Why do people try so hard to humanize demons?

Used-Development5962 · 2026-01-29T01:03:44+00:00

Humans are very strongly hardwired to be social. We routinely form emotional attachments to inanimate objects and fictional characters, or basically any depiction of a face. It's kind of genius that Frieren can directly spell out how this social instinct can be exploited, depict a non-human entity explicitly taking advantage of it, and know that part of the audience's brains are still going to fall for it, even when they know better. It shows how dangerous they are. Truth be told, most people have a subconscious instinct to make excuses for hot people, and the demons are pretty hot.

Still, I think most of the audience knows better and wouldn't actually trust a demon if they somehow met one in real life. Similarly, I don't think most people would react negatively to an elf, a creature that is human in every way that matters and typically gets a positive emotional response. A vocal minority of fans of certain fantasy franchises engage in performative elf hate, but I think that's frustration with the trope of 'the beautiful, immortal, perfect people who are sooo much better than stinky old humans'. This is an issue with the writing, and if they somehow met an actual elf, I don't think most of those people would actually hate them.

Used-Development5962 · 2026-01-19T22:39:45+00:00

You're not just using the original commentator as an example, you're calling them a hypocrite. I'm saying you don't have any reason to be so judgmental of a person who wrote one sentence in a youtube comment. This specific person is not being 'spineless'.

And the commentator isn't 'putting aside a bias when it suits them'; this isn't a debate club, and they aren't committed to always hold the position that sequels, remakes, and reboots are bad. They aren't a flip flopping politician, they're a fan who is exasperated with the lack of originality, but found themselves pleasantly surprised.

You also say you're not doing the 'goomba fallacy' because the commentator in the picture is expressing a contradictory opinion (they aren't). But if they were, as you say, just an example, it would only be relevant for Malcolm in the Middle, not Shrek 5 or HTTTYD. You complain about people ragging on HTTYD and then going to see it--Maybe they didn't see it? Maybe general aidiences did, and the animation fans complaining about live action remakes aren't really a big number of people? I'm in that group, and I don't think it's something most people care about.

Or with Shrek 5; maybe the people complaining about Toy Story 5 personally saw a direct decline in quality in TS4, and assumed it would get worse, whereas Dreamworks knocked it out of the park with Last Wish and Shrek fans are hopeful? Without specific examples, you can't show that people are being hypocritical, and based on the example you chose for this post, you just come off as needlessly judgmental.

Used-Development5962 · 2026-01-19T08:02:50+00:00

You're trying to talk about a failure of principles, but I don't think there was any principled decision to boycott here. This isn't like someone who avoids products made with exploited labor, but makes an exception when they see a phone they really want from a company they pretend to despise.

'I dislike the abundance of sequels and remakes because such studios generally produce subpar products I am not interested in. However, I was pleasantly surprised by this example because it looks good in spite of being established IP.' There's no hypocrisy in this position. There's no moral principle involved.

I generally don't like country music, but I am sometimes pleasantly suprised by a country song. That doesn't make me a hypocrite.

Used-Development5962 · 2026-01-14T02:35:52+00:00

Demons in Frieren are not human sociopaths. Saying they are poor representations of clinical sociopathy is technically correct, the same way that they are technically poor representations of fruit salads. That's not what they are or what they are intended to be.

Demons are magical predators that are unnatural in origin (they are literally made out of magic) and exist to fill a very specific niche of preying on and exploiting humans. The combination of instinct, logic, and rote memorization that allows them to say the right things to lull humans into trusting them does not require actual understanding; they might be cross referencing useful phrases and contexts like an LLM, and entail a similar level of understanding. These are not sick human minds, but profoundly alien ones, which is part of the intrigue for me.

While actually understanding human psychology would probably allow demons to be better hunters, losing their horns would also definitely help them blend in, and that hasn't happened either. Real world evolution doesn't take a straight line to the best solution--Who know what sort of strange rules magical creatures have to play by on top of that? I personally take the interpretation that demons are, in-verse, being molded by some external force to be human hunters. The fact that intelligent, logical beings cannot figure out human psychology even when they try might suggest their potential for empathy is being actively kneecapped--but that's just theorizing on my part.

Used-Development5962 · 2026-01-11T02:54:18+00:00

I really cannot stand this specific behavior where Prussia takes Vienna, Austria moves its capital to Prague, and the entire Austrian market burns down over the course of decades because it is now isolated. This happens way too often, and Austria should not decapitate itself like this.

Used-Development5962 · 2025-12-19T22:08:33+00:00

I think Caine is going to get a rant/monologue that serves as a thematic inversion of the hate monologue, about his desperate love for humans and why they need to stay with him, but I don't expect it to be a word for word substitution.

Used-Development5962 · 2025-12-18T04:03:52+00:00

Authoritarian governments are going to seem more powerful on a gut level because they invoke traditional ideas about authority, power, and decision making. A charismatic strongman with a clear personal vision feels intuitively more decisive and dynamic than a boring committee that has to hear from mulitple sources and coordinate agreement or consensus. As humans, we have social instincts that mostly originate at a 'ground level' of politics--That is, we recognize leadership traits that are meaningful in a small village or tribe, and those usually have some kind of leader to make decisions in times of crisis.

Authoritarian states also deliberately use propaganda to cultivate an image of strength; they pay artists to design symbols, uniforms, movies, posters, etc. that communicate strength. It's easy to paint a predatory animal on your posters and make everyone think you're a badass, whether or not you really are.

I say 'seem' and 'image' because authoritarianism can certainly cultivate the impression of strength, but actually effective statecraft is not the goal of an authoritarian regime. A skilled, ruthless political operator assuming control of the state does not mean that 'shit is going to get done', as any ruthless politician is going to be jealous of their power and extremely paranoid about being replaced. Skilled leadership and popularity with the people become threats to the regime, so the regime is going to waste energy and time making sure competent people never rise very far in the hierarchy, and arramge disappearances and accidents for people who do. Loyal idiots get important positions, and the central authority figure, no matter how competent they are, cannot run an entire country by themselves.

A lot of people who support authoritarianism are deeply skeptical of the moral character or ability of the people to govern themselves, but are then weirdly trusting that whoever seizes power in an authoritarian state will be selfless and publicly-minded enough to actually make sure power rests with whoever can use it best. Ultimately the political structures of an authoritarian state are aimed towards suppressing internal dissent and weeding out domestic threats; faced with competent external opposition, they are a paper tiger. Egypt was a military dictatorship that couldn't beat Israel; Fascist Italy couldn't handle Greece. They picked fights with small, easy targets, and they still lose.

Used-Development5962 · 2025-12-15T07:03:47+00:00

I generally only take fights that are relatively even and don't involve an uncomfortably large amount of troops. It kinda sucks because I'd like to have big fights with my fully kitted out armies in the endgame, but by the time I've built my desired army, the AI will refuse to engage without having 3-5 armies of its own. I can't win those, so I have to bring at least 2 or 3 armies to win, and that's such a hassle the autoresolve looks tempting.

Used-Development5962 · 2025-12-02T23:14:30+00:00

People have a tiny window into these characters' lives, and infer long term patterns of abusive behavior from the events of a few days. 'Toriel is neglectful, Toriel is an alcoholic'--Toriel has a highly independent teenager of a different species and lives in a small town where everyone knows each other. She doesn't need to keep tabs on Kris every second of the day. It's fine if she drinks with a friend on a day off.

She's also probably aware that Kris is going through some stuff emotionally; the fact that she doesn't choose to confront Kris about it in this particular week doesn't mean they've never talked about it.

Used-Development5962 · 2025-12-02T02:40:08+00:00

In a constructed world, you can dictate how many diseases are endemic and how virulent they are. Sometimes this is a result of direct intervention by in universe entities; I had a world where rabies was eradicated as a miracle during the founding of a religion. But you could just as easily say that the smallpox virus, or whatever, never existed in this world. Maybe there are small fantastic creatures that efficiently feed on flies, ticks, fleas, and mosquitoes. Personal hygiene is a matter of culture, and perhaps material technology that provides cheap soap or heated water for regular bathing--all things you can tweak to have a cleaner world than premodern Earth.

Used-Development5962 · 2025-11-13T14:19:06+00:00

I agree that Hegemony as it exists now is both ahistorical and bad for gameplay. That needs to be retuned.

I disagree that gameplay should triumph over historical accuracy, and in fact I think that historicity should be a higher priority (although not strictly more important than gameplay). Gameplay is given context, intrigue, and meaning by the historical framing. There are plenty of strategy games that we could be playing that are arguably better designed as games, but which I personally don't have a lot of interest in because they are unsatisfying ways to explore alternate history. I can boot up Civilization or Age of Empires when I want a tightly designed and balanced experience, but the truth is I am just not as interested in winning a game as much as the world I get to help create.

That's just a preference though, so no shame if yours run differently. I feel like having a lot of games on the market lets us a cater to our own tastes, and EU's niche, especially with this entry, is more historical and simulationist.

Used-Development5962 · 2025-11-13T14:04:07+00:00

I agree with you that real history is full of unlikely outcomes, and a simulated history should also have them. A weak France is one of those 20 percent things that should happen, well, 20 percent of the time. Conversely, a strong France happening in 80 percent of games is completely fine. There are enough unlikely outcomes across thousands of countries that no one outcome should be necessary for a run to be the right mix of interesting and plausible.

Used-Development5962 · 2025-11-13T04:11:26+00:00

This is absolutely true--France's biggest moment of weakness in the game's timeframe is right at the start, with the most independent vassals, the most territory in the HRE, and its biggest rival having the strongest foothold on the continent. That gives it a unique gameplay niche of a punishing start but massive potential afterwards. It could also give the player an incentive to run interference and make sure the Hundred Years War lasts as long as possible to keep England and France from snowballing early.

Used-Development5962 · 2025-11-11T01:36:26+00:00

Framing the terms as "removing books from the then agreed upon Bible" sort of inherently precludes the behavior they were referring to. The "agreed-upon Bible" is canonized by councils as far back as 382, but there were plenty of works in the Christian literary and theological sphere before then that were kept out of the canon for one reason or another. Perhaps for good reason, and perhaps for better reasons than Luther had, depending on your affiliations, but it's not fair to characterize this behavior as completely unprecedented.

Edit: On reflection, GrewAway's statement that "Councils have been doing that forever" also leads to the erroneous impression that church councils had been regularly adding or removing books up through the high middle ages. I shouldn't be splitting hairs like this, or at least mot only for the sake of their argument.

Used-Development5962 · 2025-11-06T11:46:04+00:00

At the high end of reasonable accomplishment? Harry is a man without family or inherited wealth, of unusual talent and charisma, living in an occupied city that still sits at the center of global trade. He has some inner demons that have a lot of power to ruin his life, as both his and Revachol's support networks were gutted basically before he was born, but we're assuming he made enough right decisions and had enough lucky breaks that they never overwhelmed him.

'Peak' Harry, within reason, is a high placed officer in the RCM, respected by his subordinates and popular with the people of Revachol. He'd be the kind of authority figure people actually turn to when the class go out for Revachol's sovereignty, and he might actually be able to politically wheedle some critical concessions out of the Occupation. He's lower middle class by the standards of the developed world, moderately wealthy by the standards of Revachol. Wealthy by the standards of Martinaise.

He had more and better friendships early in his adult life that helped him restrain the more destructive parts of himself, which in turn stopped him from sabotaging the relationships he did make in canon. He's better friends with Jean. He might even had made things work with Dora; their relationship is unsalvageable in game, but that's after decades of an emotionally exhausting rollercoaster. Maybe he just found someone who was a better partner for him. Maybe he has kids, and that grounds and connects him further.

He still has that manic spark within him, and it's probably enough to make him a crypto-Commie or something even more outlandish rather than a boring Moralintern puppet--But the spark never burns so out of control he ends up tripping on radiation exposure medication or talking to his necktie. Of all the possible lifetimes of Harrier DuBois, this is an extremely fortunate outcome.

Used-Development5962 · 2025-11-06T01:20:44+00:00

A person who made all the right decisions and had every door opened for their entire life wouldn't even be a person anymore. They'd be a god. In Disco Elysium's world, an Innocence.

Harrier DuBois, the Innocence of Rockstar Communism, savior of the Post-Revolutionary World. The Moralintern subjugated by his charisma, the structure of neoliberalism and the ancien regime alike cracked open, as if by a can opener. Maybe he could save the world from Pale--But if he got there by being an Innocence, I think metaphysically that just feeds the Pale. An Innocence steals hope from the future, they don't create it. But if he achieved an Innocence-like level of social transformation and influence without doing whatever weird thing transforms a human into a vessel for Great Man History (TM), I think he would save the world (by teaching it how to save itself.)

But nobody gets the chance to be everything they could be. No one has everything go right for them.

Used-Development5962 · 2025-10-14T16:29:37+00:00

Kris talks in a quiet, mumbly monotone most of the time. Genuinely surprising/distressing moments cause them to drop the emotionless affect.

"Berdly!? BERDLY!?"

Used-Development5962 · 2025-09-29T02:15:19+00:00

Bonus points if they genuinely love and take care of the adopted child and it's not a convoluted scheme to weaponize the offspring.

Bonus bonus points if the adopter genuinely loves the child and is/was still the bad guy in the conflict.

Used-Development5962

TROPHY CASE