Forums » Smalltalk » Any Fictionkin on RPR?

I feel that they look way into what Tumblr says and not how the sane crowd says. 'Primitive' judgement as it seems. I had that crap pinned on me in 2014 about someone going on that I can't RP a canon character, because I would be made' fun' of.

I dont think that is what is going on here at all.

i am personally curious as to a clarification on where the line is drawn concerning identifying as someone's character. is there a line? i can accept the belief that a creator wills a universe into existence, and that we are all influenced in our creations, but is it seen as generally equally acceptable among fictionkin to identify with say, a RPR user's character for example as opposed to one from mainstream media? also, the difference i see between kinning with an egyptian god and a homestuck character is that the latter has a living copyright holder, so how is that handled?

i believe the main worry with an identity like this is that it can be construed as disrespectful to the person who 'discovered' (right term for the fickin theory?) the character originally, especially as those characters may be that person's own representation of self, such as a fursona.

(also, a note regarding ''fictional' beings from Native American tales' - they are not considered fictional.)

I'm extremely confident that all the replies on this topic are based on the information presented by the people who posted, and not what Tumblr users may or may not have said.

There are a lot of things being mentioned here in favor of fictionkin that make heavy implications on people's personal viewpoints and creations, including the ability to misuse other people's creations in favor of your identity. It's a very, very gray area because shutting down someone's right to say 'No, you can't use my ___ in that way' by saying 'But this is my identity and I am allowed to identify how I am' is something that is very easily done and extremely harmful. I'm certain nobody in this topic does this, but when fictionkin is recognized as an actual identity, with it comes a level of protection that in the way I see it presented here will tread on very sensitive territory. It opens the doors to a lot of abuse of people's creations, and in a way also undermines the effort and love people put into their crafts. That is probably why there is some resistance against the idea.

I also want to elaborate on things like dragons: they are essentially big reptiles, of which we have seen and lost countless of species throughout human history all over the world. In times when information was fragile (single copies being lost, translations into other languages not always being accurate) and easily overly dramatized due to a lack of ability to fact-check for yourself ('I'm telling you, this scaled creature was MASSIVE, it attacked me, I even saw it breathe fire!' - who is to say this didn't happen if they weren't there? Who can verify this?) it is extremely likely that creatures such as dragons were created based on existing animals with some good old human touches. We tend to be good at exaggerating and not communicating well. And different regions have different species, and different people tell different tales. It's actually pretty common for people to misinterpret natural phenomena and give them meaning beyond what is actually there. (Similar to a door opening from a draft, but people who strongly believe in the supernatural may fully believe it was a ghost and share that story.)

From a scientific standpoint is seems extremely unlikely that dragons appeared into lore due to past lives and alternate universes, when we have much more plausible alternatives available that are based in facts. This isn't just limited to dragons, a lot of things in life are like this. As someone who values science over spirituality, it is for me personally difficult to accept that the things we have no explanations for at this time are spiritual instead of science that we just haven't gotten around to yet, so I find myself disagreeing with the ideas presented here very strongly.

That is not to say you're not allowed to identify this way, by all means you are free to believe what you believe and I will not judge. I do think it's important to understand why some people may be upset by the views expressed here, especially when they are trying to genuinely understand your views as well.

I have to mirror the concerns being expressed here. It's not the first time i've come across this sort of thing and every time I find it extremely disrespectful to the actual authors of the fictional characters. I've also looked over lists and lists of peoples noted fictionkin and I do notice that it's very often popular characters or characters from settings that are new or have/have had a large fan following. Never have I seen someone kin to a Shakespearean character (though i'm certain a few must exist) or a character from an obscure novel few have read. So far i've not seen fiction kin of someone elses RP character either, though that is a concern.

I've felt emotionally invested in characters before, or particularly attached. I've found them particularly relateable or I've pitied them to a point of affection. I've had dreams of fictional universes because they inspired me. It's merely because I truly love and adore the character that the author has painted. Is this not what fictionkin is, but perhaps misinterpreted by those who think it is a spiritual connection? I definitely do not mean to offend, but I must say there's nothing wrong with loving a character, but I think considering yourself to be a character or a number of characters (or kin to them, depending on how literally you are kin) is unhealthy.

You can love and enjoy characters all you want, that's the joy of inspiration and writing. Creating your own character, your own setting, your own world, is something wonderful in itself. I hope you'll at least take time to consider what i'm saying and how it might affect authors/creators.

You're saying that I didn't create my setting/characters, and I'm not okay with that.

Thats not what I'm saying at all or intending to say what so ever.

It's usually on anything published by firmed copyright means, if anyone is trying to proclaim kin to someone's nonofficial copyrighted oc, then there is a problem. Additionally, in regards to the concerns of mental health, I have a therapist who says the belief is very common and normal and no not just on 'tumblr' or a new found age of people wishing to plagiarize.

In regards to the Shakespeare comment that would be 'fact' kin as in a factual person that existed in this universe with proof to show for it.
I do not believe kin is botching a character, rather again multiple timelines different versions and interpretations. People will make their own interpretations of many things already created. Look at dragons; example again. Tons of interpretations or au's of good characters being villains, so on so forth. Nobody is saying well I made this version of this character so it's mine.

No, it's not. It's still copyrighted.

I might also add not everyone just has 'dreams' of being said characters out of influence due to exposure. A lot of people have true detailed memories long before the material was publicized or brought to life.

I CAN UNDERSTAND TO A GOOD DEGREE WHY PEOPLE WOULD BE CONCERNED SOMEONE WOULD NAB THEIR CHARACTER AND THEN GO MASQUERADING AROUND MISREPRESENTING. I GET THAT AND TOTALLY SYMPATHIZE BEYOND WORDS. BUT- IDK PUTS ME IN A PLACE NOW I FEEL LIKE MY IDENTITY IS PRETTY SHITTY BECAUSE I CAN SEE A GOOD PORTION OF THEIR POINT AND WHY THEY FEEL AS THEY DO. BECAUSE MANY PEOPLE WILL DISRESPECT AND DO ALL THE THINGS THEY FEAR.

May I say that you are polite and kind to me about this?

Thank you so much. Kind of also gave me confidence again.

"A lot of people have true detailed memories long before the material was publicized or brought to life."

i appreciate that you're trying to see both sides here too. this is the part that concerns me though. it is laying claim to an awareness of a creation, as you say, long before the legally recognized creator, and so i can't see how saying so isn't undermining their creation of it. even approaching this theory with the moderation that you personally uphold this is a slippery slope attitude that can be easily abused and puts authors/artists on alert. the only difference between a popular character and a personal character is public awareness of that character, and so the copyright is being equally devalued in both situations. if used as a private coping method there is minimal harm done with such an opinion, but often this is unfortunately not the case.

Think it's just better to close the thread and delete this acc.

Its more so the recognizing of the universe/setting than individual characters.

That's basically what you said

When you say that, you're saying that Heimdall didn't create any of their characters, lore or anything for their stories. That it already existed as an alternate universe and that they are just tapping into it based on deja vu from a past life.


They are meaning characters from Shakespearean plays. A good portion of characters in Shakespearean plays were made up by Shakespeare himself, while there is also a large amount based on historical characters and mythological lore.

And on this? That's really disrespectful, if I am honest. Nowhere in either of those does it speak anything of Gods / Spiritual beings, being reincarnated into regular people or regular people having been gods in a past life. Did they believe in reincarnation? Yes, each one of them had their own belief system when it came to reincarnation, but not that So and so is a reincarnation of the Bastet. It's pretty rude to compare peoples gods and spiritual deities to fictional beings, whether or not you believe that they exist at all, to each of these individual groups, they existed and were not fictional at all.

To go further on all of that. In each of those individual belief systems the gods often took the guises of mortals for whatever reasons that they deemed necessary. The only thing close to any of that is in some religious belief systems that there were Avatars and that is basically the same thing as the god being in a mortal form. That is what that is.

I apologize for jumping in like this, but I feel the need to elaborate on some of the points being made. I think it's really important for you to understand where people are coming from - we're not trying to make you feel unwelcome, but there is a reason for the swelling discomfort.

In reality there is no distinction between an 'original character' and a character that has been made known by a larger audience. A few months back an indie developer named theMeatly had an OC named Bendy. It was a personal creation and nobody knew a damn thing about him until a couple weeks later, when his game turned into a sudden sensation - but nothing changed in that moment.

Bendy is still an OC.

When J.K. Rowling gathered up her notes written on napkins and turned them into a book someone wanted to publish, nothing changed. Harry Potter remained her OC and an individual creation born from pieces of her personal experience - as was her entire setting. A wider popularity and/or awareness does not change the dynamic between creator and creation - no matter what contracts are signed or legal rights are exchanged, that original connection will always be there.

What you're unintentionally doing is telling a writing community that they do not have an essential connection with their characters. You're telling us that our characters are only visions of a particular existence of that character somewhere in spacetime – that the entire character process we go through are just visions of multiple universes, explaining away the discrepancy from rewrite / retcon / alternate form to the next (most characters go through many, many renditions before 'settling' and even then often get 'rebooted' later - let's not even get into the enormous amount of work that goes into world building). Especially when you suggest there are plenty out there with 'memories' before they are made aware of a character - even before the original creator puts them into public consciousness.

This brings up all kinds of questions, like why there aren't more earnest claims of plagiarism from the kin community, but more importantly continues the 'slippery slope' in that your belief seems to demand the acceptance of these creators as kin as well - kin who just happened to not so much 'see' visions of these characters first, but just happened to share them first and extra coincidentally found success in doing so. It would seem that these creators surely must be some kind of 'super' kin, being in touch with multiple versions of the same character all at once in sequence. Yet, I never really see them as part of the conversation on the fictionkin side of things - the (apparent) overall disregard for creators here is something that tends to push buttons.

You're essentially telling us that (you believe) imagination and creativity don't actually exist - we're all just channeling visions. You see how this might come across to a community of character creators and world builders?

I just hope you can understand why this belief system is viewed so harshly in creative communities like these. It isn't harmless and comes with a lot of strong suggestion.

+1

Revolver and Tailbone have made the points I would have made if I'd had the time to formulate a more detailed response, but last night and today have been a bit crazy hectic for me.

Honestly I haven't checked in on this thread in a while and... Ah.

Okay. I don't want to repeat what's already been said but a lot of the folk here regarding the whole creation thing have got it down spot on. It can be very hurtful to have someone say that you didn't make something. My characters are like my children, they have pieces of me and I put love and effort into making them the best they can be. I literally think of them as my kids.

We're not mad at you, OP. We just want to enlighten you on how that might upset some folks saying that their creation isn't theirs.

I'm locking this thread now, everything that needs to be said has been said and emotions are running high.

At RPR, we aim to be as open minded as possible about how people lead their lives. However, this site is all about character creation and the stories we like to tell with them. It is very important to us that our members don't have to worry about their ideas being used without permission.

Please refer to our site rules for more information.