Comments by "TheRezro" (@TheRezro) on "Overly Sarcastic Productions"
channel.
-
174
-
168
-
103
-
98
-
97
-
77
-
73
-
70
-
59
-
53
-
51
-
47
-
44
-
37
-
34
-
27
-
26
-
24
-
22
-
21
-
19
-
18
-
17
-
16
-
14
-
@Waffie The Dweeb A elemental deity. Word dragon originated from bible where it is used in Latin version of bible as title of Satan as the Serpent. But later it become used to describe broad category of wild elemental deities and overpowered monsters such as Lindworm or Wyvern. Here it is worth to mention that most famous and most stereotypical (gold hording) dragon is Fafnir who actually is a dwarf, who in Nordic mythologies were also a deities (earth elementals specifically). Being a deity is in fact most constant trait even in many cases overshadowing snake part. For example in Journey to the West white dragon Bai Longma spend way more time as a horse and later human then actual serpent. Anyway, even if most elemental deities are serpentine some also appear as birds (Phoenix, Suzaku, Rok, Geruda, Ziz, etc) or other types of beasts (like Behemot, Byakko, etc), also a "sacred steeds" (Unicorns, Griffins, Kirins, Burak, etc) and of course human. In fact it is quite possible that smith/knight defeating dragon in legend dating to Proto-Indo-Eurpeans as storm deity was a dragon himself.
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Major correction. According to most recent research Slavs inhabited region of Vistula from at least 1'st century. Originating in region of Eastern Galicja. Idea that Slavs originate in 6'th century imigrantom, as result of Huns (aka Hungarians) is true, but regard South Slavs and it did happen toward south, not west as they were cut from rest of the population known by West Romans as Veneti. But they didn't have direct contact, as such they were not recognized as Slavs until modern research. While Southern Slavs known as Sclaveni (or Serbs), were recorded by East Rome, giving the name Slavs. And for centuries it was assumed to be origin of whole group. To make things worst, later Frans who later become modern Germans, call Western Slavs Wend's, what add to confusion. And on top of that part of Wands adopt Christianity, calling themselves Bohemians, Moravians and Poles. And in 16'th century Mongolized Slavs from Muscovy swamp, start they imperial agenda of eradicating all Slavs in name of German Tzars. But I digress.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Personally my favorite tropes are so called: Evil Light, Good Darkness and Eldritch Entity archetype (they I core are similar, so I treat them collectively as perceptual dissonance characters). In short:
- Good Darkness is when character would be normally considered as monstrous or evil, but in reality is kind or protector. This archetype is easiest to explain, because many classic monsters and stuff like ninjas fit this category. Frankenstein monster was more a victim then real monster, classic werewolf story is about struggle to preserve own humanity, or something initially inhuman (like AI or demon) gain humanity for some reason. Or monster start protecting someone just because he show him kindness.
- Evil Light is the opposite. Something what should be good is ultimate evil. From corrupted policeman, immoral priest, or inhuman medical doctor. To evil angels or God, to whole bunch of manipulative muppets. Or in short Kyobey from Madoka Magica.
- Eldritch Entities are everything in between. For clarity it isn't that they don't have morality, but way in which they work is beyond human comprehension or moral understanding. It usually is how we step on ant nest. For example Lovecraft Yog-Sothoth was benevolent, but due to his obliviousness his good intentions screwed everyone involved. Like when he turned whole village into fish people, to help them survive. On the other hand Nyarlathotep treat humans like toys, but that is also reason why he saved humanity on several occasions. Or Kyobey from Madoka Magica, because he totally fit also that one. After all he try save the world, not lie despite being manipulative ass and even prove his moral superiority at one point, despite being responsible for suffering and deaths of numerous people ;D
They totally should do episode about those :D
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@francisdupont1656 If we want to be specific, West Rome also technically didn't fall. After Hun invasion in 4'th century, where Legions perform poorly against horse archers. Rome start increasingly relying on the Cataract cavalry. And because those were usually part of auxiliaries (tribes who fought on side of the Rome). Those "barbaric" commanders start play increasingly important role in Roman politics. When Vandals burn the Rome in 5'th century, they actually intervened against usurpers in name of the Emperor. After that West Roman Empire basically go through Balkanization. With Longobards sizing control over Apennine Peninsula.
BUT! Most of regions of the Rome, despite tribal population did consider itself as Roman. Only few decades after formal fall of Carolingian's (Franks) attempt to unite empire. In 8'th century recapturing the Rome. In fact they did attempt to rejoin Byzantium as Cesar (elector). But Roman Augustus (actual Byzantine Emperor) refuse negotiations seeing them as barbarians (fact that religions drifted from each other play also the role). Shortly after that control over Rome is taken by woman, in rather shady way. What is exploited by Franks, who call Byzantine interregnum and as they as Romans control city of Rome, they declare themselves as proper Roman Empire.
From that point both sides basically were ignoring each other, considering other side as illegitimate. In 9'th century Frank empire go through split ironically identical to late Rome. Separating on three countries. But shortly after that Fance and Germany, invade Italy and Germans take Emperor crown. Founding Holly Roman Empire. But due to elector method Germany is divided, until Prussia finally unite country in 19'th century. While Italy struggle with reconquest of peninsula and isn't strong to claim title. While France despite united nature doesn't have strong enough claim to do so. At least until Napoleon temporarily claim the title. And there was also Austria-Hungary. Though it is weird case.
Anyway, after WW1 Emperor is overthrown and formally for now, there is no one there. Though ironically Europe finally reunited though different means. So we may call it as Roman Union? I'm joking. East was no better. Country was in constant decline, after failed attempt of recapturing Apennine Penisula. They are finally defeated by Turks. Who also declare themselves as Roman Empire. But are universally ignored and later drop the idea. And there is also a madman known as Ivan the Terrible. Who declare himself as Cezar (Tzar) of Third Rome and some vogue concept of All-Rus (Russia). Though despite it being completely illegitimate, Russia is later overtaken by actual Germans, related to Kaiser. So it sort of become true. But not really? Definitely not now. If anything Bulgarian Tzar did have most legitimate claim to Byzantium heritage. Because he actually was subject and elector of Rome. So they technically could elect themselves. Anyway. Bulgaria is now in EU, so it doesn't matter.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, it is complicated. Magic realism is when story is placed in realistic setting, but has some paranormal elements in it. It isn't about accepting magical, but that there is lack of clarity between it and psychological aspects of characters. I would say we observe they perception, what may or may not be actual magic. I think good example of genre is movie Pan's Labyrinth, Be Like John Malkovich, 1408, Frequency, etc.
Urban Fantasy (and her counterpart called Rural Fantasy) on the other hand is simply a fantasy placed in urban (rural) setting. Usually with magical hidden in modern world, paralel words when action take place in both equally (character should be capable to travel in between, though Isekai type of stories are sometimes lumped together due to similarity) or fantastical world what for some reason has modern setting (technically separate subgenres). Those are nowadays quite popular so stuff like Supernatural, Hemlock Grove, Grimm, Carnival Row, etc.
I could also add science fantasy, what refer either to stories where science and magic coexist (Warhammer 40k or Dark Matters), or so called magic is result of Clark's style science (examples: Shin Megami Tensei Persona, Final Fantasy XIII, Breath of Fore series, etc.) plus most of Space Opera is also nowadays considered as most isn't sufficiently scientific to be actual SF (so Star Trek, Star Wars, Mass Effect).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@knucklejoe26 In those times everyone was racist, because of racial segregation in US. It was straight illegal to not be a racist and could lead to serious problems. We don't debate if Lovecraft was obvious, but even if he was vocal about that, he was also vocal against, Jews, German, Irish, etc. In short, he was more general misanthrope then actual racist (by the way his wife was a Jew).
If anyone actually read his work, this topic doesn't pop up that much outside standard voodoo and language of that time. In fact recurring theme of apparently normal white man being secretly tentacle monster (Dunwitch Horror, Whispering in the Drak, or that one where guy escape from dark cave to find out that he was a monster, etc.) show that his prime source of fear was his genetic mental disorder (both his parents died in asylum).
Main problem is that many hipsters act like his work is about racism "as they read meme on internet", even if Lovecraft himself strongly opposed racial interpretation of Shadow over Innsmouth. And ironically because he was openly racist we can believe that when he was talking about fish people he meant actually a fish people, not black people. Because otherwise he would say that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Terminator 5 basically removed this concept entirely, excluding that time traveler become part of history itself, so basically exist even if his grandpa is dead due to proces of traveling itself. Yes, it is bit heavy handed but what ever. And I see you allude to "good Skynet theory", because if you think about it, why Skynet develop one thing what can destroy it but somehow doesn't? After all it was him who invented time travel on the first place, with humans only stealing his resources. But if Skynet find that destruction of humanity removed his push for progres, he would have reason to bring humans back. Then send last reaming humans to stop himself, but at the same time seeding his seeds to the past (it is why it has tech what wasn't even possible to construct in the 90's) so they basically would not succeed completely. Then Karl Reed become father of John Connors, who for reminder wasn't anyone special beside having knowledge about upcoming invasion, so being capable to prepare for it. It is why we ended with full hybrids at that point, as it somehow appear to be Skynet goal (one from upcoming movie would be good this time).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@willieoelkers5568 "Pure evil is not the same as deliberately evil"
It exactly is.. either unawares or circumstances diminish "purity" of evil.
"Maldor from the Beyonders book series is pure evil"
So poorly written? If he doesn't have reasons to be tyrant then he why he is one? Self preservation is also one of things what could justify many thing and it is something what healthy person literally should have, so in the end "pure evil" is simply unnatural concept by itself.
"He is clearly pure evil and never given any redeeming or sympathetic qualities"
That is just your opinion. And lack of redeeming qualities doesn't make someone pure evil. For example because someone claim to act for greater good doesn't mean he does. Still "evil" in not his goal anymore even if he is horrible person.
"At the same time he's pragmatic"
So not evil in straight sense, as his actions depend on circumstances not moral validation?
"He deliberately avoids being deliberately evil"
It is because he is not pure evil. He is someone who try achieve specific goal what could be evil for some.
"but only because he views it as the most effective means of maintaining his pure evil hold"
So in order to do evil for sake of evil, as pure evil does.. you don't need to make more evil then convenient? It isn't how it work.. even if case of Joker who is close to being pure evil, he still is brainwashed by people with specific goal in mind.
"Thus while he is pure evil he intentionally averts being deliberately evil not for moral reasons, but for personal and selfish ones"
So in order to do evil for sake of evil, as pure evil people do. He try not make too much evil for selfish reason, as being selfish is also evil? And it is exactly why concept of pure evil if internally contradictory..
"From a meta perspective"
You use words you don't understand?
" "good" and "evil" are just labels we assign a character to designate whether or not their actions and principles align with or against traditionally morality"
Yes, but also not exactly. It is why we speak about gray zones of morality, but pure evil isn't about gray, it is about black. Also traditional morality don't exist for sake of itself. It exist to regulate societies defining good as working for and evil as against it. Problem is that some of those things tend to be subjective, outdated or shortsighted. Stealing to feed the kid isn't the same as stealing to deliberately hurt someone.
"A pure evil character is under no more obligation to view themselves as "evil" than a pure good character is to view themselves as "good"."
Except good characters should see themselves as evil, because that make them question own actions and try make good decisions. Evil people always see themselves as good, but pure evil characters see themselves as personification of evil what make them especially dumb.
"To summarize, a deliberately evil character is one that specifically takes conventional morality into consideration so they can do what would be considered "evil" "
What make no sense and is something only person seeing himself as servant of evil would do. That is exactly what make them pure evil (excluding being manipulated or insane what are redeeming qualities).
"while a pure evil character simply rejects being conventionally "good" as the correct or better choice"
So he reject morality and so become morally grey character (so the opposite of pure evil), because even if he don't feel obligation to not steal, it doesn't mean that he would, as there is many reason why he would not do that. People without morality are only potentially immoral to other people. They for example could become examples of virtue only for sake of perceived personal superiority.
"but the only requirement is that they consistently make choices that would be considered "evil" by the audience"
Audience? From when audience is ANY way relevant to moral judgment? Most people are ignoramus idiots. If they make evil actions they do that either because: A) They deliberately chose to do that, B) They have other reason to do that, or C) they don't know that it is evil. Option B and C are in fact reaming qualities, so not "pure". Option A is wat you claim it is not, for reasons..
"without attempting to justify those actions as "good" to themselves or others"
But hiporyzy is one of greatest sins! You claim that lack of hypocrisy, if not honesty, make people truly evil? WTF?
1
-
@willieoelkers5568 Dude, you clearly don't understand what word "pure" mean 0_0
"Pure evil refers to someone who consistently makes evil choices without attempting to excuse or rationalize them as "good" "
Again, hypocrisy is also evil so last point make no sense. It isn't about making excuses, but fact that in shitty world sometimes you need make bad things for greater good.
"This differentiates them from a grey character who will make evil choices, but also good ones and who usually feels that all of their actions were at least justified"
Yes, because they don't try make deliberately evil choices. Pragmatic people do make both depending on circumstances.. it is you who claim that somehow magically pragmatic person is pure evil (or other religious propaganda like that).
" In essence, the difference is that a grey character will feel the need to justify their actions"
Yes, because that make a sense considering that they abandon morality 0_0
What justify they action is they pragmatism, it isn't about them being delusional.
"while a pure evil character has little to no need to justify their actions as they don't care what others think and have no self-doubt or moral qualms"
Yes, because they chose road of evil deliberately doing evil things, so why they would justify it, at least until they do that before others 0_0
"at least prior to their third-act breaking point"
Breaking form what? If they are pure evil, then there is nothing to break.. you are pure in your evilness.
"You are getting too hung up on the specific use of the word "evil", it's used here as context for how a character's action align with conventional morality, not their goals or self-image"
Again. Conventional morality isn't really a thing. It is just what some old dude said somewhere. It is extremely easy to show examples of absolutely evil supporters of conventional values (like terrorists). It is why people say that morality is subjective. What make it objective though is debate about society and they needs, what can be extremely complicated and circumstantial.
"Pure evil characters can see themselves as evil and deliberately choose to make evil decisions, but they are not required to see and act in that manner, as long as their actions are consistently evil and self-serving without attempts to excuse or rationalize them"
Except! As I said insanity or even self preservation are redeeming qualities what do justify they behavior. Purely evil characters exist only for sake od doing evil things. It isn't about arbitrarily idea of "making excuses", what absolutely make no sense in context of purely of evil especially as I said, hypocrisy is evil (so making excuses by person itself). You clearly confuse things here..
"Self-image is not what's important here, actions are."
Wait.. do you just said exactly why you are absolutely wrong? Do you think of what "excuses" are? And again, pragmatic people do make both types of action because they do care only result (even if that make them look like evil). When pure evil care only about.. drums.. EVIL 0_0
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mastermold10 On the contrary. Devil being called that way is source of the term. As in Latin version of the bible Serpent (or Whale) was called Draconem.
"where are you geting this elemental deity nonsense?"
From fact that 90% of known dragons straight are that and those who aren't are usually questioned as such? Fafnir, who is literally source of half tropes (like gold hording) was a dwarf, so lesser earth elemental. Apep straight is god, Vrtra is Asura, Leviathan
and Bahamut are hayyoth, Hydra was Zeus niece, Chinese Lungs and Qilins are deities of storms and rivers,
same as they sea counterparts. Many known lesser dragons (Wyverns) like Basilisk, Cockatrice, Knucker are Fae so lesser Celtic deities of nature. They regularly could also talk and shapeshift. Of course when those beings were adopted to children books, religious elements were pushed away.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Lun Lun Yes, Satan is called the Serpent but snake in the story is not Satan.
"but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die."
Genesis 22;17
"Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame."
Genesis 2;25
"For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
Genesis 3;5
"Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves."
Genesis 3:7
Sorry, but bible clearly say something else.
Also:
"So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,
“14 Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring[a] and hers;
he will crush[b] your head,
and you will strike his heel.”
If it is about literal animal or being cursed to be one, is up to debate. But it definitely is not about Satan.
"One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them."
Job 1;6
Satan has access to heaven, so what about us?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marther3898 Without overcomplicating stuff: Whole heaven-purgatory-hell idea is simplification, sufficient for most people in every day life, but not exactly how bible describe stuff. In fact angels fall on Earth, creating unholy union with the flesh. I think it is not literally as reference to soul. Though still it is worth to remind that Noah grandfather Enoch is also known as Metatron.
Christ promised people new Earth, after days of the end and actual heaven is full of tentacle monsters forom Lovecraft seeing humanity as traitors. So you actually don't want go there. Closest thing to purgatory would be probably Sheol, so land of undead. It is described as unpleasant, but you don't actually feel anything there. It is also ruled by Archangel Sandelphon/Abaddon
and four elemental angels known as Living Beasts (Cherubim in Christianity) so Leviathan, Behemoth, Ziz and that forth one. Plus Satan as angel of death.
Thing is that they all work for God. Satan would fall only in the day of the end, as result of frustration that he can't prove that humanity is not worthy of salvation, what discredit his faction and open door for salvation. Fun fact: Peacocks, fluffy animals ("sword" sticking from head lead to interesting conclusion in this context) and rainbows are actually ancient symbols of Christ. Plus:
"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you[a] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star." Revelation 22;16
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, we have:
Light: So, funny, optimistic, comedic, even if it talk about serious subjects (Disney).
Realistic: So about real life, tend to by dry but reliable (most serious stuff).
Grimdark: So pessimistic if not nihilistic, talk about worst in the word (Warhammer, Witcher, etc.).
Edgy bullshit: So things like BvS, overly dramatic and dark, but nonsensical and adolescent at the same time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cristaltophat "is somehow a weakness of character, really"
Yup. Especially in environment in this series. He was a tool and end as a tool.
"I don't think I've seen Joffrey once have a hobbie or belief that didn't result in someone's misery and or death.
"
But it is because this series is already long..
"He was 15"
You need to be at that age if you think that people stop being magically stupid when clock hit midnight in they birthday. Yes, they can be capable to become mature already, but law predict few years for adjustment for a reason.
"Do you think people or kids, don't feel empathy till someone teaches it to them?"
Yes, if you didn't watch Lords of Flies, then you should..
"More over being a kid isn't a character trait"
It is.. only after you stop being a kid, your true character could be judged. I'm not saying that Jeffery wan't a trash, only that he still was adolescent so it could change.
"If I could take Joffreys entire personality and shove it into a grown adult that would leave you with nothing positive to say about them anymore"
Probably, but there is still small possibility that there wold be otherwise. Many wise people were stupid as a kids..
"His existence in game of thrones is just so the viewers can say:
"Man, I Hope You Die." "
I need to say that actor did great job here ;D
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1