doesn't want to let Luke just do it, so Luke decides to sacrifice Annabeth too and is close to defeating them 1vs2. At the last moment, Grover catches up (maybe thanks to the flying shoes, idk) and kicks Luke in the back, throwing him into Tartarus.

The rest of the story goes very much like canon, they talk to Hades, escape, fight Ares, and get to Olympus.

Luke manages to climb out of Tartarus, where he would have had go down anyway to carry out Kronos' sarcofagus.

Idk, I just want to see a more dramatic/angsty dynamic between Luke and Percy before the reveal of his betrayal.

All we know is that a "Dorothy" might be somehow involved. Not even if she'll be the main character or even if she'll be on our side. Not even if the main inspiration for the story will be connected to her.

​

Even if we knew those things, consider this:

​

* P is never addressed as "Pinocchio" or even as "P"

​

* The plot of Pinocchio is that a sentient puppet tries to go to school, gets mixed up with a bad crowd, gets kidnapped, turned into a donkey, swallowed by a fish, almost used for firewood, and eventually turned into a real boy by a blue fairy.

​

* The plot of Lies of P is that a clockwork android is woken up by a blue-haired woman and slowly becomes human while suppressing a staged AI revolution and uncovering two separate plots to steal the souls of everyone in the city and use them to: a) achieve godhood, b) resurrect the boy who's soul powers the android.

​

* those plots have almost nothing in common. They only share some names and a theme of becoming human and the element of lying (which serves a different narrative function).

​

* OG Pinocchio doesn't have a dead boy's soul. OG Geppetto is a woodworker. Sophia isn't really a fairy.

​

* The original story has no alchemists, no human mutations, no industrial revolution, no puppet uprising, no crystalised souls, no attempt to achieve godhood, no resurrecting a dead son. Lies don't give humanity. There's no magical healing tree, no golden coin fruit.

​

* All we can guess about the sequel is that there's going to be some recognisable names from the story of Oz, we can't even know who's good and evil. Dorothy cam *be* the Wicked Witch of the West, as far as we know.

I want to hear what examples you know of something like that.

* The most basic example would be Fae unable to lie, or magically compelled to the wording of their contracts. Telling the truth is a kind of moral value they're held to, but it doesn't stop them from working around it either.

* Another example I've read recently are "psychometric echos". Some people are sensitive to the history of things they touch, so e.g. they can't eat food or wear clothes made with animal cruelty, slave labour, or other kinds of cruelty. If they do, that suffering clings to them, giving them nightmares etc.

* A simple example could be a "safe zone" like in MMORPGs/"we're really in a game" stories, but I feel like they're too trivial. I have never seen a story play around with the concept, showing how people try to achieve their goals *despite* the limitation, it only functions as a signal for the reader that the characters are safe.

I'm curious what other morality-enforcing magic systems you know or created, specifically where people try to live their lives *despite* it.

(I'm sort of looking for inspiration for how an actually benevolent deity could make the rules work, and how that would interact with people's free will.)

When the printing press got invented in Germany and started being exported, the English imported it and faced the problem of the set of letter blocks lacking the "thorn" letter. They replaced it with "y" and with the two letters "th", which is what survived to this day.

My question is, why didn't they make their own "thorn" letter blocks?

I've seen many people comment under identification posts "don't swing it".

As a newbie, how do I figure out if something is good enough to swing and not risk damaging it?

Let's say you want to put some worldbuilding into your fanfic, specifically an origin for the species of House Elves. I want to make it at least semi-believable and base the environment from which they supposedly came from on the physical traits they have.

Like, for example, a species of space-cowboys would originate from planet Texas, or something like that.

The physical characteristics of H. Elves:

\* humanoid

\* Adult height: 3 feet / 1 meter

\* Huge, bat-like ears

\* Big, baseball-sized eyes

\* Thin posture, little muscle, thin bones

\* do not grow fat tissue easily (or are all Elves we observe underfed?)

\* Pale, gray or brownish skin

\* no fur

\* vestigial hair on the top of the head and inside ears

\* Long, thin nose

\* Little to no clothing - customarily only covered with a toga, although all specimens observed in captivity

What does this tell us about the origins and natural habitat of H. Elves?

I imagine they would've evolved in underground tunnels and caves.

The ears and the eyes make me think that their habitat doesn't have much light, so their eyes need to be bigger to gather enough light and their ears are bigger because they rely on their hearing more. To be fair, that could also be from a nocturnal lifestyle.

Being short can also be an adaptation to underground living. It's a real world mechanism similar to island syndrome.

The long nose could be for poking in other people's business, but it could also be just in case you didn't see a cave wall so you only squish your nose instead of smashing your whole face on the rocks.

I do not think they were diggers, unless they relied on their magic for that. I imagine they would prefer natural caves instead of carving them like goblins do.

I'm not sure about the clothes part, but they kinda remind me of naked mole rats, and I imagine they're adapted to keeping themselves warm despite going barefoot all the time.

What do you think?

(To be open: I'm not actively writing this story, it's more of a mental experiment. I don't know if this is the right flair, I've never used it before.)

The physical characteristics of H. Elves:

* humanoid

* Adult height: 3 feet / 1 meter

* Huge, bat-like ears

* Big, baseball-sized eyes

* Thin posture, little muscle, thin bones

* do not grow fat tissue easily (or are all Elves we observe underfed?)

* Pale, gray or brownish skin

* no fur

* vestigial hair on the top of the head and inside ears

* Long, thin nose

* Little to no clothing - customarily only covered with a toga, although all specimens observed in captivity

What does this tell us about the origins and natural habitat of H. Elves?

TW: Politics, transphobia

So I guess I'm joining the club? I've been reading stories about evil mods, but it hasn't happened to me before.

There was a reaction post to the recent "anti-terrorism" document by the US government. The OP was having a bad reaction to it naming a "radical extreme transgender ideology" as one of the threats.

I took a quote from the doc, one that was in the reaction post. I added a screenshot from Wikipedia that (I thought) shows that the quote is complete bullshit. I even added a reply to the comment, clearly (I thought) saying that it is nothing but hearsay.

I got perma-banned for it. They didn't even tell me what rule I broke. I guess they thought I was spreading misinformation? I explained it to the mod, and asked for clarification what rule I broke and how. Here's response I got:

> No, we are absolutely not going to allow people to post those weird lies here.

And I got muted for 3 days.

It's almost funny, being banned because people have no reading comprehension.