I’ve seen some people claim that General Tullius can’t be blamed for the opening scene of Skyrim, in which the player character is nearly executed without cause in Helgen. After all, he was across the courtyard – he probably didn’t hear the captain say, “Forget the list, (s)he goes to the block.”

But after listening to several other lines of dialogue, learning more about the laws involved, and observing a few other events, I’ve concluded that Tullius was almost certainly both aware and guilty of the Last Dragonborn’s attempted murder. Here’s what led me to that conclusion:

1. General Tullius probably MADE the list.

For the list the LDB wasn’t on to exist, someone must have written it. The most likely candidate for this role is the mission’s commanding officer: General Tullius.

Even if he didn’t make the list himself, he should’ve at least been aware of who was on it, so he shouldn’t have needed Hadvar or the captain to tell him the LDB wasn’t on the list.

2. Tullius knew the LDB was there.

If you speak to him in Castle Dour, and tell him that you’ve already met/you were at Helgen, he’ll comment that you were “One of the prisoners, if I recall correctly.”

So not only was he aware of the LDB’s presence, but he noticed them enough to recognize them days, weeks, or even months later. And yet, even if they looked nothing like a Stormcloak, he couldn’t be bothered to say, “Hold up, who’s that and why are we killing them?”

3. The LDB wasn’t charged with a crime.

In the aforementioned Castle Dour conversation, upon being satisfied that the LDB is there to sign up with the Legion, Tullius says, “I’m sure your being imprisoned was all a terrible misunderstanding.”

In other words, he had NO knowledge of any crimes the LDB had committed. He didn’t offer a pardon, or demand that they pay off their bounty; he simply acknowledged that they’d done no wrong that he was aware of.

If he had no reason to believe they were guilty in Castle Dour, then he had no reason to believe they were guilty in Helgen. He just couldn’t be bothered to find out whether or not they were.

To Tullius, the life of a potentially innocent person simply wasn’t worth the bother of finding out whether or not they’d even committed a crime, let alone one worthy of death – not that a crime’s worthiness of death matters to Tullius, given that…

4. Look who else was on the list.

According to Imperial law, as outlined in the book Legal Basics:

“Any act of stealing, taking, or, without explicit written or verbal permission (or what a reasonable person would infer as implied permission) an item or items from a person, group of persons, or entity a reasonable person might assume to be sentient's place of residence, business, person, or other location a reasonable person would assume is secured from looting. The punishment for this crime may include a fine or incarceration, or a fine and incarceration.”

And yet, Lokir, a horse thief, was on the list to be executed. No other crime of his was mentioned, so it seems that Tullius knowingly sentenced a man to be killed for what a Legion general should have known was a crime worthy of a fine and/or incarceration, not death.

5. This isn’t Tullius’ only questionable execution.

Roggvir, the man who’s executed when the LDB first visits Solitude, claimed that Ulfric’s killing of Torygg was no murder – Ulfric challenged the High King to ritual combat, which was legal in Skyrim.

His claim is supported by Sybille Stentor, who’s firmly against the Stormcloaks’ goals. She acknowledges that “By Nord custom, once the challenge was issued in court, Torygg had no choice but to accept. Had he not, Ulfric would have had cause to call a new moot and a new vote for High King.”

She claims there was “no choice,” but in reality, Torygg had a choice: he could have refused, and allowed the moot to choose a new High King. He chose his career and his honor over his life, and consented to the duel.

Whether the way Ulfric won the duel was honorable or not is a subject for another discussion. Killing Torygg instead of incapacitating him was, in my opinion, unnecessary and therefore wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that the High King recognized the legality of the fight and consented to it.

Therefore, the duel was legal under Skyrim’s laws, and by extension, so was Roggvir letting Ulfric leave.

Now, there is some ambiguity as to whether Roggvir’s execution was ordered by Tullius or Jarl Elisif, but given Elisif’s kind nature and Lokir’s execution by legionnaires, Tullius seems like the more likely candidate.

One could argue that the duel, while legal under Skyrim’s laws, was illegal under the Empire’s. But Tullius didn’t declare the duel illegal. He simply pretended it never happened, and had Roggvir killed under false pretenses.
​
All in all, the Last Dragonborn's wrongful near-execution wasn’t one-off mistake.

It was part of an ongoing pattern of questionably legal executions, ordered or knowingly permitted by a man who almost certainly knew that the random traveler who wasn’t on the list was about to be killed, but who couldn’t be bothered to find out whether they or his other victims deserved to die.

If the title of this post pisses you off, I understand. Brunwulf is an immediately likable character, and when a person seems willing to stick up for the downtrodden, we want that to be real.

But the more I play Skyrim, the more I notice that some of his claims just don’t line up with my firsthand experiences, and I tend to believe observable events over unverified hearsay. So today, I thought I'd take a break from talking about my art and stories, and share my musings about someone else's.

In this post, I’ll share a few of Brunwulf’s claims, and the experiences that caused me to doubt them. If you have any lore that supports or contradicts my observations, please feel free to chime in!

Claim 1:

“He’s tough, loyal to his men and a good leader, but if you’re not a Nord, Ulfric will never trust you.”

My experiences and observations:

I’ve played through the Stormcloak questline as an Altmer and a Dunmer – two of the races Ulfric’s detractors would expect him to distrust the most. By having Galmar ask “Why’s an (insert race here) want to fight for Skyrim?”, the developers went out of their way to make it clear that the Stormcloaks know what you are.

And yet, once you’ve proven your mettle and commitment, you’re entrusted with delivering a message to Whiterun, acquiring enemy intel and delivering a forged replacement, blackmailing a government official, and more. I think it’s safe to say that Ulfric – or at minimum, Galmar – trusts you.

Claim 2:

“Whenever a group of marauders attack a Nord village, Ulfric is the first to sound the horn and send the men. But a group of Dark Elf refugees gets ambushed? A group of Argonians, or a Khajiit caravan? No troops. No investigation. Nothing.”

My experiences and observations: 

A few days before I wrote this, I collected a bounty on the giant at Steamcrag Camp. For those who aren’t familiar with it, there are a few things you should know:

1. It’s nowhere near Nord land.

2. There’s an “Official warning” sign nearby, which says:

“Attention citizenry

The giant here has been given leave to keep his camp. Please do NOT attempt to make trade, disrupt the mammoths, gawk at, or otherwise disturb the giant. Resting here is not advised.”

This implies that the giant has been behaving himself, until the events of #3.

3. Right beside the giant camp, there is a dead Khajiit, and a wagon whose severely smashed-up state strongly suggests a giant attack. There’s a second dead Khajiit inside the camp, as well as horse meat, presumably taken from the travelers’ slain horses.

4. Someone put a bounty on the giant who lives there, and it wasn’t Brunwulf. It was Ulfric.

Now, one could argue that “kill the giant” is a radiant quest, so it doesn’t really reflect on Ulfric’s character or intentions. But is that really going to be your in-universe explanation?

A giant who was officially allowed to keep his camp gets a bounty on his head after killing two Khajiit and their horses, and the only reason Ulfric put a bounty on him is because the Random Number Gods made him do it? You’re free to choose your own headcanon, but that’s sure not the one I’m going with.

And yes, one could argue that Brunwulf was right about Ulfric not sending the troops to deal with it, but how often do we actually see ANY Jarl on EITHER side of the war send their own troops after bandit camps, giants, or other such menaces outside their city walls? In Skyrim, leaving some paper at the inn and waiting for a random bounty-hunter to solve the problem is a bipartisan strategy.

That said, I do know of at least one instance where Ulfric (or someone under his command) DID send the troops. It’s an unmarked location known as “Trolled Stormcloaks Darkwater Overhang,” and in it, you find two dead Stormcloaks and the troll that killed them, as well as a note that says:

“Captain,

There have been multiple complaints about attacks near the river northwest of The Rift. We could use some more civilian support from that area for the war effort, so send a few men to investigate. It's probably just a couple of wolves, so you'll only need to send at most two men.

Happy hunting”

It doesn’t say anything about the race of the people complaining. It just says they need civilian support for the war – something settlements are better equipped to provide than travelers.

That, combined with the bounty on the Khajiit-killing giant, makes me wonder if Brunwulf is mistakenly assuming that Ulfric’s troop deployment decisions are based on race, when they’re really based on wartime strategy.

Claim 3:

“If Ulfric had his way, anyone who wasn’t a Nord would be shipped right out of Skyrim.”

My experiences and observations: 

I’ve finished the Stormcloak questline twice, and the only indication that anyone besides the Thalmor and the people still fighting for the Empire was getting deported or otherwise kicked out, either during the questline or after, was the following line of dialogue from Stormcloak commanders:

“Soon we’ll rid Skyrim of elves, their bloody Justiciars, and the Jarls in their pockets.”

I can definitely see how that would lead people to assume that all elves will be unjustly deported, and it is undeniably wrong of these commanders to make innocent elves worry for their futures like that.

But I can’t recall hearing or reading a single line of dialogue from Ulfric or Galmar that indicates that either of them intends to banish any elves besides the Thalmor. In fact, an Altmer named Niranye is heavily implied to have moved into Windhelm and bought a house there during Ulfric’s reign, and the people who mix Windhelm’s medicines are an Altmer and/or an Imperial.

Based on those facts, I believe that by “elves,” those Stormcloak commanders meant “Thalmor.” If that is the case, of course, they should just frikkin’ SAY “Thalmor,” but the fact that they’re careless with their phrasing doesn’t mean Ulfric is going to deport all non-Nords from Skyrim, or even that he wants to.

Claim 4:

“All I did was talk to Ulfric.” (I couldn’t find a line of dialogue that neatly encapsulated the whole thing, but several related lines of dialogue indicate that Malthyr Elenil asked Brunwulf to talk to Ulfric about the Windhelm Dunmers’ problems, and Brunwulf claims that he did so.)

My experiences and observations: 

I believed this one was true, until I heard the following dialogue:

Jorleif: “Sir, there continues to be unrest in the Gray Quarter.”
Ulfric: “Blasted dark elves. I don’t suppose you could tell them that I presently have larger concerns? Such as all of Skyrim?”
Jorleif: “They don’t seem to be very sympathetic to our cause, sir.”
Ulfric: “Let me know if you hear anything more substantial.”
Jorleif: “Of course, my lord.”

While this isn’t a great response to the revelation that your citizens are upset, it strongly implies that Ulfric doesn’t know the specifics of the Dunmers’ concerns, but that he actually WANTS to. Why would he ask for more substantial information if Brunwulf had already given it to him?

Ambarys Rendar’s line, “I tried to get Ulfric to even come down here to see the squalor, but the High Lord of His Mightiness couldn’t find the time,” implies that Ambarys – not Brunwulf – told Ulfric about the Dunmers’ displeasure with the state of the Grey Quarter.

But given that even the steps leading up to the Palace of the Kings are in disrepair, AND the fact that Brunwulf himself isn’t able to start repairs right away if the war ends with him becoming Jarl, I think it’s safe to say that, as with the deployment of troops, the decision not to renovate the city in the middle of a war is based more on tactical and logistical considerations than racial ones.

All in all, I can’t help but question whether Ulfric has even been made aware of the issues, such as Rolff and Angrenor’s harassment, that he could realistically address during a war.

Did Brunwulf actually speak with him, and if so, did he give him anything specific and realistic enough to even be actionable? Given all the other questionable claims he’s made, I’m not convinced that he did.

Add in the fact that he's in love with the blatantly racist Elda Early-Dawn, and his credibility sinks even further.

So, what do you think?

Is Brunwulf Free-Winter lying? Is he telling the truth, based on information I missed? Did he make a few superficial observations, base some sweeping assumptions off of them, and never bother fact-checking them before sharing them with anyone who would listen?

If you’ve got any lore to support or further refute his claims, I’d love to see it.

This post includes MAJOR spoilers for the end of Subnautica: Below Zero.

I’ve seen a few people complain about how, at the end of the game, it seems like Robin Ayou just throws her whole past life away to run off into the unknown with a person she recently met.

This is a valid concern; she clearly has a job, at least one friend who was willing to risk pissing off Alterra to help her, and – assuming he’s still alive – her dead sister’s cat. It wouldn’t be right to pretend all that doesn’t matter just because she spent a few weeks playing build-a-buddy, especially given that she promised Cal she’d find her way back.

But there are several pieces of lore and dialogue that make me think flying away with Al-An is both the most sensible and the most in-character thing for Robin to do – IF she first says goodbye to her friends and retrieves her cat.

1. Getting yeeted into the unknown is normal for her.

In the voicelog “Minerals galore”, Robin says, “I didn't want another situation like Byzantos-5. When XenoWorx dropped me off, there were barely any resources. I survived off the land for three months with just a knife, my lucky PDA, and some rope. I am still kind of proud of that, though.”

XenoWorx also promises that Alterra buying a controlling stake will give them “More equipment. More research. More risk. More experimentation.” The fact that “more risk” is listed as a selling point says a lot about the type of people who sign up there. And speaking of said buyout…

2. Robin has some damn good reasons NOT to go back.

Robin never trusted Alterra. She knew they’d clip her wings, and she expressed concern that they’d “Alterrorize” her sister. After what she learned during her exploration of 4546B – an exploration that would probably get her in deep, expensive trouble if Alterra found out – she has even more reason to believe that if they get the chance, they’ll clip her wings, misuse her work, or both – or worse.

And now that they own a controlling stake in XenoWorx, they have that chance.

It’s implied that Alterra has already killed her enjoyment of working with XenoWorx. Consider the following bit of dialogue:

Al-An: Do all humans like work?
Robin: The lucky ones do.
Al-An: Are you lucky?
Robin: I used to think I was.

Before Alterra got involved, her leaving her old life behind would’ve seemed off. Now, it seems more like sensible self-preservation.

3. Even if she DOES ultimately go home, it makes sense for her to leave with Al-An.

For one thing, her friend is potentially about to face either the loss or the wrath of their entire species, and she wants to support them through that painful period.

And for another, as she explicitly states, she doesn’t have another ride. She was probably originally planning to leave via the same shuttlecraft she came on, but then the meteor she was using to hide from Alterra split and ended that ship’s whole career.

So it is quite possible that she’ll go home and resume her old life, but personally, I much prefer the idea that she’ll do what she said she was ready to do, and leave the past behind.

Collect Potato, say goodbye to her friends (or, even better, find a way to stay in touch), and then leave Alterra in the dust to go do what she loves most: explore the universe (or at LEAST, the Architect homeworld) and discover cool lifeforms, this time with a sapient space-faring alien at her side.

What do you think? Do you want to see Robin Ayou return to her old life, or do you prefer the scenario where she leaves the past behind?

The current movement against police brutality has been occupying a lot of space in my mind and conversations lately, and I thought it was time for me to put some of my thoughts into text art so others who feel the same way can show it if they want.

​The goal in these designs is not to demonize the police, but to hold them accountable for their actions and for the actions they allow from other cops.

There will probably be more to come, but here are the first few designs:

If you share these opinions, and you want to show it on your clothes and accessories, I've got lots of options for you in my RedBubble and Society6 stores.
​ 

Here are the links to the items in the collage:
​
​Face Masks
Drawstring Bags
Pin Buttons
Water Bottles
Tote Bags
iPhone Cases and Skins
Lightweight Hoodies
Travel Mugs
Posters
Coffee Mugs
Tapestry
Dresses

If you want other ways to express your support for Black people and the Black Lives Matter movement, this article gives you several options to choose from.

It's been just over a week since Avengers: Endgame hit the theaters, and the ending definitely stuck with me.

I've been thinking about it a lot over the past few days - in particular, I've been stewing over the fact that two characters in particular could have had a canon-compatible happy ending, but didn't.

This post contains HUGE spoilers for Endgame, so if you're avoiding those, please bookmark this post and come back to it after you've watched the movie.

Are you spoiler-proofed? OK. Here we go.

The heroic sacrifices of Tony and Natasha were poignant and necessary to the Avengers' victory, but for the two of them to STAY dead was not.

If anything, their continued state of deadness was LESS probable than their resurrection, because if I thought of a canon-compatible way to save them before the movie even ended, Bruce Banner can, too.

If you're still sad about their deaths, and you'd rather mentally live in a world where they're still alive, here's a short fanfic I recently wrote, in which Bruce did what he SHOULD have done in the movie.

If you aren't interested in the fanfic, and just want the fan theory:

As long as the Infinity Stones are present and intact, they maintain a stable flow of time, and removing a person or item from the past doesn't seem to change how that person/thing affected the timeline after they were removed.

Because of this, through the power of quantum time travel, Past Gamora was able to reenter the timeline after the point where she was sacrificed to the Soul Stone, without causing her to be absent in the years between her removal from the timeline and her return in Endgame.

Thanos, too, was retrieved from the past without disrupting the sequence of events in the primary timeline. Even after the Stones were destroyed, the disappearance of his past self didn't stop him from having been present in his retirement home when the Avengers arrived.

That being the case, if versions of Tony and Natasha were removed from the timeline before the Stones were destroyed and brought to the present, their actions after their removal would have been preserved.

Nat would still get the Soul Stone for Clint, and Tony would still destroy Thanos' army, but both characters would still be alive.

There would still be a cost. Heroic sacrifices don't come for free.

These past versions of the fallen heroes would be missing at least five years' worth of memories - which, in Tony's case, includes ALL his memories of his daughter. He would have to rebuild his relationship with her from scratch.

They would both forget all the time they'd spent bonding with people after the Decimation, the new friendships Nat had formed, and the years Tony and Pepper had spent as husband and wife.

But there would still be hope. They'd still be alive.

And all the people who loved them, in their universe and ours... all the trauma and PTSD survivors who saw themselves in Tony, and needed that representation of their pain to have a happy ending... all the people who found solace in the idea of Irondad... could live in a world that's that much brighter.

What did you think of the end of Endgame and this fan theory?

Do you think it was a fitting end to Natasha and Tony's stories, or do you wish it had gone differently?

Do you agree with my theory, or did you see a hole in it?

I look forward to reading your comments.

Have you ever wanted to be friends with an artist or writer you admired, but felt like you'd just be a bother if you tried to contact them?

An artist I follow recently had that dilemma. What came next was one of the cutest interactions I've ever seen, and I had to share it with you.

This person had admired one of the other creators on DeviantArt for a while. She was one of his first followers, and he credited her with the fact that he'd put so much effort into his ongoing fancomic.

He loved the cuteness of her art style, and he wanted to be friends with her. But he didn't ask, because he was shy and worried that he'd just be a bother to her.

One day, he mustered his courage, made an epic-looking piece of fan art for one of her original characters, tagged her in it, and explained in the description how much he respected her and wanted to be her friend.

You know what she said in response?

After spending a few paragraphs gushing over the awesomeness of his fan art, she told him she had wanted to be friends with him!

Why didn't she ask, then?

Because he seemed so busy, had such detailed art, and had so many followers, she'd thought she was the one who would be a bother!

A couple replies later, they were discussing which sites or software they'd use to chat with each other.

Will it always end that way?

Probably not every time, but you never know until you try.

In most cases, the worst thing that's likely to happen is that you don't get a response.

If that happens, it's probably nothing personal. Some people really are just that busy, and if they replied to every message, comment or friend request they got, they'd never do anything else.

If you aren't comfortable with outright asking to be friends, you could start out with something more low-key.

Show your interest and conversation skills by making insightful comments about their stories or art, or by asking questions about them, their characters or their work.

If you're up to it and you feel like the time is right, maybe ask if they'd be interested in chatting sometime. Find out which times of the day and week work best for them, and which methods they prefer to use for conversing online.

A quick disclaimer:

This advice only applies if you actually want to be friends with them. If what you really want is to get fame or exposure through being friends with a popular person, they probably won't appreciate it, with good reason.

But if you seriously want to strike up a friendship, go ahead and ask.

Some will say yes. Some will say "no" or ignore you. Others (like me) might prefer to let the friendship grow naturally rather than just declaring it official right off the bat.

Whatever happens, it won't be the end of the world, unless you REALLY don't handle rejection well and you have access to a doomsday device.

Sure, the possibility of rejection stings, but in my opinion, the chance of a great friendship - and of making your favorite artist's day - is worth it.

Is there a person you've been wanting to make friends with?

Did this blog post inspire you to take the leap and reach out to them?

I'd love to hear from you!

If you're interested in character design, you've probably seen your share of tips. Some are good advice that should be followed, some are absurd, and some are misguided and pretentious attempts to apply blanket rules to a field with lots of variables.

But there are a few rules that I believe are universal, and that far too many character designers seem to blatantly disregard.

Here are some practical, commonsensical tips you can use to make your characters' appearances feel more real and fit the characters better, without restricting your creative freedom to "their outfit must have X number of colors!" in the process.

Character design tip #1: The character's outfit should fit the situation.

This especially goes for people who design female characters.

OK, it goes for all genders, but fictional women seem to be the most frequent victims of character designers who pretend their creations are smart, strategic people, and then send them into battle moronically and suicidally underdressed.

If your badass supersoldier spy is going undercover at a cocktail party, sure, you can put her in a flattering dress.

But if she's going into battle with her cleavage bared, against opponents who won't be distracted by that sort of thing, you're ignoring the basic storytelling principles of keeping characters in-character and making their decisions plausible just to shoehorn in a bit of extra boobage.

Granted, there are exceptions to every rule. Having a fancy battle dress is practically a requirement for being a magical girl, and their magic powers tend to make up for the disadvantages their wardrobes present, so there is some leeway there.

(Though, come to think of it, I'd love to see a magical girl series where their transformation resulted in armor instead of dresses. That would be a smart, interesting twist.)

Anyway, back to character design tips.

When it comes to armor, if you're thinking of depriving your character of that protection so their movements won't be restricted, bear in mind that a well-constructed suit of armor has approximately the same range of motion as the person inside it.

So while you don't want a stealth-based character who needs to sneak around, slip through small spaces, or blend into crowds clanking around in full plate armor, a character on the battlefield needs a better reason than "I need flexibility" to go unprotected.

Also, if your knight with girl parts is wearing boobplate (a 'breastplate' that cups and emphasizes her boobs separately, as opposed to covering the whole chest in one smooth curve), her blacksmith needs to be fired for being bad at their job and recklessly endangering their customers.

Because boobplate is suicide.

Here are some practical questions you can ask yourself to determine what outfit is appropriate for the character's situation:

1. What is the goal of their outfit?

Are they trying to blend in? Look sexy (for a good in-story reason, NOT a meta-story "sex sells" reason)? Protect themselves in battle? Carry every high-tech spy gadget invented by every sapient species at once, just in case?

Their outfit should reflect this goal.

2. What resources are available to them?

If your character is dirt poor and unwilling to steal, they might not be able to acquire armor or fancy clothing. Unless, of course, they have a benefactor who's willing to help them, whether out of altruism or because it's required for the mission for which they're being hired.

Your character's clothes should reflect their era, their geographical area and its culture and available clothes, and their current and past financial situation.

I mention 'past financial situation' because they might, for example, still have nice clothes that they bought before their finances crashed. Their whole life needs to be taken into account, to the same degree to which their past influences their present.

3. What is the weather like?

Unless they ended up in a location they didn't expect to visit, or the weather changed suddenly, your character should be dressed for it.

Unless their wardrobe comes with built-in thermal regulation, they're innately temperature-resistant, or they need their suit of armor regardless of the climate, it makes no sense for them to have the same type of outfit in a tropical or temperate location and a snow-covered forest. (CoughBlackWidowCough)

When taking the weather into account, be sure to consider how much time the character has to prepare and acquire/pack clothes, whether or not they would see this kind of weather coming, and whether they'd have the resources to get appropriate clothing with the amount of notice they had.

Character design tip #2: The outfit should reflect their personality and abilities.

This is closely related to tip #1, but is distinct enough to warrant its own section.

If a character is cocky, unwise, rebellious, or wants to mentally throw the people around them for a loop, they might deliberately choose to dress in a way that's inappropriate to the situation.

For example, they might enjoy showing up in court with a pair of bunny ears on their head, or striding onto a battlefield shirtless because their healing factor will make up for it and the sight of their wounds healing will demoralize their opponents.

Or they might just charge into battle shirtless because they're way too hot-blooded and reckless to care.

But if a character is very serious and practical and has no superpowers, they should dress accordingly, especially when going into battle.

If a character is very comfortable with her body and sexuality, is too innocent to think much of showing skin, or simply doesn't give a crap what other people think of her, then it makes sense to have her show up in a crop top or revealing dress.

But if she's very shy or modest, or has openly expressed disdain for women who use their sexuality to get ahead in life, then showing her cleavage off will probably be out of character in most situations.

(CoughAerynSunCoughCleavageInBattleCoughWTFCough)

Their past, and the beliefs and coping mechanisms they developed as a result of it, should also play a role in your outfit decisions.

A character who's been sexually abused or assaulted might try to hide their body and attractiveness for fear of getting the wrong kind of attention. Or they might deliberately dress sexy in an attempt to reassert control over their sexuality.

Or they might just continue dressing the way they did before, whatever that way might be.

Once again, it depends on their personality and decisions.

Whatever clothing choices your character makes, the basic rule holds true: it should be in-character, and should fit their beliefs, personality, ability and situation.

Character design tip # 3: The character's body should fit their lifestyle and profession.

Can we talk about Lara Croft's arms? Her skinny little arms, with which she supposedly pulls herself up ledges? This woman should have some serious upper body muscle tone... but in some iterations, she doesn't.

This is an example of what NOT to do when designing a character, and it isn't just the ladies who get hit with it.

While females tend to be more consistently shoehorned into a single, sometimes implausible body type, characters of other genders have also been given this treatment.

Here are some examples of how a character's lifestyle might affect their physical appearance:

If your human character has a highly active lifestyle involving frequent feats of strength, give them the musculature they'd realistically require for the tasks they perform.

(Obviously, supernatural/alien/shapeshifting characters get some leeway here.)

If they frequently get into fights that involve cuts and/or burns, are not perfect at dodging, and don't have the medical technology or superpowers required to swiftly and flawlessly heal wounds, having some scars would be more realistic than their skin being smooth from head to toe.

If they live in a hot climate and are outdoors frequently, they should probably have a tan, unless they have a skin condition or wear clothing that prevents tanning.

For that matter, they should probably also have body parts that aren't tanned, unless they were out there nude.

Depending on their hair type, their hair might also get bleached by the consistent exposure to the sun.

If they use crutches or a manual wheelchair a lot, their arms should show the effects of the muscles being frequently exercised.

When you're designing your character's body, consider where they live, what experiences they've had, and what kind of activities they frequently do.

And for the love of all things holy (or at least, for the sake of plausibility, good-quality storytelling, and not making me roll my eyes at you), don't just design them for sex appeal in a way that makes no sense in light of their lifestyle or their past.

Please. Just don't.

Character design tip #4: Their voices should fit their background.

While watching Tangled and How to Train Your Dragon, I noticed a weird pattern:

The adults spoke with an accent that their children didn't share.

Rapunzel had never heard any voice other than Gothel's since she was a baby, yet for some reason, she never picked up her "mother"s accent.

And while the adult vikings all spoke with a Scottish accent, their children didn't.

This seemed weird and unrealistic enough to break immersion a bit, even in stories where hair glows, horses act like hyper-intelligent dogs, and dragons exist.

TL;DR: Keep your character designs plausible and in-character.

Sure, there are other, more nuanced and advanced facets of character design that someone who's studied the field in more depth could get into.

And even then, there would probably be exceptions to most of the rules they laid out, or rebellious try-hards who would take their "don't do this" as a challenge and find a way to make a maligned design practice work. (CoughProbablyMeCough)

But at the core of the process of designing your character, a simple, universal principle holds true:

Their appearance and wardrobe should make sense in light of their personality, environment and activities.

It's just that simple.

Why does the Star-Lord/Gamora ship bug me so much?

No, it's not just the mind-numbing predictability of the fact that if the protagonist is male, and a physically attractive female happens to be a major member of the cast, they'll most likely get together - especially if they argue with each other.

Heck, this mandatory component of a happy ending doesn't even require that the female is a major character, or even that she's really a character.

She could be the barely-mentioned non-character who gets handed to him like the prize at the bottom of the cereal box as a reward for his heroics, no relationship development needed, as long as the requirement that a happy ending must include romance is fulfilled.

That pet peeve of mine notwithstanding, the bland obviousness of the couple is forgivable. It's a big obstacle to me actually LIKING the ship, but it isn't what makes me wish the ship would sink.

It was two scenes in particular that ruined the Peter/Gamora ship for me.

​Let's look at the first and worst of them:

Peter: (Pulls Gamora into a dance.)

Gamora: What are you doing, Peter?

Peter: Dance with me.

Gamora: I'm not going to dance with you.

Peter: (Ignores what she just said and keeps dancing with her.)

Well, isn't that cute. He loves her so much that he insists on sharing an activity he enjoys with her, even though she just said "no", to prove to himself that they're compatible.

Maybe you're saying, "What's wrong with that?"

First off, imagine if you were standing in a bar, and some guy just grabbed you and started dancing with you. You told him no, which SHOULD be the end of it... but he just keeps dancing with you.

Granted, Peter and Gamora know each other, so it isn't QUITE as creepy as the stranger-in-a-bar scenario. But it doesn't stop there.

After Gamora threatens to kill him if he ever tells anyone about this (in case you were worried that I was going to focus solely on the man's questionable relationship skills), the conversation continues:

Peter: When are we gonna do something about this unspoken thing between us?

Gamora: What unspoken thing?

Peter: This... Cheers, Sam and Diane... a guy and a girl on a TV show who dig each other... but never say it because if they do, the ratings would go down... sort of thing.

Gamora: There's no unspoken thing.

Peter: Well, it's a catch-22, because if you said it, then it would be spoken, and you would be a liar. So, by not saying it... you are telling the truth, and admitting that there is.

Me:​ Um... WHAT. For one thing, that doesn't make sense. How does her saying there is no unspoken thing constitute admitting that there is an unspoken thing?

​Now you're just twisting her words, and refusing to hear anything but what you WANT to hear, no matter how nonsensical.

And, more importantly, SHE JUST SAID NO. And when a woman (or ANY love interest of any gender or lack thereof) says no, that's the part where you back off.

But what if there IS an unspoken thing, and they just don't know or won't admit to it?
​
Sure, you might be noticing something that they're not. Or you could be projecting your own wishes onto them. Or maybe they really aren't interested yet, but will start to feel differently as the relationship evolves.

But no matter which of those scenarios you're looking at, the basic rule holds: when someone says no, ESPECIALLY in the area of romance, you respect their boundaries and their right to make their own decisions, and you back the heck off.

Does Peter do that?

​No.

And not only does he blatantly ignore her "no" twice in quick succession, but now he's trying to twist her words so that no matter what she says or how clearly she says it, her "no" means "yes" to him.

Now picture that happening in the bedroom.

Are you starting to see how creepy this is? Guess what  - it gets worse.

In case you still think this "no"-defying behavior is romantic or at least OK, I've got bad news:

Outside of sugarcoated fictionland, where toxic relationship behavior is played off as harmless and is even romanticized, refusing to accept a love interest's "no" and disrespecting their physical boundaries are actually signs of a potential date rapist.

Now, you might be thinking, "You're blowing this out of proportion. Peter's a good guy. He would never rape Gamora."

And you're right about part of that - of course Peter wouldn't rape Gamora.

For one thing, he isn't that kind of person.

​For another, she's a highly trained killer who would force-feed him his own penis in less time than it would take to say "I've made a tactical error".

And for a third, like I noted above, this is sugarcoated wish-fulfillment fictionland.

In stories like this, the fantasy that "The woman I want doesn't REALLY mean 'no'; she's just playing hard to get, or she doesn't know what she wants, or she doesn't want to be seen as a slut" is treated as an accurate perception, and violating her boundaries by keeping on pushing when she's already said "no" is treated like it's romantic instead of the warning sign that it is.

And that's where the second ship-killing scene comes in: the part where Gamora says "It's just an unspoken thing".

Because it's not like her "no" actually MEANT anything; she was just a confused, frigid woman who didn't know or wouldn't admit that she really was in love with the guy she was telling to back off, right?

If this were an isolated incident with no real-world implications, it wouldn't bother me as much.

Unfortunately, stories like this are symptomatic of a widespread myth that "no means yes", which causes vast amounts of suffering in real-world people, many of whom probably ignored the warning signs of a potential rapist because pop culture had taught them that continuing to push after hearing "no" is romantic, not threatening.

And it doesn't just affect the recipient of the unwanted attention - it also affects well-meaning non-rapist pursuers who think they're doing the right thing by continuing to push, because that's what they were taught.

All that being the case, I was very disappointed in Guardians of the Galaxy for supporting this myth by rewarding Star-Lord for ignoring Gamora's clearly expressed opinions and desires.

In reality, most targets of unwanted pursuit are not trained assassins who could easily fend off a pursuer who's decided to just keep doing what they want regardless of their love interest's wishes.​

For real people, when someone keeps pushing after they've said "no", it isn't sexy or romantic. It's annoying at best, often scary, and at worst, a sign that they're in danger of suffering serious physical and/or psychological harm.

But what about Gamora threatening to kill him? Why does that only warrant a brief mention?

Because anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that threatening to kill people is bad.

You don't need an article from me to tell you that, though there is a disturbing trend in fiction where female violence against males is downplayed, probably because women are still perceived (on an emotional level, if not an intellectual one) as being less potent and dangerous than males.

But when it comes to ignoring a prospective or current partner's "no", many people sincerely believe that that's OK or even good.

This results in soon-to-be victims ignoring the warning signs that they were trained to see as a positive, and non-predators inadvertently making themselves look like potential rapists who should be avoided.

The Guardians franchise seriously needs a scene where someone - preferably Rocket - calls Peter out on his boundary-busting crap.

Partly for the reasons outlined above, and partly because a cranky racoon with terrible relationship skills giving Peter relationship advice is a funny mental image.

Are you sick of seeing stories romanticize suitors who ignore their love interests' desires, opinions, and right to say "no"?

Do you think I'm overreacting?

And have you had experiences where people trampled your boundaries and ignored your "no", and seemed to think they were doing the right thing?

I look forward to your comments.

If you don't have natural talent as a writer, should you keep on trying or give up? In today's blog post, Ryan Lanz shares his thoughts:

Guest post by Ryan Lanz
 

• tal·ent [tal-uhnt] noun: a special natural ability or aptitude.
  ​
• skill [skil] noun: the ability, coming from one’s knowledge, practice, aptitude, etc., to do something well.

 
What if you don’t have natural talent? Does that mean you may as well give up?

It’s not quite the chicken or the egg debate, but it’s up there. I’ve heard people go in circles about which comes first and which is necessary.

At what combination of both does one continue the grind and attempt at success? I’d be surprised if you haven’t asked yourself that question. It’s a part of being human.

What does each really mean?

This comes from the university of my opinion, but I would describe talent as the natural ability that needs little to no refinement, and skill is the unnatural ability that you have to develop.

For those of us who’ve played sports (myself excluded), I’m sure you’ve all encountered someone who strides onto the field and makes it all look so darn effortless.
​
This person hardly shows up to practice, and you have a fairly good idea that it took hardly any effort to accomplish. Same with the person who aced every test in college with little preparation, leaving you in study hall time after time with a bucket of coffee.

You must have missed at least three parties because you had to cram for the Calculus exam, right?

Which is better?

Good question. And one not so easily answered. Sure, we would all like natural talent that we don’t have to pour so much effort into, but sometimes that doesn’t quite pan out.

Often, we are born with enough talent to have an affinity for a profession, but the rest has to be made up with skill. In writing, there are dozens of abilities that need to be present to make a good novel, such as foreshadowing, prose, description, natural dialogue, pacing, etc.

Let’s say that you have a knack for writing dialogue, but your setting description rambles on and on. The squeaky wheel gets the oil, and you’ll have to practice at writing setting description over time to develop it into a skill, even if it’s not a natural talent.

​To be fair, natural talent does get you to the goal quicker.

The combination of the two
 
If Tiger Woods is not the best golf player of all time, then he comes very close. He started golfing on professional courses at the age of two years old and was featured in a golf magazine at the age of five.
 
Tiger spent 545 weeks combined total as the world number one. In my opinion, that is some superb natural talent. Although Tiger has mounds of it, he still had a golfing coach (and probably still does) through most of his career.
 
That’s combining the natural with the refined skill that creates that sweet spot. Think about how you can make a similar combination.

Is it so bad if you don’t have natural talent? Should you give up?
 
The one downside to having natural talent is that you don’t have as much appreciation for the effort.

Let’s look at two writers: one who writes his/her first book and quickly becomes published, and the other is a writer who labors for ten years to even become noticed. Both eventually become published and successful, let’s say.

I think it’s fair to say that the latter writer has more appreciation for the effort of the craft. There are small nuances of writing that I feel are best represented when someone has to massage and mold their skill over the long-term.

I believe that about anyone can accomplish about anything if they were to dedicate their entire life to it, even if that person doesn’t have a drop of natural talent. Ask yourself what craft you can master if you were to invest 20 years in its perfection.

​So, no, don’t simply give up on it. You may have been born with talent in a profession you’re not interested in. That’s okay, just work to catch up in a profession that you are.
 
Conclusion
 
If you sharpen your skill enough, people will believe that you’ve had talent from the very beginning, regardless of how much you actually had to start with.

Original post here.
​
Guest post contributed by Ryan Lanz. Ryan is an avid blogger and author of The Idea Factory: 1,000 Story Ideas and Writing Prompts to Find Your Next Bestseller. You can also find him on Twitter, Facebook, and Tumblr.