#February Issue

[mote-historie]

Frank Xavier Leyendecker, Life Magazine cover, The Flapper, 2. February 1922

[felixethereal]

보그 Vogue Korea 2024. 2월호

주요기사:

스트레이키즈 필릭스 13p

[arsenicflame]

happy "our marriage is never gonna recover from this" day

[utilitycaster]

I like that the Raven Queen, who made the decision to take on an immense and (at least to her understanding at the time) unending responsibility is the one who calls Bells Hells out on their endless indecision.

It's been...interesting, shall we say, tracking this "party of NPCs," and tracking the fandom response throughout. The initial reception to "party of NPCs" was actually a rather cold one. This took place early in the campaign, prior to the Gnarlrock fight, and at the time a lot of people who shipped Imogen and Laudna were actually extremely resistant to the idea that Imogen was the "main character" of the campaign (as seen in the fallout from the gnarlrock fight, in which the bulk of attacks from the fandom were on Imogen). I've had complicated feelings on Taliesin's reads of this campaign specifically - he tends to have a very good understanding of his own characters that doesn't necessarily expand beyond them - but that phrase was indeed pretty valid. I think about the WBN interludes, in fact, in which the cast plays using NPC statblocks, and what a true party of NPCs for Bells Hells would look like, since it would be quite simple to draw up.

Allied NPCs in TTRPGs rarely act without guidance from the PCs. I've cast a critical eye in the past towards certain meta (particularly romantic in nature, regarding Yeza or Essek or Gilmore not making moves) for this reason, because while villains and antagonists move throughout the world generating obstacles, allies exist to be directed. They have their limits, of course; they have their own priorities and motivations and cannot be persuaded against their nature, but they can be guided at oblique angles from the GMs initial intent given enough work from the PCs. They're still people with thoughts and feelings and dreams, to an extent, but rarely do they make decisions that would conflict with those of the PCs.

That's the problem with a party of NPCs. NPCs take direction. They serve as support, but they're not in the driver's seat. And the Raven Queen has noticed.

The attitude within the fandom towards "Party of NPCs" became far more positive over time, and I wonder if it should have. People began to lean perhaps too heavily on how Bells Hells were people from nothing and nowhere, discarded. This is of course objectively false when comparing across parties (can we really say Imogen had a worse childhood than Vex? Chetney to Caleb? Even Ashton to Fjord?) but were it true, that in and of itself wouldn't be a problem. D&D backstories are often tear-stained and blood-soaked, full of unjust accusations, dead or neglectful parents, failure and regret. D&D is a game about coming from very little but a disproportionately good stat block for a commoner. It is unavoidably about amassing power. Starting off as a party of NPCs is fine. You should not still be a party of NPCs at the endgame.

I mentioned the gnarlrock, and I've mentioned an emphasis (or overemphasis) on this party's lack of agency and I think that remains the problem. Ludinus's villainy is rich, complex, and multifaceted, but a consistent element of it is his eternal false insistence that he - Martinet, founder and head of the Cerberus Assembly, Archmage - is just a little guy, chaff in the wind of the will of the gods, without free will of his own (he says, as he places his thread outside the reach of the Matron). That too is a theme in fandom discourse: free will and intent. Is Imogen justified in being angry at Laudna for breaking the rock if that wasn't Laudna's intent? (yes.) Is Orym on a quest of vengeance, with a death wish? (no, but if he were it wouldn't matter.) Was it wrong to pressure Fearne to take the shard instead of letting her make her own choices? (yes.)

Did any of you, perhaps in preschool or kindergarten, since that's about the age when this happens, have someone pull your hair and for adults to say "it's because they like you?" I find this is a good way to convey the importance, or unimportance, or intent. Because when your hair is being pulled, at least if that is the extent of the problem, it doesn't matter if it comes from the misguided affections of a four-year-old admirer who doesn't know how to use their words, or a six-year-old who just grabbed the most obvious material with which to test the limits of the safety scissors, or an eleven-year-old bully. Your hair is being pulled and you want it to stop. It doesn't matter if the person secretly likes you or if they want to hurt you; it matters that no matter the intent behind it, they are doing so. And if you reject the affections of your fellow preschool classmate because you think they might pull your hair, that's a fair consequence.

Bells Hells' indecision is some sort of cosmic hair pulling. They have reasons for faltering, and some of those reasons are understandable balking at an immense weight placed upon them and some of those reasons come from a deeply self-centered place in which their individual pain is used to blot out the suffering of countless others. But in the end, even that doesn't matter. Their histories don't matter. We don't need another series of introductions of where they come from and what they've done. We need people who can make decisions and who will act.

The Raven Queen seems to have been convinced they will. I'm not sure. But I think we are in agreement that inaction is, regardless of the intent behind it, no different than active harm. It would be irresponsible to continue to be a party of NPCs; if they truly are lost and forgotten fuck-ups, they have a responsibility (as the god of death once did) to abdicate and find a replacement.

[crimimnal-mineds-part2]

Emily: when did you stop believing in Father Christmas?

Reid: I never believed in any fathers

Emily:

[mxnkeydo]

ASHSHSHHSHSH "clear skies (like your eyes) ft. Aiden Acharya" I LOVE IT

The Otherworldly Times - The February Issue

ATTENTION! The Otherworldly times is back with The February Issue. This time it’s featuring everyone’s favourite idol, the dancing star herself- Aru Shah!!

——————

What is The Otherworldly Times, Loife? You may be asking. Ok well…I was sketching out a figure and then an idea struck me- let’s make this Aru Shah related! But how?

OH MY GOD LETS MAKE ‘HOPE IS THE THING WITH FEATHERS’ MAGAZINE COVERS!!

so yep. That’s what The Otherworldly Times is. Working on some more of these!

[bey-life]

[dailydefunctmangamagazine]

Garo (ガロ) / Seirindō (青林堂) / Feb 2002 issue

[emilyych]

🌑🐾 hunter’s moon 🐾🌑

[happybirthday-unusannus]

Happy 4th Birthday to

“Mark and Ethan Go on a "Drum Date"”

[mote-historie]

Xavier Gose (Paris), Die Raffinierte, Jugend magazine. München, 22. February 1909.

Museu d'Art Jaume Morera

[basicallyanotherwitchesthing]

Adam, magazine, V. 14, N. 2, Knight Pub., February 1970

[user-without-a-cool-acronym]

And now it's official: the last issue of shatterspin is going to release more than a year after the series was originally announced

[k-i-l-l-e-r-b-e-e-6-9]

Pantera - This Love

[thief-of-eggs]

headcannon that Bruce dresses up in a crappy batman costume every year for halloween, and people are so oblivious that they go as far as to be like “wow! you make such a great batman!” and “you really look like him! awesome costume mr wayne!”

one halloween he even brings damian to an event with him, dressed in- you guessed it- a crappy robin costume. no one even begins to catch on

[booksinantwerp]

Beautiful shot by Tesh for i-D Magazine: No. 217 (February 2002): The Portrait Issue. Gisele Bündchen is styled in Emporio Armani by the legendary Edward Enninful. follow on Instagram for more