Jump to content

Talk:Critical Role campaign two

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 1.129.108.50 (talk) at 05:11, 10 February 2021 (→Characters - list or prose?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Why does this List article exist separately from the Critical Role article?

After multiple discussions on Talk:Critical Role (1, 2, 3) about the length of plot summaries (100+ episodes for each campaign), consensus was to spin out a list article for episodes due to WP:SPINOFF & MOS:TVSPLIT. This ongoing project started at Draft:List of Critical Role episodes and discussion there led to the decision to spilt campaign 1 & 2 into separate list articles (see also MOS:TVOVERVIEW "Multiple pages"). Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 January 2021

Critical Role (campaign two) → ''The Mighty Nein'' – The current title is not really specific enough. This is effectively the second season of Critical Role, but as it focuses on a group of adventurers knowm by the name "The Mighty Nein", that seems like a more accurate title. Alternatively, "The Mighty Nein (Critical Role)" might work. 1.129.104.85 (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Jack Frost (talk) 07:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @Sariel Xilo: while following the conventions of most television series makes sense, I think that the nature of Critical Role means that these conventions make sense up to a point, but then they become restrictive (which is why I suggested the rename). For one, there are over a hundred episodes in a single "season", and with every episode being longer than a feature film, following things like MOS:PLOT is practically impossible. So renaming this article something like "Campaign Two: The Mighty Nein (Critical Role)" makes a lot of sense to me. 1.129.104.49 (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose page move. I am not seeing the argument that the current article title is not specific enough. It unambiguously and concisely identifies the article topic and complies with convention. However, support creation of redirects for plausible search terms as appropriate. Lowercaserho (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – whilst I'm not tied to the current title; it seems WP:PRECISE enough. If we want more specificity in the title; Critical Role: The Mighty Nein campaign would be better than "The Mighty Nein" (IMO). If we do that we should probably rename the campaign one article Critical Role: the Vox Machina campaign at the same time. The reason for suggesting having "campaign" in the title is down to the existence of the VM Origins comics - plus, if you'll forgive me for ignoring WP:CRYSTALBALL for a second, the forthcoming VM animated series and announced MN Origins comics. I know official names often count for naught, but I was curious as to what the CR channels call the campaign... Their Twitch channel uses "Critical Role Campaign 2", and their YouTube Channel uses "Campaign 2: The Mighty Nein". I could only find a single, third party source that referred to the second campaign as "The Mighty Nein". Little pob (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have dropped notes on the talk pages of WikiProject Television and WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons inviting more voices to join the discussion. Please notify any other projects/editors that you feel might be interested, but bare in mind WP:CANVASS. Little pob (talk) 13:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — if anything, it should be moved to a variation of the existing, "Critical Role (Campaign 2)", "Critical Role: Campaign 2", etc. This title is already specific enough. In fact, the proposed is very unspecific: is this referring to the Mighty Nein campaign, the fictional adventuring group, the upcoming Mighty Nein Origins comics? Also, per WP:COMMONNAME this campaign is referred to in the official channels, in RSes per Sariel, and even in my personal experience in the relevant online spaces as "Campaign 2". ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just expanding on reasoning for why my suggestions. Personally, I think that per general guidance from WP:NUMERAL and the style used by the official channels, it should be at Critical Role Campaign 2 or Critical Role: Campaign 2. I have no preference between the colon punctuation or not, but the campaign is never referred to with the word spelled out, it uses the numeral, and typically it uses the capitalized C in campaign. The prior suggestion of Campaign 2: The Mighty Nein (Critical Role) doesn't follow any coherent article naming convention, which is unaffected by how much plot length will be here; the series is introduced at the top of every episode as Critical Role, so it makes sense to foreground that as the first part of the title. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment - There is current consensus that a move to the proposed title is opposed. However, there have been a few proposals for alternate titles, as well as a simultaneous RM discussion in relation to Season 1 which may also have an impact upon this article. Hence, relisting to enable further discussion and a clearer consensus to emerge across both articles. --Jack Frost (talk) 07:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arc designations?

Where did the arc designations come from? I may have simply missed them, but all arc designations I know of are entirely fan organized, which makes them inappropriate as segmentations here. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure were they've come from. They arc names and episode splits differ somewhat from those I've seen on the Fandom wiki and Reddit though. (I'm not suggesting we switch to using those, as both are listed as "unreliable" on the WP:RSPSRC list). Little pob (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, those are what I was thinking of. If there isn't anything officially dividing the arcs up, then I propose we just remove them entirely. Either way, it's wholly inappropriate for the plot section, which should just be written straight through. The episode list is very long, so there's merit to separating the list into subsections. I propose doing so by years aired or in 50 episode chunks. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm removed the arc separations from the article and divided the episode list into years, which actually happens to separate them into chunks of ~50. (Well, more like 40-46ish.) This should make the list decent to navigate without relying on non-official / fannish arc splits. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 03:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TenTonParasol: Following up here rather than at List of Critical Role episodes just to keep the conversation in one place. This source for campaign 1 specifically calls out the "Briarwood" arc & the "Attack of the Conclave" arc with episode numbers. Also, most coverage of the animated show mentions the Briarwood arc in the context of it being adapted (for example: 1,2). I think breaking it down by year works for now but for campaign 2, we should keep an eye out for their new show Crit Recap Animated which will recap specific arcs. That will give us the official breakdown. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Tis true, 'tis true. It crossed my mind, but the lack of such divisions and "arc names" for every single arc makes it sort of useless in the episode listings, though it's absolutely useful in the context of discussion specific episode chunks. I think until then, we should steer clear of arc designations until there's an official breakdown for all of them, such as in the Recap Animated as mentioned. Will keep an eye out. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 05:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis/Plot

I just reduced the plot section a bit but it still needs to be reduced by ~400-500 words per MOS:TVPLOT. However, technically, it is suppose to be a prose summary (500 words) or an episode by episode summary in the table (200 words per episode) but not both. Given the length of Critical Role, I think it makes sense to have both as an exception to the style guideline. We could also consider moving the reduced prose plot summary to the List of Critical Role episodes. Thoughts? Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Saruel Xilo — I know you're going off MOS:TVPLOT given the episodic structure, but I think it's worth looking at MOS:FILMPLOT as well given that individual episodes (like "Fair-weather Faith") can be as long as two films. MOS:FILMPLOT says the following:
"Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as with non-linear storylines, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range."
I think Critical Role definitely qualifies for this. One of the trickiest things that I have found is being able to summarise a plot without actually knowing what is relevant at the time. Case in point, Gelidon's return. When Gelidon appeared during the Uthodurn arc, I don't think anyone anticipated her coming back like this (but I discovered the show during lockdown, so maybe more experienced critters could). I then had to go back and add Gelidon to the relevant episodes and it's easy to lose track of the word count. Likewise, there are elements that seem important but never really go anywhere, such as the clearly abusive relationship between Jester and Artagan (I'll never know why M9 didn't kill him on Rumblecusp). Why do you think I added the "setting" sub-section? It was because episode summaries contained references to the Clovis Concord without actually explaining what that was. Likewise, there are key characters played by Mercer—Essek springs to mind—that I think need to be established in the article before popping up mid-synopsis. So I think we do need some kind of campaign summary early in the article. 1.144.109.66 (talk) 05:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More granular details like that, such as Gelidon, don't need to be in the plot section as they are fine existing in the episode summaries themselves. The plot section is for the most broad and over-arching details of the plot, for as long as the plot section exists. I wonder if there's a way to push the article toward a "Synopsis" and list of episode structure, in the way that Firefly (TV series) is formatted, where "Synopsis" isn't really a plot summary but rather a broad overview of the format and premise of the series as a whole. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 06:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like User:TenTonParasol's Firefly example. I kind of think the setting section is unnecessary since Exandria exists. The main thing is that this article already has episode by episode summaries. We don't need to get bogged down in undue details (see WP:PLCUT, MOS:PLOT, & WP:FANCRUFT) and there are other websites (the Fandom Wikia comes to mind) which go into greater detail. For example, I think mentioning Gelidon in the prose summary is unnecessary since the party has had about 2 encounters with the dragon versus Essek who has become a reoccurring NPC that the party often interacts with. Editors will probably always have to go back and update summaries as key context changes. That's just the nature of Wikipedia. Side notes: I think you would benefit from making an account & you should use edit summaries when you edit both article & talk pages. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do think having a brief setting section is worth having, just to contextualize relevant details about the plot here. I do think the setting section is in a good place right now, but I generally agree that it should not get too into the weeds. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 06:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "Firefly" example is a poor one because the series was cancelled mid-season. It never really got past its premise; the entire point of "Objects in Space" is that Mal accepts River as a member of his crew.
"For example, I think mentioning Gelidon in the prose summary is unnecessary since the party has had about 2 encounters with the dragon"
I agree. What I meant is that prior to "Fair-weather Faith", Gelidon was a dragon who appeared in a single episode, and the summary for that episode simply mentioned her as a dragon. However, the fight with Gelidon gave the Tombtakers the chance to steal the Bag of Holding and break the alliance, knowing that the Nein were weakened. Therefore, the fight is significant and it is more concise to refer to Gelidon by name in the episode outline. So that the reader is not left asking "who is Gelidon?", we had to go back and add Gelidon's name to the episode that she first appeared in. That's what I meant when I said that it was hard to anticipate what would be important.
"We don't need to get bogged down in undue details (see WP:PLCUT, MOS:PLOT, & WP:FANCRUFT)"
I'm well aware of these. But I have found that it pays to keep track of sub-plots in case they become plots. It makes writing the synopses a lot easier to keep them cohesive. When the Nein found the corrupted arboretum, Mercer acknowledged that he did it deliberately to give Jaffe a plot thread to pull on. Whether or not he decides to follow through—and Mercer was surprised by Jaffe's reaction to it—remains to be seen. That does not mean that the arboretum should be ignored in the article.
"I do think the setting section is in a good place right now, but I generally agree that it should not get too into the weeds."
I'm of the same opinion, but would leave the door open to an expansion if need be. Say for the sake of argument that the Nein go from Eiselcross to Tal'Dorei and spend several episodes there (the other shackles binding Tharizdûn have to be somewhere), then extending the section to mention where in Tal'Dorei they go would be entirely justified. 1.144.109.66 (talk) 06:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My Firefly example is more for overall article structure, not for length of summary. If something later becomes relevant, then we do as other ongoing television articles do and insert earlier mention. It's not up to us to include every single detail in attempt to predict what may or may not become relevant. I think that makes me in agreement with you, 1.144.109.66. However, think the plot summary could be cut down a little bit more, but I don't think that's necessarily a big, big priority right now given Sariel did do a decent cut down already. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 06:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/1.144.109.66 & @TenTonParasol: if either of you enjoy writing plot summaries, Critical Role (campaign one) still needs summaries for episodes 39-115. I did a chunk of them but in general, it's not my cup of tea. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't actually seen the first campaign, so I cannot be of any help there, unfortunately. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen it, either. I probably won't get around to it any time soon. 1.129.108.26 (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strained relationship

Regarding describing the relationship between Jester and Artagan as being "temporarily strained". It's objectively untrue that it was "never strained", I mean, Jester multiple times is literally crying from stress because she isn't sure what to do with the information that the Traveler is not an actual deity. It's important context as to the significance of the reveal in that sentence. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 04:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jester cries when she cannot find pastries and she cries when someone nearly wipes the party out. Her only distress is as the thought of losing her powers. So I wouldn't read too much into it since she never questions the nature of their relationship. If you describe a relationship as being "strained", it suggests that there is tension between the parties to it. No such tension exists between Jester and the Traveller. She might be unsure about what to do with the knowledge that the Traveller is not a god, but she never actually makes a decision or does anything (to the point where Mercer pretty much has to break character as the Traveller). In her mind, she and the Traveller are always going to be together. 1.144.108.85 (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:TenTonParasol that "temporarily strained" is a good description. It starts around the reveal of his true identity (episode 94) & by the time they get to Rumblecusp you can definitely see the stress in their relationship (episode 103 makes that obvious). I like "temporarily" because towards the end of the Rumblecusp arc, Jester puts herself in mortal danger when clinging to the Traveler (episode 108). Regardless, let's avoid the edit warring. If we can't reach a consensus here, there's always Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Sariel Xilo (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you ask someone what they think a "strained relationship" means, and they're likely to tell you that it means a relationship where there is some kind of friction or tension between the people in it. Where is that friction or tensiom here? Jester is stressed by the revelation that the Traveller is not a god, but it never fundamentally changes their relationship. She stresses over the idea of losing her power—not whether she should give it up, but whether it would be taken from her—and she stresses over how best to help the Traveller, but there is no strain between them. She never challenges him for lying to her or considers any alternative to their relationship. 1.129.108.67 (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jester questions the nature and future of their relationship in 2.105: "And also, at the end of it, if he doesn't want to be a god, what does that mean for me and him? Or... I don't know. (sighs) I don't know."
  • Laura says in the Talks Machina for 2.108-109: "Jester always gave him the benefit of the doubt, and loves him with her entire heart, so if he would have not seen that what they were doing was not acceptable, in his own way, then Jester would have probably walked away. I don’t know if she would have walked away from him, but it would have been a big issue for her." It's a statement that Jester did indeed have issue with what Artagan was doing and the reason it didn't break was Artagan came around to where she was in the end, and these points are derived from the fact that the Traveler is not a real deity. Laura says that, the period of time covered there has pushed Jester to no longer adore him "without boundaries", signaling a change in the relationship.
  • She says in the Talks Machina for 2.94: "It’s complicated, yeah. I imagine it would be really hard to have the one person, the one entity, that you think you can let all of your guard down with and be yourself turn out to not be that anymore, and you realize you have to put on the mask for them as well."
These all point to there being a tension in the relationship that is derived from the reveal to Jester that he is not a real god and his asking for her help—and his asking for her help is, in turn, derived from his not being a real god. All anxieties that Jester experiences are derived from that he is not a real god. Jester feeling stressed, as a result of his asking for help because he is not a real god, indicates a tension in here somewhere. Someone openly challenging or arguing with someone is not the exclusive way a tension in a relationship develops or is expressed, and lack of open arguing does not necessarily prove lack of tension or lack of strain. And, again, a relationship that is strained is not exclusively a relationship that is considering being ended. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"And also, at the end of it, if he doesn't want to be a god, what does that mean for me and him? Or... I don't know. (sighs) I don't know."

That just demonstrates my point that she us stressed over the idea of losing her power, not losing the Traveler.

"It's a statement that Jester did indeed have issue with what Artagan was doing and the reason it didn't break was Artagan came around to where she was in the end, and these points are derived from the fact that the Traveler is not a real deity."

Which is not evident in Critical Role. Artagan suggested killing 200 innocent people and Jester didn't bat an eye. Nor did he "come around to her" because she dug herself in deeper. She didn't ask Artagan to back down, she threw herself at him and was completely willing to be locked up with him.

"All anxieties that Jester experiences are derived from that he is not a real god."

No, her anxieties are derived from the thought of losing her power. Artagan might not be a god, but Jester's power is very real. She is afraid that Artagan and/or her powers will be taken from her.

Compare Jester's relationship with Artagan to the relationships between Fjord and Uk'otoa or Beau and her father. They're not healthy relationships, but Fjord and Beau recognise that and work towards fixing it, or at least making peace with it. Fjord questions Uk'otoa's intentions, recognises that he cannot contain Uk'otoa's power, accepts that he will likely be living with the consequences for the rest if his life and embraces the Wildmother as someone who can give him the strength to endure rather than solve his problens for him. Beau confronts her father, recognises her own role in the tensions between them, and is willing to let go of her resentment for the sake of TJ. Both Fjord and Beau demonstrate emotional growth, but Jester has not. Her relationship with Artagan is unhealthy; she is completely dependent at best, and he is controlling and manipulative at worst.

The mostly likely explanation for this is that because Marion is an agoraphobe, she was overly-protective of Jester. We know little about Jester's childhood, but she never really interacted with children her own age and so never learned about social interaction. Some of her behaviours are extremely worrying, ranging from inapropriate conversations (asking Essek if he is on the toilet), an inability to conceive of things beyond her own experiences (getting distracted by pastries in Uthodurn), no capacity to recognise the likely consequences of her actions (Fjord has to practically restrain her to stop her from rushing back into the mountain to fight the Laughing Hand), invading others' personal space without invitation (she starts examining Beau's eye tattoo) and so on and so forth. And then in the middle of this you get Artagan, an archfey with no sense of morality and a habit of manipulation, who makes her completely dependent on him for power and wholly devoted to her. Look at the pamphlets she makes for him—when asked why people would worship the Traveller, she is unable to articulate why beyond "because he's really cool, you guys". When she meets other followers, she becomes defensive, jealous and adversarial because she is afraid Artagan will favour someone else. 1.129.108.50 (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to comment on whether Jester's childhood affects this as we're not in the business of speculating on such connections here. Interpretation of the health of the relationship is also irrelevant. Laura, the player, has straight up disagreed with you on her own character regarding emotional growth per the provided quotes; and even then, "does not cause emotional growth" is not indicative "there is no strain or tension". But, your refutations point by point on the given quotes still literally describe a relationship with tension and strain. "Jester fears she will lose her powers bc she learned he is not actually a real god" is an argument that there is a tension, ergo a strain, in the relationship. ("She is anxious she will lose her powers because he is not actually a god is unrelated to their relationship and is not a friction related to their relationship, how?) "Learning that Artagan is not a real deity has caused Jester stress and anxiety because...." is a description that there is tension, conflict, or strain in the relationship because of a fact of the relationship. (Never mind that, like, her primary worry wasn't even over losing her magic. It came up, but was brought up by other members of the party.) Your argument rests on "well, she didn't antagonize him or openly argue with his decisions or requests, therefore there was no tension or strain between them", which is, like, incredibly narrow conception what "tension in a relationship" is. I—and, imo, you yourself actually—have provided quotes and points, both in the narrative and from the player, indicating that there is a tension and friction derived from the reveal that the Traveler is not an actual deity.
And, to reiterate, so it does not become lost, it ought to be included as it provides context as to why this reveal is significant to Jester as a narrative character. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I agree with User:TenTonParasol. Thanks for pulling quotes from Talks Machina - I don't keep up with that show. A lot of the IP editor's argument seems to be rooted in them not liking how the character is played and disagreeing with the player's interpretation of her actions. We can do a RfC to expand the discussion but otherwise I think "temporarily strained" is a good descriptor especially because her relationship with the Traveler is foundational to her character. Also, disclosing that the IP user tried to make a similar argument to their above argument on my talk page earlier. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Interpretation of the health of the relationship is also irrelevant."
It is when you are trying to portray them as having a "strained relationship". You have to define what that relationship actually is. In common parlance, a "strained relationship" is generally taken to mean a relationship where there is some kind of stressor in place, one that threatens the integrity of that relationship. How does this stressor - the discovery that Artagan is not a god - affect the integrity of the relationship? Jester never considers an existence without the Traveller despite knowledge of his deception. If anything, Jester has a strained relationship with the rest of the party because they're the ones who recognise the danger he puts her in. To present them as having a "strained relationship" implies something that is not actually there, like a reconciliation.
"A lot of the IP editor's argument seems to be rooted in them not liking how the character is played and disagreeing with the player's interpretation of her actions."
Don't try and second-guess what I'm thinking. You don't know what I'm thinking. 1.129.108.50 (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As previously stated, for strain or tension to exist in a relationship, it is not required that the parties consider ending the relationship entirely; that's basic parlance. My comment that the health of the relationship is irrelevant because strain exists in healthy, unhealthy, toxic, positive, abusive, and all other form of relationship. Tension and health exist on different axes. Frankly, I'm now very confused about your point here on that one.
And, well, as to how does the discovery that Artagan is not a god affect the integrity of the relationship. I feel like the question posed to me here is: how has the discovery "the Traveler is not a god" threatened the integrity of a god-cleric relationship? Which feels like a ludicrous question on its face.
Per previously pulled quotes, Laura states that this poses an emotional difficulty for Jester, that Jester changes how she acts around Artagan as a result, that Jester rethinks how freely she adores Artagan as a result, Jester in-narrative questions the future of their relationship if Artagan does not wish to be a god any longer, Laura states that Jester becomes wary of continuing to lie to the others that the Traveler is a god and is watchful for if Artagan wishes to continue that deception. These are not things that I am interpreting. I've quoted scenes and the player, and I am confident that I can in fact continue to pull quotes, both in-campaign and from Laura on Talks, pointing to stress in the relationship and the character experiencing anxiety over a fundamental perceived fact of the relationship being proven untrue. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 03:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a far more accurate way of describing it would be to say that the relationship between Jester and the Traveller puts strain on the party. After all, they're the ones who are torn by it; they want to support Jester, but have to consider killing the Traveller, knowing that this will likely drive her away.
"I am confident that I can in fact continue to pull quotes, both in-campaign and from Laura on Talks, pointing to stress in the relationship and the character experiencing anxiety over a fundamental perceived fact of the relationship being proven untrue."
It hasn't happened since they arrived in Eiselcross. The last time she visibly demonstrated stress was in the fight with Lucien, and that was because they nearly got wiped out (and maybe because she lobbied to attack directly). The Traveller never came into it. 1.129.108.50 (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"temporarily strained" ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 04:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Plot sections rely on primary sources. At the end of the day, all interpretation, synthesis or analysis of the plot must be based upon some secondary source (WP:PLOTCITE). An author may describe a character as one way and critics may disagree with the creator's interpretation. That disagreement in interpretation is best suited to the Reception section. While the limited coverage of the Traveler I've found was all published before the Rumblecusp arc, none of these sources say Artagan is abusive. They highlight trickery & chaos (1, 2, 3). The CBR article states: His trickery is mostly for comedic purposes, preferring to embarrass rather than harm. He is described in the Explorer's Guide to Wildemount as chaotic neutral. It's yet to be seen what the Archfey's true intentions are. I think at this point we're not going to reach consensus so we should solicit outside opinions either at some noticeboards or through a Request for comment. Sariel Xilo (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly why I've avoided personal comment on the health of the relationship, and I've relied on pointing to the character's and the player's characterizations of there being narrative stress in the relationship. I have no problem soliciting outside opinion, though in that case I'll certainly better organize the quotes in question. Though, I note that an RfC seems much, but not sure which WikiProject or other avenue seems best. I'll defer. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 04:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Characters - list or prose?

I was just wondering if it was felt amenable to convert the list structure of the character section into prose. WP:PROSE urges to prefer prose over lists, and converting to prose would more easier cover certain detail. I understand that many character sections are rendered in list format, but that is not universal: All Souls (TV series), Carnivàle, Dark Angel (American TV series), Lady Blue (TV series), Last of the Summer Wine, Final Fantasy VII, Ōkami, Dishonored. I've written up an overly lengthy draft of what a section may look like in this case. It's missing some wikilinks and citations, and the prose can be tightened up very much, but that draft is more for illustrative purposes of what a prose-version of the section can accomplish. If there's agreement to convert, I'd see to tightening up the prose, but the current draft is just to pitch the conversion per general writing guidelines toward preferring prose and ease of covering certain details. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 04:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think a better model would be the likes of No Time to Die and any of the Marvel films where there is a brief outline of who the character is, but the bulk of the entries focus on the off-camera development of the character. For example, this is the entry on Rami Malek's character in No Time to Die:
An adversary of Bond and Swann and a terrorist leader on a revenge mission. Producer Barbara Broccoli described the character as "the one that really gets under Bond's skin. He's a nasty piece of work." Malek described the character as someone who considers "himself as a hero almost in the same way that Bond is a hero". In a video on making of the film, director Cary Fukunaga described Safin as "More dangerous than anyone he's [Bond] ever encountered" and stated Safin is a "hyper intelligent and worthy adversary".
While I haven't seen much of Talks Machina, I imagine that it might be a useful resource for this sort of thing. For instance, I think Taliesinn Jaffe's thoughts on how he tried to make Caduceus different to Molly while still grieving for Molly (if he ever discussed such a thing) would fit this section better than an overview of each character's story arc. Especially since the actors don't always know where the characters will go; I seem to remember Travis Willingham mentioning that he chose a sailor background for Fjord on the spur of the moment. He knew nothing about Uk'otoa when he did so. On the other hand, Jaffe knew enough about Molly to know that they could end up in Eiselcross, but that he "expected that they would be on the other side of it".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Critical_Role_campaign_two&oldid=1005942603"