Relatively recently, I made a thread to discuss potential storyline genres and directions players might want to see in Dragonfable. There were a number of interesting responses (and it certainly assisted with some of my projects), but there were two that were reiterated by a number of members:
Some of the members wanted horror, more types of storylines that created conflict and questioned the Hero's status and role.
Others preferred things to be heartwarming, focusing on character interactions and kindness, perhaps as a reminder to what is pleasant and gives life meaning. The Hero is meant to be kind, after all.
As you can see, these focus on two very different aspects of the Hero's characterisation. The horror shows their adaptibility, perhaps instilling hope in the manner in which the Hero overcomes the obstacles relentlessly thrown in their path.
The heartwarming shows their kindness, instilling hope more directly in how the Hero nurtures things in preparation for the future.
I suppose you could label them as masculinist and feminine approaches to characterisation, respectively. In this case, you object to the masculinist, correct?
I also recommend (if you've finished the Weaver saga), going to Aegis' house in Book 3 Ravenloss and completing his personal quest. As well as Book 3 Aria's Mother's Day quests.
PS:little grammar question: How do you refer to a person with unspecified gender? For some reason "they" is stuck in my head but an English teacher told me that the way to refer to single number third person is "it" which just sounds like referring to a person as an object(feels so damn weird).(English is not my native)
You are correct, 'it' refers to an inanimate, which is a weird way to refer to a person. It used to be common to refer to babies that way in the 20th century, but this century
it's that's considered offensive.
There are four ways to refer to a living creature with unspecified gender (I've given this rant before... maybe I should find or make a blog post or something to attach...). Two of them make sense.
1: In English, neutral is feminine. You can refer to a person with unspecified gender using the feminine pronouns (she, her, etc.)
Think of a captain of a ship referring to it as 'she'. This is because the ship is considered to have a soul. Also because sailors like women.
...Maybe that's a bad example.
2: Another technically correct way is to use inconsistent pronouns. If you alternate between describing a gender neutral person as 'she' and 'he', this applies. It's an extremely confusing method, however. Also, the precise sequence (F, M, F, M...) of the person's pronouns may be disrupted if you edit, which can then cause further confusion... so it's not really a method I would recommend.
3: The singular 'they'. While technically incorrect according to traditional methodology, this is the least ambiguous; the only ambiguity comes in comparisons between a single person and a group of people. Since this is the clearest option, it is colloquially correct; in time I suspect it will become technically correct.
4: Keri Hulme's gender neutral pronouns, which comprise 've', 'vis' and 'ver'. These are not a technical component of the English language, but they can be used.
I tried using them in a story once... it did not work so well, and I ended up removing them. I recall the Greg Egan novel 'Disapora' used them without too much incident. Overall, I would not recommend them except in certain circumstances.
I typically use the singular 'they' for most applications where I need to be understood. In essays which prohibit this, I then switch to the feminine. Both are invisible to readers, but feminine is confusing for people unaware of the grammatical rules.