#“but it's not as evil” is the logic of those that have accepted defeat by capital

[flaskoflethe]

While on leave at the moment, we're not that far from returning to work. Given that we work in data science and development, and that part of what pushed our burnout was the literal abominations we were being asked to make using llm's, it seems prudent for us to start getting back into the swing of things technically. What better way to do this than starting to look through what's easily available about DeepSeek? It's, unfortunately, exactly what you'd expect.

We're not joking. The literal first sentence of the paper from the company explicitly states that recent LLM progression has been closing the gap toward AGI, which is utterly, categorically, epistemically untrue. We don't, scientifically, have a sufficient understanding of consciousness to be able to create an artifical mind. Anyone claiming otherwise has the burden of proof; while we remain open to reviewing any evidence supporting such claims, to date literally nothing has been remotely close to applicable much less sufficient. So we're off to a very, very bad start. Which is a real shame, because the benefits and improvements made to LLM design they claim in their abstract are impressive! A better model design, with a well curated dataset, is the correct way to get improvements in model performance! Their reductions in hardware hours for training are impressive, and we're looking forward to analyzing their methods - a smooth training process, with no rollbacks or irrecoverable decreases in model performance over the course of training are good signs. Bold claims, to be clear, but that's what we're here to evaluate. And the insistence that LLM's are bringing AGI closer to existence mean we have sufficient bias from the team that we cannot assume good faith on behalf of the team. While we assume many, or even most, of the actual researchers and technologists are aware of the underlying realities and limitations of modern "AI" in general and LLM's in particular, the coloring done by the literal first sentence is seriously harmful to their purpose.

While we'd love to continue our analysis, to be honest it doesn't support it? Looking at their code it's an, admittedly very sophisticated, neural network. It doesn't remotely pose a revolution in design, the major advances they cite are all integrating other earlier improvements. While their results are impressive, they are another step in the long path of constructing marginal improvements on an understood mechanism. Most of the introduction is laying out their claims for DeepSeek-v3. We haven't followed the developments with reduced precision training, nor the more exact hardware mapped implementations they reference closely enough to offer much insight into their claims; they are reasonable enough on face, but mainly relate to managing the memory and performance loads for efficient training. These are good, genuinely exciting things to be seeing - we'll be following up manu of their citations for further reading, and digesting the rest of their paper and code.

But this is, in no way shape or form, a bubble ender or a sudden surge forward in progress. These are predictable results, ones that scientists have been pursuing and working towards quietly. While fascinating, DSv3 isn't special because it is a revolution; it simply shows the methodology used by the commercial models, sinking hundreds of billions of dollars a year and commiting multiple ongoing atrocities to fuel the illusion of growth, isn't the best solution. It will not understand, it CAN not. It can not create, it can not know. And people who treat it as anything except the admittedly improved tool it is, are still techbros pushing us with endless glee towards their goal of devaluing labor.

[psychotrenny]

Appealing to "Human Nature" is such a comically self-defeating argument for any revolutionary ideology. Like it's a stupid argument no matter what; the idea of human behaviour on both an individual and societal level being primarily the result of innate unchanging characteristics is directly contradicted by everything that social science and economics have taught us for as long as those fields of study existed. But at least, if you accept its premises, this argument works as a defence of the Status Quo. Things are a certain way because humans are a certain way and therefore there's no point trying to change them; this at least follows a consistent logic. Like Capitalism is clearly a product of whatever "human nature" is, because if it wasn't then it would have never been invented and adopted. The rhetorical trick is convincing people that it's the only thing "human nature" could produce and that any alternative systems are "unnatural" rather than obviously being another manifestation of humanity

But for something like Anarchism this argument makes no sense at all. If Anarchism really was the most "natural" system for humans, then why aren't we living under it? Why did any alternate systems develop, let alone succeed and succeed far more than Anarchism ever has, if they're so unnatural? Like as something produced and widely adopted by humans, the social structures we oppose are every bit as "natural" as the ones we support. The only alternative is to say that "The State" or "Hierarchy" or whatever original sin we want to blame all worldly evil on came from beyond humanity. Like were states imposed on us by Alien Infiltrators? Was Hierarchy the invention of some Great Satan that led us all astray? Don't be ridiculous. Whatever "Human Nature" is (if such a thing even meaningfully exists), all of humanity's products both good and bad must definitionally be part of it. It won't do any good to just excise the parts we don't like, and you sound downright ridiculous when your definition of "Human Nature" is directly contradicted by the simple experiences of living in this world as it currently is. It's much better to live by Karl Marx's favourite maxim: Nothing human is alien to me

[let-us-cultivate-our-garden]

What would your direction be for The Collector? I find the show did a very hard retcon by turning him into an uwu fandom baby, despite the fact that he was shown to be astute in his earlier appearances. Actually, what's the point of his character beyond providing Belos the keys to that genocide spell on the Day of Unity?

This one will be another two-fer.

For the first question: If I were Dana, and I just received news that my series was going to be cancelled and I only had 3 long episodes to wrap everything up, I would have done one of two things: either not include the Collector or actually make him the Final Villain.

Obviously, Dana did neither of those things.

His overall role is to provide powerful magic to Belos and hint at what happened to the Titans. If we're not going to include the Collector, then just have Belos be the one to have made the Day of Unity Spell since he spent hundreds of years studying magic, it's logical for him to have come across different and more powerful forms of magic. The mysterious fate of the Titans would then be left for the fans to speculate.

But if we are to have him, then he has to provide another angle than Abused Baby Character Is Yet Another Victim of Belos that we've seen multiple times already. If Belos represents the dangers of oppression and not allowing the Individual to reach their full potential, then the Collector has to be the thematic opposite. He needs to demonstrate how unlimited freedom for one person can be dangerous if the effect it has on others are not considered.

Belos is defeated with the power of individualism and self-expression but the show could have examined the other side of the coin. Freedom does not mean getting to do whatever you want. People still have roles and responsibilities to play if society is to function. Relationships don't function if it's all me-me-me. The Collector could have been that other side of the coin with his disregard of other's opinions and focus on things that entertain him. That would force Luz to actually realize that she can't choose herself every single time, that she has to be responsible and considerate of other people. It would be a great arc for her character and a fitting resolution for her to teach someone else about growing up. Otherwise, there's no thematic purpose for the Collector, who's currently just there to act as a Decoy Antagonist until the Real Villain can reestablish himself as a threat again.

Second question: If I had a full season 3, then the Wittebanes would definitely have their own episode. But even with the cancellation, Thanks to Them should have been a more Wittebane-centric episode instead of being crammed into the final 10 minutes.

I would avoid the Good Brother-Evil Brother trope like the plague; Philip is the younger brother here, he's going to look up to and emulate Caleb. They both became witch hunters to fit in, which implies that they were somehow different and this was the only way to gain community acceptance and safety. Philip is the most "unusual" of the brothers and is fundamentally dependent on Caleb, so he has more to lose if the community turns on him, thus he embraces witch hunting more readily. Caleb can outwardly fit in but the stress of raising his kid brother are taking its toll and he's growing disillusioned with the town's culture. Meeting Evelyn allows Caleb to relieve some of his stress but it also makes him blind to how radicalized Philip is becoming. The town loves his little brother! He can leave for a little bit and his brother will be in good hands :) I can finally be my own person! Pip is fine....he's fine....it's fine...

Except that we know the truth. Philip tied his grief over losing Caleb to the witches because it was ingrained into him that they're all evil and destroy lives. It's much easier to accept that reality than the one in which Caleb willingly left him.

The Wittebanes should be a tale about how young people are radicalized and how communities can fail vulnerable children. How grief can destroy us if not processed properly. Not "guess lil' bro got mad that big bro got a gf, lol!"

Finally, Belos' backstory needs to play into his ultimate demise. The Titan can reveal the full story while Luz only got the legend the first time around. She can remind Belos that he wasted his life for nothing, that killing everyone won't change anything. That he brought this hell onto himself and he's the only one to blame.

Basically this.

[shychick-52]

I will never get over the injustice of the fact that we never got a mutual hug between Sofia and Cedric. Not once, in all the times she hugged him, has he ever hugged her back.

Not even in season 4 when he finally turned over a new leaf and truly accepted/embraced his friendship with her, and how much he cared about her.

In season 2's 'Winter's Gift', there was a deleted storyboard/scene where they would have actually shared a hug at the end after Sofia gave him the homemade wand case for Wassailia, (which he was canonically overjoyed and touched to receive in the actual episode, saying it was the best present he ever got; it would have made the mutual hug all the more precious and meaningful, a milestone in their relationship, showing how much he truly had come to cherish her friendship). But I can't see any logical reason it would have gotten cut for time, because I don't see how that would have taken up any time at all, especially if it was meant to take place during the sweet "Happy holidays, Mr. Cedric" / "Yes, well, it is happy, isn't it?" exchange right at the end. And I can't see why the Disney higher-ups would have disapproved it, because it would have shown even more growth in Cedric's character. And not only were we deprived of a mutual hug, but there was no hug at all in the actual episode (it would have been so sweet to at least have Sofia hug him).

Near the end of season 2's 'The Enchanted Feast', after Sofia and Cedric manage to defeat Miss Nettle together, Sofia hugs him. And... it's not totally obvious, because Sofia was kind of in the way of his arm, but it does look like he either gave her a one-armed hug or at least affectionately patted her on the back (either way, it's absolutely adorable, and I can't stop rewinding it to this part every time I watch this episode). In any case, it's the closest we got to a canon shared hug between them (and maybe it was one), so it's one of my favorite scenes in the series! I don't know how to make gifs, so I'll try to show it in this clip (it's at the 0:34 mark) and in a couple screenshots:

The only time he TRULY hugged her back wasn't even 100% canon! It took place at the end of that cute 'Rain, Rain, Go Away' nursery rhyme short on Disney Junior's Youtube channel:

Now, if only that's what we'd got at the end of the series finale ('Forever Royal') after she thanked him for saving her from the amulet!! But not only did she not hug him at all one last time, but it would have been a perfect opportunity for him to be the one to initiate a hug, showing even more of his incredible character development and their bond:

Sofia the First~Forever Royal~Cedric Returns Sofia's Amulet (youtube.com)

It also was a missed opportunity for them to share a mutual hug at the end of the first episode of season 4 'Day of the Sorcerers' after Cedric earnestly expressed his gratitude to Sofia for defending him and advocating for a second chance to Roland (during the scene where Cedric was still on his knees after pleading for forgiveness to Roland, and Sofia returns his wand after Roland agrees to reinstate him as royal sorcerer). It really was a missed opportunity, because that the was the episode where Cedric finally truly chose friendship with Sofia over his evil dreams. But again, there was no hug at all:

And another fantastic opportunity would have been in s4's 'In Cedric We Trust', after Cedric sacrificed his safety to save Sofia's life, nearly injuring him. ("I can't believe how you saved me like that! You could have gotten really hurt!" / "So could you, Sofia."). Once again, zero hug at all (but it was so adorable how he took her by the hands, at least):

I would certainly hope that if Sofia had hugged him in all those scenes, he would have finally hugged her back!!

And again, him finally being the one to first hug her would have been FRIGGING EVERYTHING.

@sweetmariihs2 @fantadym @bettathanyou @moonypears-blog @cedric-my-beloved

[my-pjo-stuff]

Luke Castellan is one of the (if not THE) best characters Rick has ever written. I will genuinely die on this hill, quote me on this. And the reason why I think that is because he as a character and his actions as a whole are just so incredibly realistic. Luke was a deeply traumatized child who never had a proper adult figure to take care of him, thrown into a system where he never got proper support or got his mental health looked after. There is no way that ANYONE in Luke's situation could have turned out a healthy, well-adjusted person. We have an irl pattern of the most evil, unstable humans we know coming from bad parental backgrounds and neglect. Now imagine how someone who not only had bad parents, but no parents at all would turn out? And on top of that add the trauma of living on the streets, having to watch your best friend die, and then basically having to take care of multiple kids. Luke was bitter, hurt, angry, and incredibly easy to manipulate and radicalize. Like he any real person would have ended up with his background! Characters like Percy and Annabeth, who despite everything still turn out to be relatively well-adjusted and happy are just that. Characters. It's fictional- which is totally fine, they are fiction after all. But Luke stands out in the way that his reactions are not fiction, but instead realistic.

These themes continue with his revolution. Luke does bad stuff for his goal. He hurts people and accepts the deaths of his own aswell as his enemy's. Luke expects and accepts losses and casualties.

Which is what IRL revolutionaries do! Revolts, coups, conflict- any form of such radical change is bound to get messy! It's realistic. Do you people have any idea how messy and bloody the French Revolution was? You know, the most famous revolution generally considered just and righteous in the Western World? Are the people who started that revolution suddenly evil because they "send others to die"? I don't think so! And as bad as it may sound- Luke allying himself with Kronos to garner support and strength is logical too! The fact is that there is no way that demigods alone could overthrow the gods- the power difference is simply too big. So what does Luke do? He employs the good old "The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend" and goes with Kronos. His seeking the help of Kronos was a tactically smart move for Luke at the time as bad as it may sound. It gained him support from the monster army and leverage to get minor gods to join him. And all that is ignoring the fact that he was probably manipulated by Kronos since he was 17. Are you REALLY expecting a 17 y/o to resist the guy KNOWN for his manipulation skills? Someone whom not even Ares, a GOD, could resist? We can also see Luke doing genuine diplomacy, plotting, organization, recruiting and everything else a revolution and war would need! All those "Dark Percy Jackson" AUs where he overthrows the gods completely ignore the true reality of the demigod situation. They have Percy be this valiant hero who manages to defeat all the gods while never truly compromising his core values. All the while never causing the death of too important characters or unnecessary destruction.

Which is, frankly said, unrealistic. It's fictional- which (as mentioned before) is fine! Do whatever makes you happy- just along as you remember the inherently unrealistic nature of it. Luke is ugly and does bad things because that's what is means to lead a revolution! It's the hard truth, sometimes shitty things have to be done to achieve a good goal. And Luke shows those shitty things. He's the realism in a world of fiction and thus looks much worse in comparison. That realism is also part of why I like him so much.

[wonderfulworldofmichaelford]

Psycho Analysis: Jareth

(WARNING! This analysis contains THE BABE!)

(What babe?)

(The babe with the power!)

(What power?)

(The power of voodoo!)

(Who do?)

(You do!)

(Do what?)

(Remind me of the babe! Oh, also there’s SPOILERS!)

Many years ago I launched my official movie review series for obscure and cult movies, Michael After Midnight. As David Bowie’s death was fresh at the time, I decided to honor him by making the very first review that of one of his greatest cinematic performances. And now, to celebrate Psycho Analysis finally coming back from its nebulous hiatus, we’re gonna take a look at that performance.

Jareth the Goblin King, the ruler of the titular labyrinth and a tricky fairy who sets the plot in motion with the kidnapping of the little Toby after our main character Sarah wishes to be rid of him… He’s one of the most delightfully delicious 80s villains imaginable. But what exactly is there to him that makes him so appealing? Is it just the fact he’s played by a young, hot David Bowie? Or is there a little more to him than just that?

Motivation/Goals: Jareth’s motives operate on fae/dream logic most of the time. The way he acts, the way he goes about things, operates on a morality that is alien to you or I but likely seems fair and just to a being like him. Kidnapping a baby? Well, he was asked to do so! Sending poor Sarah on a gauntlet through the labyrinth? Well, it’s to test her mettle! Of course, over time he shifts gears a bit due to… falling in love with Sarah. Yeah. This grown-ass fairy is crushing on a teenage girl. It’s no wonder Robert Eggers is rumored to be remaking Labyrinth; considering his pedophilic stalker portrayal of Orlok that has somehow still managed to amass an army of horny fangirls, he’d be able to pull off a Jareth the likes of which we’ve never seen!

Performance: Sting. Prince. Mick Jagger. Michael Jackson. All these stars were considered for the role, and all of them could have brough something interesting to Jareth. We know from Dune that Sting looks good in ridiculous outfits, so he wouldn’t be opposed to baring his bulge; Mick Jagger was a solid actor, as can be surmised from the film Performance; Prince was some sort of fae being to begin with, meaning he wouldn’t have to try too hard to pull off the haughty egomania of Jareth; and MJ would have been able to bring the delightful joy of awkward implications in the future since the entire film is all about Jareth trying to get freaky with a kid and, well…

But with all that said, none of them could have delivered the kind of performance Bowie did. I think with him being such an utterly bizarre and unique performer for his time, he had the exact right persona to portray a fruity fairy king, and his sex god status certainly helped sell this as well. It’s genuinely hard to imagine any of those other guys being able to pull off the right amount of sensual allure and genuine menace Bowie is able to bring to nearly every scene. There’s a reason this is one of his definitive roles; it’s one of the best villain performances in all of 80s fantasy.

Final Fate: Sarah overcomes his labyrinth, and even though he’s David Bowie in the 80s and he’s sung a dozen villain songs, kidnapping a baby puts him beyond the pale for Sarah. After reciting her poem and finishing up with the reaffirmation that Jareth has no power over her, he seems to gracefully accept defeat and allow her to treutn home for a dance party ending with all of the friends she made along the way (and also the Fierys for some fucking reason). In the form of an owl, Jareth flies away from the window into the night. Yeah, I got no fucking clue.

I will say this: It’s actually rather admirable that, despite his god-like powers, his love for Sarah was genuine enough that after completely and fully rejecting him he was still enough of a man to let her go. I think a lot of guys could learn a thing or two from him.

Evilness: This is the most debatable facet of Jareth. Exactly how evil is he, anyway? He does kidnap a baby, sure, but it’s exactly what Sarah asked for. Whether you believe the movie is all just a dream or that it’s real and Jareth is a member of the Fair Folk, this logic is sound for beings of such illogical nature. But then you have the fact he’s openly falling in love with a prepubescent girl which is, uh… not a good look. There’s also his treatment of Hoggle, which is douchey even for a fairy. If you ask me, all of Jareth’s actions put him at a 5.5/10 in terms of evilness; he’s bordering on darker territory, but I’m willing to give a little bit of leeway since he’s playing by fae rules.

Best Scene: Do I really need to say it?

Best Quote: While of course the entirety of the song “Magic Dance” is fantastic, it’s the opening bit of the song that is one of the most quotable and iconic pieces of dialogue in the film. I’m sure you could guess the whole “You remind me of the babe” bit is my favorite quotation of his based on the gag at the start of this analysis.

Of course, there’s also his truly incredible quote where he channels his inner “balding principal turned underwear-themed superhero”: “Nothing, tra la la?”

Final Thoughts & Score: I fucking love Jareth. He’s easily one of my favorite villains of all time, and might even be one of the greatest characters Jim Henson ever created. No, I’m not kidding. The evil David Bowie fairy is on par with Kermit in my mind.

Of course, a lot of what makes me love him is Bowie’s charismatic portrayal. Just the way he enunciates things, the way he reads off the silly dialogue, his multiple songs, the way he plays with his balls (or at least the way he allowed the professional ball man to hold up his arm to play with the balls in such a way that it looked like Bowie did it). And it’s not just the charisma, sexual and otherwise, that makes this performance good; it’s the depth, his role as an anti-villainous trickster mentor who is maybe just trying to teach Sarah a lesson by putting her through the wringer in typical fairy fashion

Of course, there’s also his truly uncomfortable romantic desire for Sarah. It’s not really subtext, especially by the end, though it’s at least played subtly and doesn’t go into uncomfortable directions (Bowie apparently refused to kiss the 16 year old Connelly, which is pretty based). I think the thing here is that Bowie is just so fun and charismatic that it is incredibly easy to overlook Jareth being a creep… which is almost a commentary on how rock stars can get away with disturbing behavior due to their own charisma and talents. Obviously it’s not intentional, but it is an interesting way to look at things.

I think the thing with Jareth is that it’s really easy to just write him off as a villain popular due to being played by David Bowie and looking very sexy but—at least for me—I think a core part of his appeal is how much he leaves you to chew on. I mean, there are so many ways you can read him; he can be a stealth mentor teaching Srah a lesson, a genuine stalker with a crush who becomes sickly obsessed with a teenager, a rowdy jackass who just likes to torment Sarah for his amusement, some combination of all of the above… 10/10 is the only score I could give a character who is so fun, entertaining, and open to interpretation. He manages to have genuine style and charisma combined with utterly absurd, cheesy, and ridiculous fantasy camp... Jareth is truly a villain for the ages.

Alright, enough showing restraint. Look at his fucking bulge:

Those costume designers must’ve been the horniest motherfuckers of all time.

[badendfriendstournament]

Contestants submissions currently open!

Some rules and clarifications!

So, i think the criteria for this tournament needs to be shared, since its not only the classic bad end friends but we also got wayyy more characters here and i would like include your suggestions for the next year's poll.

Rules and basic criteria to count a character as a BEF

I decided to separate this characters in categories so its easier to explain:

"Main/secondary character is now evil!!!"

I think we all get this one. Certain characters end up on the other side of the battle, by choice or maybe bc he didn't have one!! Betraying their morals and everyone else. They maybe became crazy and/or are being mind controlled/ possessed

Now, this has its own subcategories to take account:

"Oh no! I got possesed or mind controlled!"

Very self-explanatory, character that is now controlled by the villain/antagonist.

"Multiversal typa shit"

CANONICAL AUs where the character has turned up evil/in an antagonistic role, by any reason

"TRAITOR!!!!"

When a character changes sides by "choice," they might still be themselves but felt betrayed/are being manipulated/they simply decided to betray the rest for their own benefit.

"Hell nah, they went feral"

Character that got turned into a monster/some kind of creature

"Evil alter ego takes control"

A second personality fully controls the character now.

"Ain't evil, just a failure"

As the tittle "bad end" suggests, we also include characters that ended up meeting a depressing fate without necessarily becoming evil

This one has some restrictions obviously:

The character needs some sort of appearance change

Something REALLY REALLY BAD has happened to them, a significant defeat.

DOPPLEGANGERS

To make it short, a character that is a replica/clone of the mc and their goal must be replaced/ defeat the original one. Its not necessarily required for them to be explicitly "evil," but if they wanna replace the og, they sure do count.

FANON BAD ENDINGS

There are lots of fanon bad endings on this AU, but the general rule is that it has to have some sort of logic on the character's original lore, or at least be based on a fate that is kinda plausible to happen. So we don't end up accepting every single Sans AU that comes across, lol.

These characters can't come out of nowhere. It needs a valid justification to make em accountable. "Theres a chapter where the villain tells the hero to become evil aswell bc they're their father, so in the canon says no, but the BEF is that he says yes." See? It was plausible and justified.

(There sure might be some exeptions to this rule such as Wirt and Marco, but at least Wirt making a deal with the beast doesnt come out of nowhere, technically talking Tom did curse marco on the original series, i know that their whole deal is too stretched but they have been here since the beginning so who are we to kick em off.)

NOT ALLOWED:

Creepypastas: we tryin to stick with canon here, you know? Creepypastas often just turn characters evil and into demons just because, thats not what we are going for!

Role swap AUs: Those definitely are not even considered. Since they're way too far from the actual canon.

Completely non-canon/very unlikely situations: "but he can get possessed by the villain!!" So as every other character, if its extremely rare for it to happen, don't even bring it up.

Robots (in a doppleganger sense): yeah obviously this rule doesn't talk about robot/android characters like murderdrones or something, but it's about robotic clones with not really their own conciousness Just, machines.

Fanon media in general: stuff like comics, fangames, or any fanmade product of any existing media with a bad ending will not be counted. No, you can't submit your fnf mods. im sorry

ABSOLUTELY NO OCS: no original characters, im being REALLY CLEAR WITH THIS ONE. No, your shadow2 the hedgehog original character do not steal cannot be counted.

NO PIBBY GLITCH.

Now that its all clear!

How do i submit a character?

Simple! You just have to send an ask with the character, their media, some of their backstory, and any detail you think is need to be mentioned!

So that would be it! Hope to see your submissions soon!

The submissions will end on april 1st 2025!

[gx-gameon]

Since the Orichalcos boys have been mentioned: Timeaus, Critias, and Hermos all have cards for their human and dragons forms in the TCG. Would Jaden interact with their Duel Spirits?

Okay, here’s the thing.

I think Atem might actually have a break down if those cards ever return.

They left after the Oricalcos incident. “Our work here is done”

If Seto gets back his dragon, great he has a powerful card he can fuse with his traps. He doesn’t have any major trauma tied to that card. Mokuba wasn’t taken he didn’t lose anyone (Yugi but they weren’t anything special at the time) so if the card comes back he’d be fine

Joey fought for Mai but he didn’t lose anyone (Yugi yes but he wasn’t a part of the fight and his dragon didn’t fail/cause that) if he gets his dragon back Whoopee new fusion weapons!!

Atem!!!! First of would the dragon go to him or Yugi? Like yes he ‘defeated the evil in his heart’ and won the dragons loyalty back, but both him and Yugi drew that sword. They could both use Timaeus.

It doesn’t matter because just seeing those cards is going to set him off. The dragons and knights are there to fight the Leviathan. Did it return? Is the oricalcos back? Is he going to lose anyone else? What if Yugi and the others are in danger again?!?!

The man would be stressed. It’s not the cards fault but they are so tied to the Oricalcos incident and his trauma that I don’t think their return would be easy on him.

Now let’s say the dragons/knights don’t come back to their original duelist. Say they pick new champions.

Timaeus picked Jaden

Critias picks Chazz or Zane (either would be fun and they are the ‘rival’) I would also accept Aster here

And Hermos picks Jesse or Chazz (filling in the best friend role) I would also accept Hasselberry here

Most of the Gx cast uses some type of fusion deck (except Jesse but their is a fusion rainbow dragon card and I got him using the Gem knights as well) so this cards fit pretty well into their decks

But could you imagine how freaked out and stressed Atem would be at the return of the knights/dragons. Because why would they return?? Is the oricalcos back?? Until he figures that out the man is stressing so hard.

Note the idea of the Gx cast using these cards is super fun. If we use anime logic of Timaeus can fuse with any card to make it a dragon rider, you get dragon Knight Neos or FlameWingman.

Critias ability to fuse with any trap card to make a new monster

And Hermos fusing with monsters to make equipment spells like Chazz using that to play off his ojamas or level dragons. Or Jesse using it with his Crystal beast to power up his monsters, or Hasselberry making dinoweapons for dinosaurs (the funniest option)

Could make a fun side adventure

Not to mention Jaden, Jesse, and Chazz being able to talk to the dragons/knights. Hearing about the fall of Atlantis and the last duelist who used them…

If this happens before season 3 I could also shatter Jaden’s perception of Atem as he and Atem haven’t talked about the oricalcos yet (he doesn’t learn about it until after the dark world/supreme king)

This is an awesome idea but I need to think about fleshing it out and I don’t know if it would ever truly get off the ground. A side quest or filler arc (ironic since it’s all from a filler arc to begin with)

Let me know your guys’s ideas and who you think in the Gx cast would get which dragon.

[ariel-seagull-wings]

@professorlehnsherr-almashy @choster33 @a-roguish-gambit @voxxgrimly @magnetostits @blade-liger-4ever @thealmightyemprex @the-blue-fairie @themousefromfantasyland @thevulturesquadron @countesspetofi

Sometimes I think what could have been ...

I see the comics history of the character Wanda Maximoff, and how much potential it had to be an interesting commentary about assimilation:

This young woman, persecuted both for being romani, and for being a mutant, once accepted alongside her brother Pietro to briefly join the Brotherhood of (Evil) Mutants led by Magneto out of personal gratitude for him saving their lives from an angry mob.

Then, feeling the dept is payed, and wanting to be seen as a legitimate hero by american society, Wanda leaves the Brotherhood, taking Pietro with her to join, not the X-Men, whose public status as heros is under constant scrutiny by society, but the Avengers, a group that is considered more respectable, and focuses mainly in defeating super villains with the batom of the Goverment, but hasn't really a strong, consistent stance about supporting mutant rights (some of its members even spouting anti mutant bigotry).

Wanda and Pietro are "the good ones" who don't demand mutant rights and never get involved in direct activism, but rather "want to pull up themselves by their own booth straps".

The two later learn that Magneto is their biological father, and is trying to come closer to them, while also caring for the fate of mutantkind, Pietro slowly gets more involved by joining mutant team X-Force, but Wanda sees most of that from a distance.

When she falls in love and gets married to Vision, the place the two go to live after retiring from the Avengers are the suburbs, the quintessential simbol of the American Dream Family.

Then, the couple splits bitterly, the two children they had together are said to be an illusion, and this badly affects Wanda's mental health.

The characters who are part of the Avengers and the X-Men debate how to deal with her.

Encouraged by Pietro, Wanda uses her powers to create an alternate reality where the wishes of several characters are real.

But those characters soon learn that this isn't reality, including Magneto, who is among many to question Wanda about trapping people in an illusion of her making, and when she reacts angrily about it, trowing years of bitterly feeling that her father's cause is what made him an absent, flawed father for her and Pietro, she doesn't target him directly: she depowers millions of mutant kind with just saying "No More Mutants", both as a cruel way to respond against her father, but also out of a never worked internalized hatred of being a mutant, who tried to be away of politics regarding mutantkind, desperate to assimilate into a respectable, suburban american, one of the "good ones" that never protests, who, having that dream painfully taken from her, instead of focusing her anger at the sistem (and Mephisto) that caused this to happen to her, targets her own kind in a personal revenge, and will have to slowly work to find where she belongs in the world, and wheter or not she is a good person ...

This could be an interesting, meaningful arc with a logical narrative path if all the writers, editors and artists agreed to sit together in a room and work in a linear continuity since the characters creation, considering the implications of every narrative choice they make, but apparently that is to much to ask.

[sburbian-sage]

I have a theory about why that guy didn't get Knight syndrome:

I firmly believe that each class in Sburb is basically a different take on what it "means" to be mature.

The Thief, for example, is for those people who think maturity means being yourself no matter what anyone else thinks, proving yourself to be useful in a material sense to the point that you cannot be disposed of, etc. while not really valuing the interpretations of maturity that focus on socialization, or doing what others want you to do, or not spending resources, or what have you.

To give another example, the Maid would be someone for whom maturity means doing your job. No matter how tireless, thankless, and generally exhausting it is. Someone who's idea of a mature adult does not particularly include moments of rest or relaxation beyond perhaps the occasional scheduled-out and earned vacation.

So my idea of the Knight is: in another game, where classes didn't have the one syllable rule, the Knight would be called the Soldier.

And not the actual reality of a Soldier, but instead, the sort of culturally idealized version. Someone who must fight. Not because they want to, but because they have to. For the money to support their family, to defeat an intolerable evil, for the sake of their friends, and so on.

And of course, the absolute most idealized version of a Soldier, must not enjoy fighting. They cannot revel in war. It is their grim task, that they must train to even be capable of performing, and that will scar them forever.

I think Knight syndrome is Sburb trying to force that last bit. Which it kind of needs to do, because you mostly just kill underlings in this game, and they are mostly not worth thinking about when it comes to morality. The task at hand, while still grim (creating new worlds that will themselves someday be destroyed to make more Sburb sessions), is almost the opposite of what this "ideal" Soldier should struggle with. They should not be fighting for a dubious goal, they should be fighting for a glorious one, but have to do awful things to get there, and the game (mostly) just isn't set up like that.

So if a Knight doesn't experience Knight syndrome, then I think by this logic there's a few reasons why that may be. That guy seemed to imply that he was generally following orders from others about what to do. I think that's normal for a Knight, as a passive class (bluh, something about that doesn't sit right with me, but that's a topic for another time) but I do think most Knights struggle with it?

I think that "following orders" is something the hypothetical Soldier class would be a bit mixed about. Obviously a lot of people's idea of the perfect Soldier *WOULD* disobey orders sometimes, to do what's right instead. But then, in real life, doing that could be downright treasonous.

So I think a gradient may exist. If there was ever a Knight who truly believed in their heart of hearts that following the orders of others was part of their duty, to such a degree that it should exonerate them of everything, that to apply their own will would make them a *bad* Soldier... they could perhaps skip the "put their emotions aside" thing that the Glitch FAQ says they are to do. No need for it. They truly and absolutely believe that questioning what they are doing is not something they are supposed to do, and so they don't.

And without that self doubt, the game can't spin up the syndrome inside them.

...Well, those are my guesses anyway. Sorry this was so long! Hope it doesn't read like total nonsense! I've only ever rolled Knight once, and personally my syndrome was so bad I nearly didn't make it through the session, so I'm not really speaking from experience.

The first bit on "Classes as a meant to maturity" is pretty commonly accepted game lore, which is not only corroborated in how Classes are attributed, but GGTG even made the "Knights are soldiers" metaphor originally. I understand it's building up to the main point though, so I won't harp on it.

A more critical misunderstanding is that Knight Syndrome is not exclusive to Knights. It happens to Knights *frequently*, most likely because the Knights have to suppress their own desires to act as executioner (as opposed to the Page, who achieves actualization through constant combat), but Knight Syndrome is found in both the Combat Classes. And if you're willing to entertain my iconoclasm, might just be a general "tendency" that we point out more frequently in the Combat Classes, in the same way everyone makes home bases and hideouts but we recognize a Seer's Den as being a specific thing for questionable reasons. The same way everyone gets hasty and makes an assumption that causes issues, but we pathologize it when Seers and Sages do it, even though I've never made an assumption that didn't end up being correct. But that's beside the point.

The point I AM getting at, is that Knight Syndrome, from my perspective, happens for a few reasons. Firstly, Page/Knight is assigned to people who don't want to fight in the first place, so breaking down and not wanting to fight later on hardly seems surprising. Second, while Underlings are basically negligible as far as killing goes, a Combat Class fights in a fundamentally different way. Other people fight Underlings they run into while doing a task, or temporarily go on a grinding spree when they need Grist. Pages and Knights are constantly getting sent to the really tough bosses, the enemies with nasty or tricky abilities, the Atomyk Ebonpyres, or "advanced Grinding duty", which is certainly more stressful than "normal combat", where those things are to be avoided or circumvented. Third, and more specific to Knights, it's the eradication of the self I alluded to earlier. Where the Page wields their Aspect like a weapon, it's not a stretch to say that the Knight is turned into a weapon by their Aspect. They have to walk up to other people, ask for permission to kill something, or get told to kill, and they walk off and do it. That's the essence of a soldier, and it can be quite dehumanizing. I know I hate being told what to do, so imagine my angst if my job for the entire Session is not only to get bossed around, but to constantly put my body at risk doing someone else's dirty work.

I do agree with your final conclusion though. If one not only doesn't mind the dehumanization inherent to soldiering, but in fact derives comfort or strength from it (strong sense of duty, abdication of responsibility, genuine love for challenge, weird sex thing), then it's unlikely to sap them of the will to fight, thus preventing Knight Syndrome. Though I do have to say, I still find the "I'm immune to Knight Syndrome because my brain is wired wrong and I'm literally built different" explanation to also be a compelling alternative. God personally hand-crafted that guy to be a Knight and like it.

[kaelor0409]

Part of this can be explained by the fact that the first book is an adaptation of a fairy tale (Beauty and the Beast) and a myth (Eros and Psyche, which itself was a prototype for Beauty and the Beast).

Amaranthe hoodwinking all the High Lords out of their power makes very little sense when you think of them as the characters we meet later, but in ACOTAR it's the standard "Evil Queen steals power from rightful rulers, covers the land in darkness" thing that's in every fairy tale. The Evil Queen can only be defeated if her curse is broken by True Love, etc. These tropes are so ubiquitous an audience will immediately accept them without question...in a fairy tale.

Parents don't have names in fairy tales. Sisters rarely do either. No one has a last name, because why would it matter? The calendar is "what season is it?", and the economics of the wondrous shining city don't need to be questioned.

This is a totally legitimate way to do a story. The first Star Wars movie used it extensively: very little is explained and the explanations are mostly nonsense. Later media fleshed it out considerably, but the movie by itself runs almost entirely on trope logic.

The problem is that the later books try to pivot from fairy tale to classic fantasy, and fantasy has lore. If you introduce the political intrigue of feuding lords (a fantasy staple) the idea of the Evil Queen tricking the High Lords comes into question, because why would these selfish schemers ever agree or be tricked so easily? Fae like the Illyrians with defined biology, culture, and history (standard for a fantasy race) makes classic fairy tale fae feel out of place because they clearly don't have any of that. Something like a flushing toilet existing is fine for a fairy tale because they are inherently timeless and are mostly about vibes, but in fantasy that has Implications.

It should be noted that fantasy doesn't need deep world-building. Everyone thinks it does, because Tolkien had it and a lot of other fantasy greats followed his lead, but there are plenty of other notable fantasy stories that don't bother. You don't need a calendar or lineage chart or map of trade routes to have a good fantasy story, and in a lot of cases those will get in the way more than they will help. This is why ACOTAR still works as a series despite the fact that it is very clearly making stuff up as it goes along: the core plot doesn't need the missing details to work. You can still enjoy a play even if the backdrop is a black canvas and the props are recycled from last year's production, because those aren't what matter.

It does make the series less enjoyable though, and may be a deal breaker for people who can't turn off their brain enough to ignore the inconsistencies. It's also a nightmare for fanfic writers, because we know very little about the setting and what we do know doesn't make sense.

feeling rlly annoyed at sjm right now for her shitty worldbuilding

im trying to work on stuff for my acotar fic but theres so many problems im running into when it comes to canon

1- WHY IS THERE NO DATING SYSTEM?? WHAT YEAR IS IT? WHAT MONTH IS IT? this is one of the most basic aspects of creating a story. For example one of the first things i did with my friends when we created out story was make a dating system and explained its origin and shit.

2- why do the majority of characters lack surnames?? i get side characters but major ones like RHYSAND, Tamlin, Cassian, Azriel, and many more lack simple things such as surnames.

3- many characters just arent named. The archeron sisters father is not named. All of rhysand and tamlins family (who are talked about a decent amount) are nameless. Cassians mother is also nameless. The king of hybern is a MAJOR villain who goes unnamed.

4- also missing ages for lots of characters. annoying as fuck.

5- a very non descriptive time period to reference. There’s electricity? theres baths? but its also strangely archaic. Characters dress a bit old fashion but also like its 2016? theres no reference for time period at all.

6- A lack of explanation for the economy. Specifically VELARIS. I have no idea how velaris as a city works. From what i can tell theres no way it can be as good as it is due to what we are told about the city. It was hidden for years but it was able to survive? what about trade? government? homelessness and poverty are said to be non existence but how?? Rhysand is said to be extremely wealthy but how?? Tamlin was villainized for having his people pay taxes (which werent even severe ones??) but rhysand somehow has a city running ‘perfectly’ while also building his like 3rd or 4th house.

these are just off the top of my head too. Sjm when i catch you

[david-talks-sw]

Anakin knows what he’s doing is wrong...

Whenever I read people using the idea that “from Anakin’s point of view the Jedi are evil” as the ultimate proof that he felt bullied by them, I roll my eyes. Anakin is intelligent enough to know when he’s wrong.

He doesn’t really think the Jedi are evil, he’s lying to himself, he bought his own con.

Anakin was a good kid to begin with, and with the Jedi training he became a great man. If you look at things objectively, Anakin is 90% of a great Jedi. He’s seemingly learned all the rules, and is wise enough to teach them to others:

Be it by telling Ahsoka that she needs to follow the rules, she can’t just go around and do whatever she feels like, it’ll lead to trouble…

… by encouraging his Padawan not to be too hard on herself…

… or be it by encouraging rational thought over hotheadedness.

In that last image, Anakin is Anakin telling Ahsoka and Rex to stop letting their emotions do the thinking and act logically. He’s telling them to be prudent.

Hell, he even believes that patience is a virtue.

Anakin is a trained Jedi Knight. He has the theoretical know-how to get out of his problems, in ROTS.

In fact, a lot of people forget this, but Anakin’s first instinct, upon finding out Palpatine is, in fact, Darth Sidious, is this:

The Jedi are Anakin’s family. If Palpatine is asking Anakin to choose between the Chancellor and the Jedi, he’ll choose the Jedi every damn time (which is why Palpatine makes Anakin choose between the Jedi and Padmé, instead).

So where’s the problem?

That last 10% of what makes a great Jedi. Introspection, self-control.

Despite being wise, clever and thinking rationally - Anakin has trouble applying those lessons to himself.

When it comes to his own personal problems, he's hard on himself, he’s impatient, he breaks the rules and acts out of emotion instead of thinking things through.

As Obi-Wan puts it:

As a result of this flaw, Anakin keeps choosing the wrong path, despite knowing that it’s the wrong path. The Force puts a lot of tests in front of him, and he keeps choosing the easy way out, rather than the more difficult but ultimately satisfying path.

His mother was killed. He can choose to genocide a whole Tusken village, or be the better man and just walk away. He kills the Tuskens.

Dooku is unarmed and helpless. Anakin can either kill him in a rage, out of revenge, or he can capture him, bring him to justice, and potentially discover the identity of the second Sith Lord. He kills Dooku.

Windu is also helpless (his hand was just cut off by Anakin) and Palpatine is killing him. Anakin can either choose to save Windu and arrest Palpatine (who just revealed that he wasn’t “too weak” after all), or he can let Windu die. He lets Windu die.

Padmé tells him that this isn’t what she wants. He can actually listen to her wishes. Or he can go on a maniacal rant about having ultimate power, ignoring her own opinions completely. He goes on a rant, drunk with power. Then chokes her.

Obi-Wan tells him to stop, tries to reason with him: Chancellor Palpatine is evil. Anakin knows this. He can stop lying to himself and accept his mistakes, ending the fight. Or he can give Obi-Wan his two-cent rationalization about the Jedi being evil (which he doesn’t even really believe in), and keep trying to kill Obi-Wan. He keeps trying to kill Obi-Wan.

The more the War goes on, the more it gets easy for Anakin to take the easy path, over and over. But he knows it’s the wrong thing to do.

In the director’s commentary of Revenge of the Sith, George Lucas said this about the following two scenes:

“I like this scene because he's lying to her and he's rationalizing it at the same time by saying he's doing it all for her. He's loyal to the senate and the chancellor and her. But in the end- I mean, he's twisted every fact to his own rationale to make it seem like it's okay, but in the process of lying to her he's actually just lying to himself and rationalizing his behavior. 'Cause he knows he's wrong, but he won't admit it […] he's too far gone- that he could murder a bunch of kids… and then go and rationalize it to her as just doing his job.”

“The tear [on Anakin’s face] says that he knows what he's done, but he has now committed himself to a path that he may not agree with… but he is going to go on anyway. It's the one moment that says he's self-aware that he's rationalizing all his behavior. He's doing terrible things, but in the end he really knows the truth. He knows that he's evil now, and there's nothing he can do about it.”

Anakin tells himself that he’s doing this for Padmé, he’s doing this because the Jedi betrayed him, blabla.

Truth is? He’s just really really scared. And that made him do really bad things.

There’s this incredible moment in Darth Vader: Lord of the Sith #5.

Vader has taken the lightsaber off a Jedi, and now he has to corrupt the saber’s crystal to get his red blade.

The crystal, and by extension, the Force, showed him a vision, a path where he turned to the Light, defeated the Emperor and put an end to his suffering. A path of redemption. This was his reaction:

Vader refuses to take the hard path and chooses the easy path instead, once again. He rejects the Light and hangs on to the pain… because deep down… below the “they betrayed me” bullshit he keeps telling himself… he thinks he deserves it, because he did the wrong thing.

Anakin knows he’s wrong and he’s still goes forward with doing the wrong thing, no matter what test the Force keeps throwing his way.

And that’s why his sacrifice in Return of the Jedi is so impactful. He finally does the right thing, he accepts that it’ll be hard, that he’ll die if he saves Luke… he doesn’t care. Luke loves him, like Padmé did. He failed once. He won’t fail again.

I’m gonna conclude this with one more quote from Lucas:

“It really has to do with learning. Children teach you compassion. They teach you to love unconditionally. Anakin can’t be redeemed for all the pain and suffering he’s caused. He doesn’t right the wrongs, but he stops the horror. The end of the Saga is simply Anakin saying: ‘I care about this person, regardless of what it means to me. I will throw away everything that I have, everything that I have grown to love - primarily the Emperor - and throw away my life, to save this person. And I’m doing this because he has faith in me, loves me despite all the horrible things I’ve done. I broke his mother’s heart, but he still cares about me, and I can’t let that die’.”

[redrascal1]

Okay...I’d like to talk about Armitage Hux.

We are understandably furious at how Adam and Loan were treated in TROS...but let us also spare a thought for Domhnall Gleeson, who was also shat on, putting it bluntly.

Let’s take a look back at the OT. In ANH, Vader was actually a supporting villain - the ‘big bad’ was Tarkin. And who can forget the late Peter Cushing’s legendary performance as ‘the guy who held Vader’s leash.’ Cushing proved that you don’t need the Force to be a genuinely menacing bad guy.

Now... a lot of people have argued that Rian Johnson was too ‘jokey’ in how he directed Hux. But, apart from when Kylo used the Force when he threw him across the ATAT cockpit (or whatever you call it), Hux was only an object of ridicule at the very beginning.

Throughout most of TLJ, he was dead serious. 

Hux could have made an amazing big bad in TROS. All the ingredients were there. He despised Kylo. He was highly ambitious, and craved the role of Lord Marshal. Most of all..he was intelligent.

Remember, Starkiller was Hux’s creation. He thought up, in all likelihood designed, the device that tracked the Raddus through Hyperspace. He accused Kylo of ‘daring to command his armies’...which showed the power he had within the First Order.

He was, in fact, far better suited to the job of leader than the volatile, unstable Kylo.

Which is why his fate in TROS was not only ridiculous...it was an insult to both Domhnall and his character.

Hux would never have struck a deal with the Resistance in order to bring Kylo Ren down. He loathed them. He had plenty of other methods to get rid of his enemy.

Hux, as I’ve said, was anything but stupid. An idiot could see Kylo was lying when he told him Rey was responsible for Snoke’s death. No way could a girl who was untrained, and inexperienced, not only kill a powerful Darksider like Snoke but also ALL of his guards alone. Kylo had to use the Force to subdue Hux into accepting him as leader. But, ironically as Leia Organa said to Tarkin:

‘Force never does work in the long time.’

From a perfectly logical point of view...despite his gifts with the Force, Kylo was one man. He didn’t command the respect, or loyalty, Hux had from his fellow officers. And...he wasn’t as terrifying as Snoke. Everyone, from Mitaka to those two humble stormtroopers...knew Kylo Ren had...issues.

And there was plenty of ammunition for Hux to use in a coup to get rid of Kylo. His fascination with Rey. The fact that there were cameras in the elevator that led to the throne room - and in the throne room itself. The fact that Kylo was lying through his teeth regarding Snoke’s fate. Powerful or not, Kylo was one man, and if Hux was able to find evidence that he had murdered Snoke, not Rey... his days as Supreme Leader would have been over.

And then of course, there were the odd experiments Snoke had been carrying out in the Unknown Regions. Hux could have had access to God knows what in WMD to consolidate his role as Lord Marshal and defeat, or at least oust, Kylo.

I am absolutely sure that RJ set up an entirely new possibility for the SWU....instead of a black/white, pure good versus pure evil....we instead could have had a Resistance led by Poe, a far more volatile, violent leader than Leia..’We will burn the FO to the ground’...and a First Order led not by a man with magical powers, but a ruthless military genius whose army was composed of brainwashed innocents. And in the middle we could have had Rey, torn between her loyalty to a Resistance she barely knew and whose methods were starting to disturb her, Finn, who wanted to liberate his former soldiers, not destroy them, and Kylo....ousted by the FO, his only hope would be Rey.

The enemy would have been war itself. The heroes and villains...shades of grey, human even in their inhumanity. And the only way to put an end to the endless conflict would have been the Resolving of Grey...Rey and Kylo finding the balance between them, bringing the eternal conflict between Dark side and Light finally to a satisfying end.

And Hux would be the true villain, and Domhnall  would have pulled it off to perfection. Just look at his face at the end of TLJ as he watched Kylo kneel in the abandoned base...a predator smelling blood. The usurper waiting in the wings, until the right time to strike.

We not only lost the chance to see a heroic Ben Solo ....but a glorious villain in Armitage Hux.

What a waste. Sorry Domhnall. Like Loan and Adam, you were robbed.

[thevindicativevordan]

Do you have... Sigh... Do you have thoughts on Superman killing Zod in The Man of Steel and why Superman killing is a problem?

Actually I didn't have too much of a problem with that in Man of Steel believe it or not. At the time I thought Snyder's logic was dumb - Superman needs to kill in order to learn that killing is wrong? - but I thought that both the neck snap and Superman's lack of concern over the destruction of Metropolis were deliberate fuck-ups on Superman's part, and that the creators were cognizant of how both of those came across. Surely a sequel would be all about Superman grappling with the ramifications of both. Instead Snyder just moved the next movie's climatic fight to an unmanned area so he could blow shit up without the pesky nerds whining, and had Superman kill Zod again with nary a flicker of contemplation. That's when I accepted that Snyder just thinks superheroes killing is "badass" (something his rant about how stupid people who don't want Superman and Batman to kill are at Snydercon confirmed).

Now as for killing in general when it comes to Superman? I'm typically anti-lethal force when it comes to him... but I do recognize some gray areas.

Regardless of whether you like Doomsday or not, he's an iconic part of the Super-Mythos and it's a well-established fact that Supes goes for the killshot at the end of their fight. Against a genocidal opponent who can match him, where he truly does not have any other option, it's been canon for decades that Superman is prepared to use lethal force to end a threat. So it's something he has done in the past and most Superman fans don't regard Death of Superman as a massive mishandling of the character.

But here's the core problem with Superman killing: it's pointless. There's no real reason to do it other than to drag him through the mud. Ok so Superman kills a guy, there's only two real outcomes to that.

He agonizes over it and we get a storyline examining how he and others feel about it. That was the route Exile took, Superman had a mental breakdown over killing, and we got an entire omnibus worth of stories where he came to terms with it. Ultimately he accepted that it "had" to be done, but resolved to stick to his rule against killing going forward. So it was addressed and then Superman returned to his status quo.

He kills someone and decides to keep killing from then on. At this point he usually is going full blown evil as Batman and others with strict codes against killing are going to be obligated to stop him (Injustice), unless they too decide to abandon their moral codes (Justice Lords).

Reason those are the only two options is that otherwise Superman is probably going to be killing all of his Rogues at some point, given most of them are terrible people who don't shy away from escalating the stakes. Once he's done that - now that he's lost most of his cool enemies and the track record for making new cool Superman rogues is pretty dismal, considering the last one to really take off was Manchester Black - he has nobody noteworthy to fight and his sales are likely going to suffer until they bring all the cool Rogues back, defeating the entire purpose of killing them in the first place. Much as I hate to even bring him up here, we also have to take Batman into consideration. Nothing on Earth will ever compel DC to portray Batman in the wrong and anyone else in the right, so as long as Batman keeps his no-kill rule, any hero that crosses that line regularly is going to get a beatdown at Batman's hands. Doing otherwise just invites poking at the open wound question of "why doesn't Batman/someone just kill the Joker?" if DC allows another major A-Lister to employ lethal force at will.

But let's put aside the "real" reasons Superman doesn't kill, and ask ourselves a simple question: does it make sense for Superman to kill given who he is as a character? My answer is no. This comes back to Superman's defining trait, which isn't hope, but compassion. Superman cares about all life everywhere, even the most despicable villains.

He's not putting on a front, he really truly believes that there's a way to reach even the most despicable individuals with the right words, and he believes he can find them. Even knowing that for some cases that may not be true doesn't stop him from wanting to try. Killing his Rogues for Superman wouldn't just be a betrayal of his ideals, but an admission of defeat. Accepting that there's some bastards out there you just gotta kill would be him ceding the moral ground to Manchester Black, Magog, and all the other would be lethal successors who have tried to knock him off his pedestal. It's tantamount to Superman all but accepting the argument that he's an old fashioned relic who just doesn't work anymore, and what do you do with him once that's the case?

Besides people complain that Superman is overpowered and nothing can challenge him, having villains out there who resist his attempts to reform them is him getting challenged! That's Superman wrestling with a moral dilemma and paying a price for his ideals right there! Why would we want to get rid of that in exchange for him just smearing everything in his path? Give me Superman busting his chops to try to reach that lost cause everyone else has written off any day, I'm a sucker for stories like that.

[xirkanos]

And now, the colors as Villains. See, while each of them have their own version of what Good and Evil are, you can also find traits that they would find virtuous that the others have problems with. White: The Empire. The rule of law is as sacred to white as community, and even laws written with good intention can easily become oppressive. And when your obedience is required, they can start enforcing whatever tiny evils might make the world seem a better place. And you will have no help when the Empire decides that your demographic is no longer part of the community, and needs to be removed from it. "Be not afraid", quoth the angel clad in world-ending arms.

Blue: The Auditors. When nothing is more important than knowledge, that includes things such as consent and the theory of mind. When any change throws off your calculations, you might consider atomizing it to properly categorize the remains. Vivisection is within Blue's wheelhouse, and the only problem their villains see with torture is its proven lack of efficacy. Furthermore, their idea of a meritocracy is one of pure and ruthless logic. As likely as White to practice things like Eugenics, though for entirely different reasons. Here, sphinxes play with their food.

Black: The Warlock. Black shares blue's ruthlessness and red's selfishness, and thus they are willing to do anything to get what they want. I am using "Warlock" in its original sense here - it's old english for "Oathbreaker". Black is just as likely to make deals with the devil as it is to master realpolitik, assassination, capitalism, and other methods of power acquisition that are taboo. Notably, MtG authors have gone on the record as saying that the USA is a model of a country where Black mana is supreme, both in its virtues and its flaws.

Red: The Anarchist. Some men just want to watch the world burn. Red mana happens to also be the color of Fire, Passion, and Emotion. And if a Red decides that the world as you know it deserves to be destroyed, they're not going to care about any opinions aside from their own. The glorious leader of the rebellion one day is a brutal dictator the next - and their attitude towards violence and instant gratification doesn't change simply because people are willing to follow their commands now. Hic sunt dracones.

Green: The Social Darwinist. Green is about the natural order. Living with tradition and in community, aye, but in the darkness Nature is also about the bloody struggle of survival of the fittest - the natural way is for the Strong to prey upon the Meek. A Green villain understands white's community as a pack and a grove, which is near enough to comprehension. If you can be destroyed, it is right to destroy you. If you will not heel, then the strong will dominate you. And they truly will respect you if you defeat them - if you are stronger, it is only the way things ought to go.

Interestingly, this can also apply to multicolored options as well- A Red-Green villain seeks to destroy civilization for many reasons, but their selfishness means they can neither accept nor conceive of being weaker than someone. A Black-White villain uses the efficient enforcement of a White regime with the ruthless guile of a Black leader. Blue-Red is too busy thinking of what they can do that they don't consider whether they should, and are as terrifying in their whims as a 5yo with a ken doll and a microwave. White-Blue would like to assimilate the world into a hive-mind, and so on. And you could keep going into tricolor characters, tetrachrome characters, or even characters represented by an even mix of all 5 colors. I'll leave it up to the reader how those would work, though.

I wish more people used Magic the Gathering's Color Pie instead of D&D's alignment all of the time.

Like, saying a character embodies the selfishness and impulsivenes of Red Black offers more depth than Chaotic Evil

[young-dumb-and-vaccinated]

Cult Girl: Doctorate (Hannibal x Pregnant!Female!Reader) pt. 14

Hannibal reads too much into Max's attempt to reconcile and cult girl revisits her past.

@wisesandwichshark @pearlstiare

Trigger warnings: discussions of death, abandonment, military casualties, emotional abuse

You soon returned to the opera knowing you had nothing to hide. Hannibal selected for you an off-white maternity gown so form-fitting it was practically painted on. He wanted everyone to see that you, his queen, empress and goddess, were carrying his child.

It only took that evening for the whole dynamic to change. Suddenly, you were an expectant new mother. Imogen had been a massive hit, you were planning to go again.

You were affixing your heavy cubic zirconia earrings when you heard a knock at the door. You hesitated, but hurried down the stairs when you saw who it was.

"Max?" You said, upon opening the door. He stood there awkwardly, holding a bouquet of flowers. "Hi?"

"Hey, [F/N]." Max greeted, eyes darting nervously around the porch. "I just came around to apologize in person. I'm sorry I was such a chauvinist prick."

You leaned against the door. "Oh?"

"You were right." He continued. "I don't know what it's like to carry a baby, and, unless something goes very wrong, I never will."

"Let's hope it doesn't come to that." You smiled.

"Anyway, these are for you." He said, handing the bouquet over. "They're chrysanthemums."

"Thank you, Max." You said, accepting the flowers.

"Archie and I-" He scratched the back of his head. "We thought that, maybe, if you'd still have us, that we'd name the baby Chrysanthemum. With your permission, of course."

"Like the picture book?" Your face lit up. "With the little mouse girl?"

Max nodded enthusiastically. "Yeah, exactly."

You hugged the bouquet into your chest and considered it again. You looked back at Hannibal, who hadn't looked up from his expectant fathers' website for a second all day. He surrounded himself with books about child psychology, attachment theory, developmental behavior patterns and somehow found himself on a tangent about institutionalized misogyny in medicine.

"I'm sorry, Max." You said, sincerely. "I really do appreciate you coming down here and apologizing, but-"

Max put his hands up and gave you a disarming smile. "I understand. Plans change."

"I just really want to stress that it's not you." You assured him. "I've kind of... really grown to like the idea of being a parent. And I think that was Hannibal's plan all along, too."

"I believe a congratulations is in order, then." His voice turned up in delight. "I'm very happy for you. Both of you."

You clutched the bouquet to your chest. "Thank you."

"Well, I'd better get going." He stepped backwards down the stairs. "I've got three pints of Ben and Jerry's in the backseat and Archie'll have my head if I come home and they've melted."

"Max, wait." You stopped him before he could get down the driveway.

"Hm?"

You leaned against the threshold and smiled warmly. "Don't be a stranger, okay?"

Max returned the smile. "Of course not."

You waved goodbye and shut the door. You hurried to the kitchen to put the flowers in water before you had to go.

"Who was that, love?" Hannibal asked, half-heartedly. He was still very fixated on his research.

"Max Thomas-Park." You answered, unwrapping the flowers from the decorative plastic.

Hannibal looked up from his computer, but left the room silent for you to fill.

"He wanted to make amends." You explained. You walked across the room to the china cabinet and selected a vase big enough to hold the ornate bouquet. "Brought flowers and everything."

"Chrysanthemums?" He asked, sniffing the air.

"I see your sense of smell is coming back." You commented.

"Interesting selection." He narrowed his eyes on the bouquet.

"Well, he said that was what he wanted to name the kid." You offered. "It was a cute pitch, not gonna lie."

Hannibal shut his laptop and examined the bouquet up close. "If he wanted to express regret, he would have done better to bring you blue or purple hyacinths."

"Well, like I said." You made a point to project a little more. "He said he wanted to name his daughter chrysanthemum."

"Mums are given to show sympathy for those in mourning." Hannibal continued, clearly having his own conversation.

"Hannibal-"

"I think your cousin got her hooks in him and he's planning to--" He cut himself off, lest he speak the unthinkable into reality. "That's why he brought mourning flowers."

"Max Thomas-Park is conspiring with Anna to kill our unborn baby?" You said, flatly, to emphasize how insane he sounded.

Hannibal held a bloom between his fingers and looked closely at it. "It's the kind of hint I would leave. For courtesy's sake."

"I think looking at parenting blogs all day has made you a little paranoid." You observed, knowing full well that an overprotective husband and soon-to-be father of your child was not a bad problem to have. Nevertheless, you shut the laptop and touched his cheek. "Come on. We're going to be late for the opera."

You heaved yourself into the passenger's seat of the car, feeling the seat give beneath your heavy frame. Every time you got into the car, you remembered that you needed to shop for a car seat. The thought just as soon left your mind every time. 

“We need to look for a car seat.” You said as Hannibal shut the door, hoping that he’d remember. 

“I mean,” Hannibal blurted out, still lost in his own conversation. “Max is a cultured and well-educated man. He has to know the implications of his flowers.” 

You huffed, dreading to think that paranoid delusion was symptomatic of his parenting style. “Right. The twenty-seven year old data analyst who graduated with a finance MBA from UChicago is also proficient in the outdated and frivolous language of flowers.” 

“In Italy, mums are only given as comfort for loss.” Hannibal said with undeserved conviction. “Exclusively, [F/N].” 

You rolled your eyes and typed something up on your phone. You raised your eyebrows, feeling a bit proud of yourself for what you found. 

“In Korea, y’know, the country that Max’s family is from,” You corrected. “The chrysanthemum is a symbol of friendship.” 

Hannibal tensed up for a moment, tightening his grip on the steering wheel. It was as if he were trying to break himself out of a trance. “...I’m sorry, darling.” 

“I know you’re scared.” You stared at his profile, trying to make out an expression. “I’m also... pretty scared. But you can’t take it out on a guy who has nothing to do with it.” 

“I am scared.” He affirmed, but the way in which he did was a telltale sign that he wasn’t giving you the full story. 

“Of?” You raised your eyebrow. “Finish the sentence, Hannibal.” 

"I need to keep our baby safe." He answered. "And I cannot in good conscience let her come into the world knowing that someone wants to hurt her. To hurt you."

You sighed. "Hannibal, are you seriously still worried about Anna?"

"Don't underestimate the role privilege and entitlement plays in the decision to commit acts of violence." He enunciated carefully. "You of all people should know that."

"Anna has cultivated such a perfect victim image to project outwardly that even a hint of proactive violence would shatter it." You explained. "She's the poor girl who has things done to her. Her evil cousin ruined her marriage. Her evil cousin destroyed her career. And she's the innocent victim in all of it."

"Logically, I know that you can speak on her behavior with more authority than I." Hannibal admitted.

"No shit." You scoffed. "I had to live with her."

"Can we at least entertain the idea that she has something planned?" He pleaded.

"I'm surprised at you." You said. "You never really struck me as the overly-cautious type."

Hannibal shook his head. "With my own life, I'm willing to gamble. But not when it's you. And not when it's Imogen."

You tensed up. His admitted willingness to put himself in danger unlocked a core memory you had buried deep down. The only thing you knew about your own father was that he was willing to put himself in danger. To go overseas and die for fuck-all instead of live for the child he selfishly created then abandoned. He chose to give his life for oil. You didn't choose to grow up without a father and your mother didn't choose to raise a child without a partner. He made that choice for you.

"Now what are you not telling me?" Hannibal broke you out of your trance. "I know that look, [F/N]."

"Nothing." You shook your head. "You should really not plan on dying anytime soon."

"I promise you, I am not going anywhere." His voice softened. "Least of all, to Iraq."

"Okay, you're a pretty good therapist but you never told me you could read minds." You threw your hands up in defeat. "Are you a psychiatrist or are you Loki?"

"As fun as being the god of mischief would be," Hannibal smiled to himself. "I just happen to have a steel-trap memory and an admittedly quite obsessive fixation on the mental health of the mother of my child."

"I swear to god I never told you about him." You denied. "Not even in passing."

"You didn't have to." He assured you. "Beatrice did."

You were surprised for a fraction of a second until the information sat in your head long enough to realize it wasn’t surprising in the slightest. Beatrice took every opportunity she got to brag about her son's sacrifices. She never once mentioned the sacrifices he forced upon you. Only that her son was a hero.

"Did you get the 'don't believe anything [F/N] has to say about my son' speech?" Your voice flattened in complete non-surprise.

"It was a prepared speech?" Hannibal chuckled. "Pity. I thought I was special."

"She gave it to my first boyfriend." You rolled your eyes. "We were, like, fifteen."

"The root of your psychological issues becomes clearer every time we talk about Beatrice." He commented under his breath.

"I know." You conceded.

He pulled into the parking lot, turned the car off and placed his hand over yours.

"Your father was a coward." He said, bluntly. It was nice to hear what had been echoing in the back of your head out loud for once. "I know no country to serve. No god to glorify. I promise, you have the whole of me. My mind, body and soul belongs to you and our child."

You squeezed his hand. "I couldn't ask for anything else."