quietcorvid

18 | They/Them | STP fan | The Narrator’s Strongest Soldier | requests open

[reactivenotactive]

Hey, I’m QuietCorvid, I draw a lot and I like Slay The Princess | They/Them | 18

My favorite character is The Narrator, so you’ll probably see a lot of Him from me. That fucking bird that I hate (affectionate)

I’m most active on here and on TikTok, though here’s everywhere you can find me Linktree

My requests are currently [CLOSED]

PLEASE SEE BELOW MY GUIDELINES FOR REQUESTING A DRAWING! :)

Since this is a Slay The Princess themed blog I will only do STP related doodles/drawings

You can expect at least a doodle whenever you request something from me, it varies though and I’ll often do full pieces. It really just depends on my motivation. I do these requests to give back to the community, please don't request me to do something super ultra specific and detailed to take advantage of that.

^ Though really feel free to have fun with what you request. All I ask is that you don’t come in expecting a magnum opus lmao.

I do requests in order, so if yours is taking a little bit there’s probably someone else who requested something before you.

You can use my art for PFPs, backgrounds, banners, whatever the fuck. I don’t really care. You don’t have to credit me just don’t be an asshole and claim you drew it.

I won’t draw ships other than shiftingquiet. Though I’m like extremely lenient on what counts. Say if you want like two vessels cuddling thats fine. If you want the voices hugging each other thats fine. If you want to like reblog anything I made with a ship tag I don’t care. Just the only thing I actually will do if you explicitly ask for a ship is shiftingquiet.

(I have NO problem at all with other STP ships. I just simply only like to draw shiftingquiet. I don’t mind other ships! Voice/Voice or Princess/Princess is chill! I just only draw canon ships)

Speaking of shipping, any proshippers that I find interacting with my content/requesting art from me will just be blocked. That will remain a rule unchanged, so please don't bother arguing about it with me, it won't be entertained.

Why I don’t want proshippers interacting

There isn’t really much I can do to like, assure any of this since I have anon asks on. I just wanted to let it be known what I will/won’t do incase anyone sends in a request and it gets deleted. It’s really just an honor system type thing. If you want to disrespect any of these guidelines there really isn’t much I can do besides not doing the request. I just want basic decency really. Go wild otherwise.

———

Anyways, thanks for hearing me out.

You can send any further questions in my asks.

[reactivenotactive]

Skeptic and Prisoner attempt a word search

[reactivenotactive]

Photo

[reactivenotactive]

Paranoid and Nightmare

[reactivenotactive]

Adversary and Stubborn

[reactivenotactive]

Gamer rage

[reactivenotactive]

Rock on Witch

[reactivenotactive]

She got her jammies on

[reactivenotactive]

Nightmare doodle

[reactivenotactive]

I like her bug eyes. She’s weird. It endears me.

[reactivenotactive]

Some thoughts on Shifty.

My feelings towards her as a character are pretty neutral. I guess to put it bluntly I don’t care about her? As mean as that sounds. But it’s a little more than that. I think she’s a really well-written character that proposes an interesting dilemma.

I obviously don’t agree with her perspective about death, I’ve made that very clear, but it’s not like she can really help what she is. So I can’t hate her for it.

She had no choice in the matter, that’s The Narrators fault for giving an abstract concept a consciousness lmao. Ultimately while I really like some vessels, I don’t like her for all that she is and all that she represents, so I cannot pretend to care about her as a whole.

It’d be unfair to pretend like I did! Could you imagine? “Hey, you’re cool, but can you just get rid of these unsavory aspects about yourself?” That’s not how it works. You can’t just ask the literal concept of transformation to rid herself of certain parts of transformation.

She is ALL parts of transformation, that includes the good and the bad. It’s all or nothing here. And unfortunately for her I can’t see past the bad, because said bad is upholding death. For me the bad outweighs the good—I’m not going to be complicit with death.

Other than like the ethical concerns I have with keeping the system of death maintained when you have the choice to remove it, let’s engage with the other themes a bit because I’ve definitely tired the ‘death is bad’ thing. Y’all get my opinion on it by now, I’d hope.

Anyhow. Why keep myself constrained and continue on with a relationship where I’m not happy, and why lie and say that I’m fine with what hurts me? To me it’s not just about the question of whether or not death is necessary for meaning, it’s also about moving on.

And moving on in STP for me looks like removing her from my life. I don’t hate her for it, I just cant justify accepting her love when I can’t reciprocate.

At the end of the day STP is not just about the dynamic between TLQ and Shifty, it’s also about the player. The player is the one who makes the choices for themselves. And your choices directly impact the outcome. Nothing happens if you don’t choose to play the game.

I think sometimes within the fandom people disconnect TLQ from the player a bit too much. Which happens with almost every game that has the player playing a character. Ultimately you’re the decider. TLQ is what you make of him. Your relationship with her is what you make of it.

There is no ending more canon than any other endings, and no choice is the correct one. For me, my resolution is Your New World, for others it’s There Are No Endings, so why is it that people create so many dramatic arguments over which is the most ‘valid’ option?

And that’s not a rhetorical question either! I’m curious! I see so many arguments about whether you should like Shifty, hate her, or whatever.

And I know it’s ironic for me to ask why when I’m making an entire thing about my thoughts on her, but I’m not doing this to change minds, only to discuss how I view the game I like. And it does genuinely interest me when people get defensive over what take on her is the ‘right’ one.

I totally understand being frustrated when people misinterpret her character, people often do, but as long as people are approaching it with good faith, literally any opinion about Shifty is a valid one. You’re supposed to feel conflicted about her, at least a bit.

If the game didn’t have that nuance, then the end choice wouldn’t nearly be as powerful. If it was made obvious what the ‘right’ decision was, then there would be no Slay The Princess. Or at least it wouldn’t be nearly as good a game.

———

All that is to say, I think she’s just alright. She serves her purpose, and she’s a solid character. I will do a proper analysis on her inevitably. These are just my general opinions about her, and about how she is perceived by the broader community.

[reactivenotactive]

Wild eyes regard you

[reactivenotactive]

Can you doodle Thorn and Damsel dancing together? Pls 🙏

I can indeed doodle that

[reactivenotactive]

A very heartwarming and tender kiss

[reactivenotactive]

weve seen hero, oppy, cont doods, any other bird brain takes, what about stubborn, or cheated giving the narrator hell lol

Mr. the Narrator doesn’t particularly care for up close confrontation

[reactivenotactive]

Some thoughts on The Good Ending

The Good Ending isn’t my preferred, but I don’t really understand why people detest it so much. Conceptually I don’t think it’s terrible. It’s only terrible if you think you absolutely have to do something with your life, which obviously cant happen in TGE as it is stasis.

I have yet to hear one good reason that TGE is ‘bad’ or ‘wrong’ other than a personal dislike of the idea. I also feel like it isn’t helped given it’s a game, and obviously you want to explore things further. So TGE doesn’t end up satisfying from a gameplay standpoint.

But like if we engage in the hypothetical, I can’t really find an issue with a constant blissful existence. But I also don’t really care for having ‘meaning’ in life because ‘value’ is a subjective concept and one we entirely made up. Nothing has an inherent value or lack of it.

I guess you can argue that TGE isn’t really ‘real’ considering its manufactured by The Narrator, but that also fails to consider that TLQ, so long as he perceives that happiness to be real, then it is real. He is happy in the good ending as long as he believes that he is.

Also you can argue that it’s ‘fake’ and ‘doesn’t matter’ for pretty much everything in the game. The construct is just that—a construct. But does that necessarily mean that those experiences didn’t affect you and shape you?

When you say it’s fake you’re failing to engage in what the game is trying to tell you. When you don’t acknowledge anything presented and try to just detach yourself you end up unfinished. Held by her hands forever. How is that any better than the eternity in The Good Ending?

Like, I do understand why people dislike The Good Ending. It’s unsatisfying from the standpoint of it leaving you wanting more. But I don’t get why people claim it is a ‘bad’ ending other than a reactionary reason, or simply disliking Narrator so you automatically dislike TGE too

I would totally like to hear anyone else’s opinions on it though, and I’m willing to clarify further too. The Good Ending is the one that sparks the most interesting debates imo because pretty much everyone I’ve come across either is okay with it, or straight up hates it lol.

[salty-an-disco]

The Good Ending isn't about that blissful happiness, to me. That experience is just The Long Quiet's cuz they have the Narrator there to push happiness down their throat. Everyone else in the world won't have that, they simply have the state their currently in to be stuck in it forever, which, assuming it'll be all perfect or at least tolerable enough to be able to stand for all eternity is wishful thinking at best.

An unchanging world falls apart the moment you put it through too much scrutiny, especially if it's a world that was previously changing. @cymatile said in discord how The Good Ending is very anthropocentric because it only really cares about the whims of people. All animals will still have their instincts to hunt and breed, and will be unable to cuz of the new nature of the world. And nature itself won't be anymore, as it relies on growth and rot.

The Good Ending isn't a 'wrong' choice (there are no wrong choices), but it is a very selfish one that at best, will be a HEA situation for some people, and at worst, people will be forced to stay in miserable states for the rest of their lives with no chance of ever changing it.

[reactivenotactive]

I would understand that counter argument if not for the fact that The Narrator tells you in the confrontation with Him in the mirror that people will still have the capacity to change. That he made the tear between Shifty and TLQ rough on purpose so that each of them still carry parts of each other. He planned for that. People still can change, and they can still do things, they just don't die.

“Light, burdenless, an endless pattern of forgetfulness leading into the joys of rediscovery.”

It is distinctly not like HEA. They share similarities for sure, but what makes HEA so tortuous is that it lacks change. The Narrator clearly knows it’s miserable that way—He even gets miserable within HEA Himself. If He didn’t realize that a world fully without change would suck, He wouldn’t have clarified that TLQ still holds a bit of change within him.

Presumably the stasis in The Good Ending is only for The Narrator and TLQ, because remaining within the construct is the only way The Narrator can continue to exist. As far as we know The World itself is fine, and people still can change, can learn, can grow. If anything it provides them extra freedom and opportunity to do so considering death is now out of the picture.

It is somewhat selfish to force that on people I do agree, but is it not also selfish to keep death, when many peoples stories are cut short long before they wanted? Is it not kind of rude in a way to give a sapient being life, only for it to inevitably be taken from them?

If given the opportunity to make that change, to rid the world of death, I argue it’s more ethical to take it. You could again counter argue with ‘life with death is just the way things have always been’ but it doesn’t have to be that way in this context.

Inevitably people will move on—they will not be miserable forever. Forever is a long time and they still have the ability to change. In the real world why do you think we choose to help people with depression rather than just letting them succumb to it? Because there is always the chance that helping somebody will lead to something good, even if at the time they don't want it. If you asked me 4 years ago I would have vehemently opposed that, but now I’m very much glad I’m still around.

As for the argument about it being more centralized on people, yes it is. I don’t really have any solid counterpoint. Though I always just interpreted the question of ‘is death good or not’ more of a philosophical one and not really about the logistics of what exactly a world without death would look down to every minute detail. It’s going to be centric to people when the question is proposed by a person, there will always be that bias.

Though I’ll oblige, and give my thoughts on that, too.

I can’t really say I care too much about what it would look like for animals. I personally definitely care more about sapient beings on the line here. The self-awareness is what makes this question so polarizing. A beetle wouldn’t care if I lived or died, I wouldn’t care if a beetle lived or died.

Not to say that animals don’t care for each other, they do, just not in the same capacity that people do. Most animals wouldn’t care as much as we would either way—at least not that much. And the animals that do care? Most life strives for survival anyways. Crows hold funerals for each other, elephants mourn, swans die of heart-break. Never again would they have to worry about that.

So regardless it is still looking like removing death is ultimately the best outcome here.

Without death, there is no rot. Life isn’t all happiness, sure. It is also pain, anger, hurt, mania, and a multitude of other emotions, but those emotions and feelings aren’t constant. And the bad doesn’t neutralize the good. I don't need to be pelted with rocks to know being pelted with rocks feels bad, and that I’d rather not be pelted with rocks.

(Death is the rocks)

[salty-an-disco]

The thing is that I don't really trust that the Narrator could make so that the rough tear somehow contained all the parts of change needed to make an unchanging world work. Not to mention that the question of what are the 'good' parts of change is another debate entirely.

And a world where only growth is possible means that eventually there'll be an overflow till there's so much stuff that there simply can't be space anymore. Because how can you stop people, and especially animals, from just breeding and creating more and more? I can imagine an end of the world in that way, not with an endless nothing, but with an overflow of 'stuff'.

I stand by that it's not only a selfish choice, but an egotistical one, to think that a single individual can fully know what's good for life as a whole.

[reactivenotactive]

Selfish? Yes—but I don’t think selfishness always equates to something bad. Egotistical? Maybe. If you consider the trolley problem to also be one of ego. In my view, this is just the world’s biggest trolley problem. Remove one thing to save as much life as you possibly can, even if it causes some level of harm, it ultimately will level out.

Whether or not we can trust that The Narrator was able to make things work in the way he proposed is an entirely different matter, right now I’m only arguing for this hypothetical under the condition that His proposed world is what He says it is going to be. In which I think it would be the best option. Practicality I don’t believe matters as much here because this scenario is an entirely made up concept, and one that we can’t actually examine under a practical framework. We will never know what it would look like.

Though I will try to shift my argument over to the practical. While not my preferred way of examining this, It’s still worth breaking down.

So practically, if we go off the information presented by The Narrator, and look at what we know to be true within the game, I still think it adds up. I think it’s easier to lean more towards He was being truthful and was able to make things work in the way he set out to do, rather than not, and here’s why.

We do know at the very least he wasn’t lying about the split being rough, and we know that it definitively worked. After you slay the heart of the Princess to trigger A New and Unending Dawn, TLQ comments on the fact that a part of her still remains within him.

That sliver of change is enough for more interpersonal growth, but we don’t fully know if that change is enough for people to literally grow. It remains untold whether or not animals would keep breeding, or whether people keep aging.

Though I would assume not, and I assume that because of what removing death would actually entail.

Death isn’t really a hard rule. Matter will always exist even in the heat death of the universe, but given the fact that The Narrator mentions the bones of the universe are old, I think it’s safe to assume that he wants to prevent natural degradation and entropy in general. He wouldn’t say that if it didn’t matter.

If it were the case that people would age and animals would breed, there would kind of have to be death and degradation in some capacity, but in this situation we have removed it. Practically speaking nothing could age because to age you have to form new cells, and old ones must die. For things to grow, cells have to die, and they can’t do that in a world without death.

In A New and Unending Dawn, you are met with the stillness of a dying star. The star now not able to degrade, because you removed death from the equation. I think it’s safe to say we are using ‘death’ in a more loose sense here.

So, everything in existence would remain in existence in the state that it is in, along with non-living things remaining in their same states. There would be no new life, but the life that is in current existence is still able to experience things and learn. The inanimate things still around only being able to be manipulated through intervention, and not natural means.

That star wouldn’t super nova on its own, and a new star would never be born, but you could take the matter from it and shape it into something new yourself. If that makes sense.

[reactivenotactive]

Some thoughts on The Good Ending

The Good Ending isn’t my preferred, but I don’t really understand why people detest it so much. Conceptually I don’t think it’s terrible. It’s only terrible if you think you absolutely have to do something with your life, which obviously cant happen in TGE as it is stasis.

I have yet to hear one good reason that TGE is ‘bad’ or ‘wrong’ other than a personal dislike of the idea. I also feel like it isn’t helped given it’s a game, and obviously you want to explore things further. So TGE doesn’t end up satisfying from a gameplay standpoint.

But like if we engage in the hypothetical, I can’t really find an issue with a constant blissful existence. But I also don’t really care for having ‘meaning’ in life because ‘value’ is a subjective concept and one we entirely made up. Nothing has an inherent value or lack of it.

I guess you can argue that TGE isn’t really ‘real’ considering its manufactured by The Narrator, but that also fails to consider that TLQ, so long as he perceives that happiness to be real, then it is real. He is happy in the good ending as long as he believes that he is.

Also you can argue that it’s ‘fake’ and ‘doesn’t matter’ for pretty much everything in the game. The construct is just that—a construct. But does that necessarily mean that those experiences didn’t affect you and shape you?

When you say it’s fake you’re failing to engage in what the game is trying to tell you. When you don’t acknowledge anything presented and try to just detach yourself you end up unfinished. Held by her hands forever. How is that any better than the eternity in The Good Ending?

Like, I do understand why people dislike The Good Ending. It’s unsatisfying from the standpoint of it leaving you wanting more. But I don’t get why people claim it is a ‘bad’ ending other than a reactionary reason, or simply disliking Narrator so you automatically dislike TGE too

I would totally like to hear anyone else’s opinions on it though, and I’m willing to clarify further too. The Good Ending is the one that sparks the most interesting debates imo because pretty much everyone I’ve come across either is okay with it, or straight up hates it lol.

[salty-an-disco]

The Good Ending isn't about that blissful happiness, to me. That experience is just The Long Quiet's cuz they have the Narrator there to push happiness down their throat. Everyone else in the world won't have that, they simply have the state their currently in to be stuck in it forever, which, assuming it'll be all perfect or at least tolerable enough to be able to stand for all eternity is wishful thinking at best.

An unchanging world falls apart the moment you put it through too much scrutiny, especially if it's a world that was previously changing. @cymatile said in discord how The Good Ending is very anthropocentric because it only really cares about the whims of people. All animals will still have their instincts to hunt and breed, and will be unable to cuz of the new nature of the world. And nature itself won't be anymore, as it relies on growth and rot.

The Good Ending isn't a 'wrong' choice (there are no wrong choices), but it is a very selfish one that at best, will be a HEA situation for some people, and at worst, people will be forced to stay in miserable states for the rest of their lives with no chance of ever changing it.

[reactivenotactive]

I would understand that counter argument if not for the fact that The Narrator tells you in the confrontation with Him in the mirror that people will still have the capacity to change. That he made the tear between Shifty and TLQ rough on purpose so that each of them still carry parts of each other. He planned for that. People still can change, and they can still do things, they just don't die.

“Light, burdenless, an endless pattern of forgetfulness leading into the joys of rediscovery.”

It is distinctly not like HEA. They share similarities for sure, but what makes HEA so tortuous is that it lacks change. The Narrator clearly knows it’s miserable that way—He even gets miserable within HEA Himself. If He didn’t realize that a world fully without change would suck, He wouldn’t have clarified that TLQ still holds a bit of change within him.

Presumably the stasis in The Good Ending is only for The Narrator and TLQ, because remaining within the construct is the only way The Narrator can continue to exist. As far as we know The World itself is fine, and people still can change, can learn, can grow. If anything it provides them extra freedom and opportunity to do so considering death is now out of the picture.

It is somewhat selfish to force that on people I do agree, but is it not also selfish to keep death, when many peoples stories are cut short long before they wanted? Is it not kind of rude in a way to give a sapient being life, only for it to inevitably be taken from them?

If given the opportunity to make that change, to rid the world of death, I argue it’s more ethical to take it. You could again counter argue with ‘life with death is just the way things have always been’ but it doesn’t have to be that way in this context.

Inevitably people will move on—they will not be miserable forever. Forever is a long time and they still have the ability to change. In the real world why do you think we choose to help people with depression rather than just letting them succumb to it? Because there is always the chance that helping somebody will lead to something good, even if at the time they don't want it. If you asked me 4 years ago I would have vehemently opposed that, but now I’m very much glad I’m still around.

As for the argument about it being more centralized on people, yes it is. I don’t really have any solid counterpoint. Though I always just interpreted the question of ‘is death good or not’ more of a philosophical one and not really about the logistics of what exactly a world without death would look down to every minute detail. It’s going to be centric to people when the question is proposed by a person, there will always be that bias.

Though I’ll oblige, and give my thoughts on that, too.

I can’t really say I care too much about what it would look like for animals. I personally definitely care more about sapient beings on the line here. The self-awareness is what makes this question so polarizing. A beetle wouldn’t care if I lived or died, I wouldn’t care if a beetle lived or died.

Not to say that animals don’t care for each other, they do, just not in the same capacity that people do. Most animals wouldn’t care as much as we would either way—at least not that much. And the animals that do care? Most life strives for survival anyways. Crows hold funerals for each other, elephants mourn, swans die of heart-break. Never again would they have to worry about that.

So regardless it is still looking like removing death is ultimately the best outcome here.

Without death, there is no rot. Life isn’t all happiness, sure. It is also pain, anger, hurt, mania, and a multitude of other emotions, but those emotions and feelings aren’t constant. And the bad doesn’t neutralize the good. I don't need to be pelted with rocks to know being pelted with rocks feels bad, and that I’d rather not be pelted with rocks.

(Death is the rocks)