lemonade-of-gods:

someoneintheshadow456:

lemonade-of-gods:

Of course!

Quick summary: The Ramayana is the story of prince Rama, who is exiled by his father Dashratha to the forests for 14 years, and does that with his wife Sita and brother Lakshmana. During the exile, Sita is kidnapped by the Asura King Ravana and held captive in his Kingdom Lanka, and Rama and Lakshmana wage war against him and kill him.

The reason why I called him a Gary Stu was because I felt that he was an unrealistic perfect character. He never harbours any grudges against anyone, he never seemed to make any mistakes, he basically got his happy ending in the versions I read. And here is why I don’t think he is a Gary Stu:

Firstly you have to know that the timeline of the world is divided into four yugas: the Krita yuga, when the world and its rules are formed; the Treta yuga, when the rules are maintained for a stable society; the Dvapara yuga, where rules are no longer followed and given importance; and finally the Kali yuga, where old ideals are replaced by bringing in new ones.

Rama belongs to the Treta yuga, where the rules and code of conduct are highly valued. So as a son, he follows the rules of his parents, as a husband he fulfills the requests of his wife, as a king he follows what his subjects require. 

Rama is a figure who prioritizes the happiness of society
and others over his welfare. And that means he will do anything for the stability of
society, even at great cost to himself. He suffers in the forest for 14 years,
he makes Sita go through the agnipariksha, a trial by fire to test her purity,
to satisfy society and later has Lakshmana abandon Sita in the forest for the
same reason. He cannot be a good king and a good husband at the same time and
loses Sita after she justifiably gets angry for being insulted like this and
returns to Mother Earth.

That, I believe, is what prevents him from being a Gary Stu.

Krishna was more of a Gary Stu than Rama was tbh. Krishna was the only incarnation of Vishnu to know he was god (Maya had put a spell on the rest of them to ensure they didn’t know this).

Krishna was a young child when he accomplished most of his stuff and was basically born with all the wisdom while STILL acting like a typical kid.

Adult Krishna was even worse as a massive womaniser and treated people like cosmic playthings and always found SOME way to justify it, and taking sides literally just because (poor Karna…)

Even when I was little I could sense this. It baffles me why people worship him sometimes.

Krishna also instigated the Pandavas to break the rules of war (Arjuna killed a weaponless Karna when he was most vulnerable, Bhima was only able to kill Duryodhana by hitting him on the thigh which is against the rules, etc and it was because of Krishna each time). People prefer to see him as the protector, the teacher, sometimes the naughty and adorable little boy rather than as a master manipulator.

Truly, the Mahabharata is the greyest of all myths and epics Hinduism has to offer.

twofacetoo:

thespectacularspider-girl:

ninestempest:

thespectacularspider-girl:

atepa09:

probablybard:

Ahhh good ole Mike Mearls can’t even answer a legitimate question with left-isming it.

@thespectacularspider-girl why doesn’t he just quit if he hates the community that much.

Honestly, I would’ve just preferred he gave his legit opinion on the game he worked on instead of trying to virtue signal.

I would agree, except I’ve literally played with people like this. They aren’t creepy, but they are fucking annoying.

Right.  I get that and I’d probably be annoyed too.

The point was he was asked a legit question and he took it to complain about some people who play his game, not detail one of the monsters he’s put in D&D’s 5th edition.

‘What’s the worst thing about horror games?‘

‘Let’s Players shrieking on face-cams while playing it‘

Like, that’s not actually a part of the game, that’s like the fallout of the atomic bomb, it’s just a side-effect of the actual event.

lemonade-of-gods:

Of course!

Quick summary: The Ramayana is the story of prince Rama, who is exiled by his father Dashratha to the forests for 14 years, and does that with his wife Sita and brother Lakshmana. During the exile, Sita is kidnapped by the Asura King Ravana and held captive in his Kingdom Lanka, and Rama and Lakshmana wage war against him and kill him.

The reason why I called him a Gary Stu was because I felt that he was an unrealistic perfect character. He never harbours any grudges against anyone, he never seemed to make any mistakes, he basically got his happy ending in the versions I read. And here is why I don’t think he is a Gary Stu:

Firstly you have to know that the timeline of the world is divided into four yugas: the Krita yuga, when the world and its rules are formed; the Treta yuga, when the rules are maintained for a stable society; the Dvapara yuga, where rules are no longer followed and given importance; and finally the Kali yuga, where old ideals are replaced by bringing in new ones.

Rama belongs to the Treta yuga, where the rules and code of conduct are highly valued. So as a son, he follows the rules of his parents, as a husband he fulfills the requests of his wife, as a king he follows what his subjects require. 

Rama is a figure who prioritizes the happiness of society
and others over his welfare. And that means he will do anything for the stability of
society, even at great cost to himself. He suffers in the forest for 14 years,
he makes Sita go through the agnipariksha, a trial by fire to test her purity,
to satisfy society and later has Lakshmana abandon Sita in the forest for the
same reason. He cannot be a good king and a good husband at the same time and
loses Sita after she justifiably gets angry for being insulted like this and
returns to Mother Earth.

That, I believe, is what prevents him from being a Gary Stu.

Krishna was more of a Gary Stu than Rama was tbh. Krishna was the only incarnation of Vishnu to know he was god (Maya had put a spell on the rest of them to ensure they didn’t know this).

Krishna was a young child when he accomplished most of his stuff and was basically born with all the wisdom while STILL acting like a typical kid.

Adult Krishna was even worse as a massive womaniser and treated people like cosmic playthings and always found SOME way to justify it, and taking sides literally just because (poor Karna…)

Even when I was little I could sense this. It baffles me why people worship him sometimes.

lemonade-of-gods:

In Kerala, a Yakshi is a succubus who lives in palm trees. Typically in stories, Yakshis take the form of beautiful young ladies pretending to be scared and ask their victims to accompany them home. Once they reach the “home”, the Yakshi asks if the guy wants to share a paan with them (which were the code words for having sex that time apparently) and once the dude enters the house, the yakshi kills them.

Their male counterparts are Gandharvans, who are the reason women were advised to sleep with underwear on as protection.

I’ve never heard of these monsters before wow that’s creepy af.

lemonade-of-gods:

Yeah, pretty much.

His flaw was more like putting abstract honour codes over his duty as a husband to protect his wife. Basically he gave more importance to others opinions than to what was morally right.

However, unlike Krishna, at least Rama HAD flaws. At least he was called out for said flaws. And at least he didn’t treat people like cosmic playthings because “LOLZ IM GOD I CAN DO WHATEVER”

Even as a young child I could understand this which is why I never liked Krishna.