[FaeLenx]

With the weirder bits that were more suspect removed, I'll elaborate and expand on what I said before because it's still very true. There are a couple of very important points before the general pros and cons of the whole article.

=-=-=
Mental Illness in Roleplay: Why not to

For people who don't need a lengthy explanation on why making disposable characters whose proposed defining trait is that they're looking excessively murderable and mentally ill, you can just not do it.

For everyone who does, it's below and spoilered because it's a rant.

Starting with the problem of the fact that this is a touchy enough subject to the point that I could find you a dozen articles of why it's not really right to call most disorders 'mental illness' and a dozen more refuting it, the fact of the matter is that your research isn't enough. And when I say you, I mean anyone who is reading this and thinks it might be a good idea to start assigning mental health issues to a character under these contexts. If you want to peruse WebMD for character inspiration, at the very least don't ever assign one of those labels to your character in any notable or public way. For you, it's a neat way to make a disposable villain who will do things we recognize from media depictions of crazy people but with a side of elitism because there was 'research' done. For other people, that's their actual life that is being generally made a mockery of. Yes, when you're making a guide on how to make a character who is transient to the point of being disposable and despised to the point of likely being murdered for it, marking or suggesting the core foundation of what brought them there to be some mental disorder is making a mockery of it.

I've worked close to a decade with or around mental health, and when it's not outright offensive to people I know it's just cringe and exhausting when someone starts playing armchair psychologist in a context like this.

At least when people treat 'crazy' as 'crazy' then it's just Yandere or some fantasy psychosis that doesn't lead to anything. I'd rather have fishmalks than some really uncomfortable 'diagnosis' being played off as if it's a tragedy or otherwise compelling. Do what authors have done from the beginning of time and make any sort of character trait or trope seem fantastical rather than some cruel parody of life to be mocked. Call it a sticky fingered thief rather than a kleptomaniac. Call it an anemic personality rather than chronic depression. The moment you start diagnosing your own character as if you're a doctor, the best result is that you come off as pretentious and uninformed.

=-=-=
Cringe and edgy tone

Onto the bit about lesbians that got removed, being casually toxic is the part of this community that I'd rather isn't immortalized and broadcast to anyone who's looking to enter. It's good to remove it in that case, but any coming late to the discussion should be aware that there were some things being referenced that are no longer in there. To at least one person, this was their first introduction to the sort of discussions held on the forums. The length makes it seem important. The fact that people are complaining about ad hominem as if this is some sort of debate means I need to elaborate more on this topic than I would if someone had just posted something much shorter. It's weird. I don't like it. I don't think it reflects well on the community and I'd rather not have to explain to someone why I'm a part of a community that can readily be defined by it.

=-=-=

Because I said there were good and bad and I've already addressed the awful, here are the cons and pros.[/size]

Pros:
Encouraging communication is never a bad thing.

The character writing tips are good. To the point where all characters should have these ideals, hooks, and compelling reasons to exist. Every character should have ideals that they would never bend on. People just generally do.

Cons:
This guide seeks to put some sort of divide between any usual character and a character with ideals who will come into or cause conflict. The truth of the matter is that every character should have ideals, conflict should be normalized, and the rules and general demeanor of the community need to come together to make this happen. The idea that any character who runs afoul of the law or general consensus of right and wrong needs to be executed the moment they're beat in a 4v4 was something I'd really hoped to avoid with Korvara. This guide doesn't just fail to help that, it actively encourages that trend to continue.

Advice regarding ganking is just rather poorly explained or just handled in a rather unhealthy way. You mention asking others to lower their numbers to match yours. There's no advice to always do the same for others without having to be asked. Lacking any advice on etiquette there, it advises asking for a lot while offering very little in every opportunity. In almost any other roleplay community, giving someone an out is standard practice. There's next to no mention of doing it here unless someone actively expresses discontent or annoyance.

Masturbatory is still the right word for the segment about character archetypes. Even recognizing half of them due to being around long enough, to anyone who hasn't the pictures are almost entirely nonsensical (as only roughly half of them at least look the part described) and therefore detract from the guide's value as informative.