#TAL Education

[broodygaming]

C2 Spoilers

it drives me NUTS when people say that Taliesin and Matt decided together backstage to kill off Molly. It makes 0 sense and it's ??? just such an unnecessary rumor to spread. People on reddit often spout it like it's just a known fact. Like, as if Taliesin didn't famously complain about having to pull all nighters over a busy weekend to roll and conceptualize a new character cuz he had ZERO backup. As if Molly didn't JUST have a huge lore drop and was clearly building to be a major focus of the next branch of the story. As if Matt didn't have LOADS of lore and planning already done that he had to to redo and reconfigure to fit with the Tomb Takers going and exhuming Molly to continue their plans. Matt said he had this whole thing where Lucien was gonna show up in a different body and hunt down the M9 to kill Molly and take his old body back. He SAID that!

Idk why this drives me nuts. It just feels... almost disrespectful. Like. Y'all. Taliesin isn't a baby. He fucked up. It's okay. He made a dumb choice in the heat of the battle and doubled down and it got his character killed. Things escalated and there wasn't a healer and it's JUST as simple as that. Stop making shit up to justify something that only SEEMS LIKE IT'S ORDAINED because these people are talented story tellers. Blowing all the work they did to reconfigure the story and just HAND WAVING and being like "they planned it ahead of time" is just rude. If it all seems preplanned it's cuz Matt busted his patootie off and reweaved a frayed tapestry into a beautiful work. Happy accidents and all that. CMON.

[jazzdailyblog]

Alan Dawson: A Drummer's Drummer and Master Educator

Introduction: The world of jazz drumming is filled with numerous influential figures, each contributing uniquely to the evolution of the genre. Among these legends, Alan Dawson stands out not only for his extraordinary skill and versatility as a drummer but also for his profound impact as an educator. His ability to blend technical proficiency with deep musicality made him a sought-after…

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Tal Fortgang and Jonathan Deluty

Published: Mar 25, 2024

Not one week after the October 7 massacres, as America’s most prestigious institutions revealed themselves to be thoroughly embedded with pro-Hamas revolutionaries, we wrote: “Campus administrators should consider making significant changes before the American people realize what they are condoning.” Unfortunately, those administrators didn’t get the message.

On December 5, in what must surely rank among the most shameful moments in the history of academia, the presidents of MIT, Harvard, and Penn testified before a Congressional committee at a hearing about the surge of antisemitism on their campuses and refused to say that calls for the genocide of Jews would violate institutional policies. They opted instead for consultant-style newspeak, a whiplash-inducing rediscovery of the value of free expression, and contemptuous smirks. Their tone and coordination indicated that they stood not just for themselves but for the academy—a rarefied, insular, self-important world of its own—and they jolted Americans from their state of benign neglect towards our universities. In doing so, they revealed the acute need for a wholesale renovation of American universities to restore them as institutions that serve a socially useful function. We have subsidized and excused universities’ descent into factories of anti-social people and ideas. A band-aid will not suffice.

Many have responded to this moral collapse by demanding scalps. As of this writing, two of the three presidents who testified have resigned. Firings and resignations of leaders (and expulsions of students who vandalize property or occupy buildings) are necessary proximate goals, but cannot be the ultimate goal of the backlash. Rather, we must address the deeper problem of institutional capture by an ideology hostile to its host nation. What do we do when our finest schools have been overrun by students eager to cheer genocidal antisemitism, faculty and administrators who broadly agree, and a culture that could produce credentialed people so smugly disdainful of the West? 

Precisely diagnosing the disease is the first step towards offering effective prescriptions. The renovation of the American academy must be tailored to its problems, both quantitatively and qualitatively. 

One threshold observation is that a focus on the American university is warranted, because what happens on campus shapes our nation’s character and ethical instincts in sustained ways. For years, conventional wisdom held the opposite: young people always go through radical phases; they eventually grow out of it or leave it behind when they graduate; serious people could never take these ideas seriously enough for them to take hold. Both latter dismissals of the campus problem are wrong. They fail to account for the anti-civilizational turn campus radicalism has taken, and how liberals in the West are defenseless against its calls for “liberation” and “justice.”

This essay would hardly be the first to point out that young people immersed in the latest wave of leftist ideology wield their campus-cultivated ideas, intuitions, and jargon as weapons against well-meaning members of prior generations who hold the keys to leading corporate, media, government, and non-profit institutions. Anyone who has read James Bennet’s account of his ouster from the New York Times, the anti-Israel demands of anonymous low-level Biden administration staffers, or even progressive media coverage of the leftist non-profit landscape knows how many missionaries spread the Word about power differentials and liberation, and how they have pushed liberalism aside.

The mistaken belief that recent graduates are passionate advocates for civil rights and tolerance rather than adherents to a foreign and incompatible morality has allowed the gatekeepers to be bamboozled and bullied into handing over the keys, almost without resistance. Young ideologues now wear hollowed-out institutions—for-profit, non-profit, and government—as skinsuits. What happens on campus does not stay on campus, because universities currently function as seminaries of an aggressively proselytizing theology, the onward march of which is not easily resisted by complacent liberals and quickly becomes orthodoxy wherever it takes root.

In quantitative terms, this is a big deal—a major national problem that warrants aggressive countermeasures. Which brings us to an observation about the substance of the ideas that dominate campuses today, from presidents to pre-frosh. What makes them so viral, destructive, and difficult to resist? Understanding the nature of the disease depends on answering that question, which in turn requires a deep dive into the substance of the dominant form of campus leftism.

Since October 7, many analysts have noted that “decolonialism” (or “decolonization”), a sub-genre of antiracist progressive activism, now provides the ideological justification for students to say or do abhorrent things. To take one example: Before adherents of this movement decided that it would be politically convenient to claim that the rapes of October 7 never happened, they were fond of saying “this is what decolonization looks like.” Decolonialism gives progressives a lens through which to see complex geopolitical events as moral struggles, while upending traditional moral analysis.

Its analytical frame, borrowed from postmodernists and critical theorists, is seductively simple: the apparently powerful group is bad and its powerless opponent is good. One’s role is not to evaluate the moral worth of the conduct or aims of a given actor, but rather to engage in “solidarity” (or “allyship”) with those deemed weaker by some measure—often a superficial racialized measure, at that. And as always, the notion that a weaker party might be weaker precisely because of its conduct or aims is proscribed as bigoted.

In the context of warring ethno-religious groups in the Levant, this takes the form of believing that Israeli Jews are white outsiders who have stolen Arab land, though a moment’s critical thought would reveal that this has things all wrong. Israel is history’s greatest “decolonization” success story, featuring the return of an exiled people to sovereignty in its ancient homeland. But that conclusion requires actual historical analysis. Comparing the two sides’ skin color and relative success is much simpler, yields a reliably clear path for solidarity, and in the process appears to parallel salient American cultural conflicts. The Jewish state of Israel is liberal, rich, and free, which means it must have exploited someone, just as the West was built on the exploitation of natives and minorities. Between its tendency to simplify a complex world and the ease with which young people can join the good side, it’s easy to see why this worldview is so appealing to well-meaning young Americans. 

But “decolonialism” emphasizes some unique principles. One is that land belongs to “indigenous” peoples, and anything such people do to liberate it from non-indigenous “colonizers” is justified. (Ideas, norms, and cultural touchstones enjoy the same status.) Hence the brazen campus celebrations of Hamas embodying “liberation by any means necessary” and the omnipresent claim that even Jewish children murdered or kidnapped in the kibbutzim near Gaza were colonizers who deserved their fate.

In short, on this worldview, liberating “indigenous” territory is such a high-order good that it outranks prohibitions against murder, rape, and every other atrocity that most Americans assume campus progressives must abhor. In this sense, accusations of left-wing hypocrisy miss the mark. A higher-order good like “liberating indigenous lands” can nullify lower-order evils like rape, torture, murder, and mutilation. Progressives celebrating Hamas’s atrocities are not being hypocrites, but consistent ideologues. If this ideology seems foreign and untenable, that may be because it cannot coherently coexist with the most basic elements of our civilization.

In accordance with the teachings of postcolonial authors like Frantz Fanon (whose earlier, more violent work is admired like scripture in viral anti-Israel materials), decolonial violence is worthy of celebration. Treating flesh-and-blood people as mere abstractions in a bloody fairy tale, today’s radicals—drawing on Sartre’s infamous preface to The Wretched of the Earth—imbue violence against ostensible colonizers with a redemptive quality. It eradicates not just colonizers’ bodies, literally, but the colonized’s own humiliating identity, spiritually.

Consider Professor Norman Finkelstein’s near-sociopathic reaction to the brutality of the October 7 massacres. In a (now-deleted) Substack post, he wrote: “I, for one, will never begrudge—on the contrary, it warms every fiber of my soul—the scenes of Gaza's smiling children as their arrogant Jewish supremacist oppressors have, finally, been humbled.” Finkelstein often talks a good game about respect for international law, but the true moral force of his writing, and the source of his popularity, lies in his pathological embrace of Palestinian violence per se as spiritually redemptive (and embraced by a Jew, no less).

So, while civilized people around the world consider eliminating Israel’s sovereignty over its territory a non-starter because, in practice, it would mean the death and exile of millions of Jews, adherents to decolonialist radicalism are encouraged by that fact. In the meantime, they will continue to support, as a central part of their worldview, fanatical efforts to make Israel’s continued existence as painful as possible. While civilization depends on categorically rejecting lawless violence, decolonialism lionizes it with the claim that obedience to unjust laws allows the powerful to perpetuate their oppression of the powerless.

The activists may have trained their eyes on Israel for now, but in no way is this view limited to that conflict. To the contrary, anti-Israel activists frequently call for revolution in the West. Chants and activist materials call on the faithful to “globalize the intifada” and weave strings-on-corkboard conspiracy theories about the connections between capitalism, political liberalism, and Zionism. Witness, for example, a student at Columbia’s School of Social Work admiringly quoting Mao at a Columbia Social Workers 4 Palestine event after October 7: “[Hamas] showed us that with creativity, determination, and combined strength, the masses can accomplish great feats, a fact we have seen in every heroic struggle for liberation from Vietnam to Afghanistan. As Mao says, ‘Dare to struggle, dare to win.’”

In the Red Sea skirmish between several NATO countries and the Shia Houthis, demonstrators have taken the side of slaveholding pirates, chanting for the Iranian proxies to “make us proud/turn another ship around!” National Students for Justice in Palestine helpfully clarified that it has its sights set on “Occupied Turtle Island” (that is, North America) in its global quest for the “one solution” to all its problems: “intifada, revolution!” Anti-Israel activism is a test-run for wild ideas about “liberating” the world from Western civilization. 

Why would liberation of indigenous territory rank so highly in these activists’ hierarchy of goals? Because returning every nation to its “rightful” original position in the world is central to their project. Contemporary progressives are animated by the conviction that history is most fundamentally characterized by one exploitation after another. This is a logical projection of their current view onto the past. Today, in the activist mind, every human interaction, no matter how mundane, is rife with oppression. The social interactions of the past—even the seemingly innocuous ones, like migration and commerce—all the more so. The only solution is a revolution returning humanity to its pre-exploration, pre-cooperative, pre-civilizational state.

This perspective helps explain not just why campus activists consistently take seemingly absurd positions (“Queers for Palestine”) but also why they behave in a manner best described as uncivilized (or anticivilized). Tearing down hostage posters, shouting obscenities, interrupting classes, vandalizing statues and storefronts—all these actions flout the norms of decency that make civilization possible. More so than even the unhinged radicals of the 20th century, the current crop of campus-trained die-hards are committed to the idea that civilization itself is a malicious fraud because it conceals and perpetuates artificial categories that necessarily result in exploitation. Freeing Palestine from Jewish control would show that the tide has turned in an unprecedented fashion towards undoing all the systems of oppression that apparently constitute Western civilization, and keep members of “marginalized” groups from true liberation. 

As a proxy war in a civilizational struggle, the current unrest is not due to arguments within the regular bounds of socially beneficial give-and-take. Rather, it is at base an argument about whether there can be any rules at all, or whether justice demands that we return to some kind of state of nature. When today’s activists reject neutral rules that create disparities between groups, they condemn the very attempt to transcend our differences through a cooperative civilization. Attacking law enforcement, shutting down bridges and newspaper presses, vandalism, and chanting for the violent overthrow of the West are all pointed expressions of this condemnation, and would remain a celebrated part of the perpetual revolution machine that would emerge when the facade of civilization falls.

These revolutionaries refuse the possibility of a positive-sum alternative represented by a liberal and mutually beneficial society. Evidence that such a civilization might actually serve formerly oppressed groups well—such as Jewish national success in Israel and communal success in the West—is recast as evidence that the group is in on the game, having flipped from oppressed to oppressor in some nefarious way. The antisemitism of this worldview may be incidental. The barbarism, however, is the point. No self-respecting society should tolerate such a movement, much less pretend that the institutions cultivating it need only minor tweaks to correct course.

This monstrous ideology’s metastasis within academia is an iterative process. To call it a failure of leadership is insufficient. Precisely where it begins—the administration, the professors, the students—is hard to know. It certainly does not end with its leaders. Humanities and social-science departments are dominated by fringe ideologues. Administrators hire DEI professionals and other bureaucrats who believe the university’s highest aim is social justice. Universities seek out, both tacitly and in application prompts, student social-justice activists, lavishing scholarships upon applicants who know which shibboleths signal that they are in tune with the latest revolutionary fad.

Whether schools do all this because they sense that students, applicants, rankings-compilers, or potential employers find it appealing or because top administrators are themselves revolutionaries is not clear. But no single facet of the academy presents an obvious target for an effective countervailing policy response. Even rooting out the thousands of DEI apparatchiks would not stem the tide, because DEI principles are so deeply entrenched and institutionalized in all aspects of campus life, from hiring and admissions practices to course curricula. Rather, the academy as a whole must be treated as the arm of an anti-civilizational ratchet. 

None of this analysis was inaccessible before the post-October 7 convulsions or the December 5 presidents’ debacle. It was only obscured somewhat by academics’ reliance on jargon in expressing simple but antisocial ideas. What has been revealed since then, most of all, is that the corruption of the university is not a joke. It is not a mere lack of seriousness in scholarship. It is the lack of even the possibility of seriousness in scholarship. The American academy has been turned against its host nation as never before, driven at every level by the conviction that the United States must be destroyed to achieve the higher-order good of undoing the evils of civilization, cultivated in laboratories of anti-Enlightenment morality and the contempt for the American nation its leaders displayed on Capitol Hill. 

But with some understanding of the depth and character of this threat, the American people, through their elected representatives and other means, can mount a proportionate response that targets the disease itself, and conditions the academy’s future on its commitment to reversing course. 

What would wholesale renovations look like? The scope of the problem and its target demand a multi-pronged campaign with contributions from policymakers and government officials, donors, employers, media, and regular American citizens. That campaign should be harsh and thorough, as universities have knowingly deranged our society for decades and gotten quite rich doing so through government subsidies, market-immune loans, and favorable tax status.

But a solution to this problem cannot be a “burn-it-all-down” pitchfork-led mob. It must still be guided by an alternative positive vision recognizing that universities, at their best, serve the public interest in advancing human understanding, wisdom, science, and gratitude for our inheritance. It is crucial to recognize that there is no other major institution currently doing this at scale in American society. This proposal is for a renovation—a major one, to be sure—not a demolition.

To the extent that the academy provides an opportunity for young people to spend their formative years becoming thoughtful people and critical but committed citizens, it has a strong claim to public largesse and the perception that its degrees mean something good. But the flipside is that states and the federal government should not treat universities as institutions that advance the public interest if they inculcate a theologically guided compulsion to derange and dismantle the West. Americans are under no obligation to subsidize thousands of active combatants in a war against themselves. 

Some public policy responses to institutional capture are already underway. Multiple states have passed legislation dismantling DEI bureaucracies in state universities. Federal legislation has been introduced to tax university endowments above certain amounts. States can and should follow suit. Massive grant- and other tuition-assistance programs allow schools to charge exorbitant tuition fees. All levels of government can condition this assistance on administrations submitting to external audits to ensure that academic freedom is protected without bleeding into revolutionary and barbaric activism. 

Lawsuits, both private and public, based on universities’ failure to protect Jews’ and Israeli-Americans’ civil rights may cost smaller universities non-trivial sums in settlement or damages. Information that comes out in discovery would also be useful in mounting a general-population campaign of shame and mockery that would help drain name-brand institutions of their residual prestige, making top high-schoolers think twice before applying there. 

But perhaps the more interesting avenue would entail state attorneys general investigating university administrations for deliberately creating environments hostile to racial and national-origin groups deemed “oppressors.” One question these AGs might ask is why admissions departments have ushered in so many students susceptible to the temptations of an intellectually facile and barbaric ideology. What procedures are in place that resulted in an inordinate number of university students embracing an anti-civilized philosophy, and which personnel are responsible for executing it?

Even if all the current student radicals were expelled, leaving the gatekeepers who admitted them in power would simply allow universities to replicate the same patterns. The key is to investigate and identify what characteristics and behaviors admissions departments have selected for on a systemic basis, revealing how they have abandoned the pretense of rigor in order to populate their campuses with scores of true-believer barbarians and their enablers.

Of course, such drastic action must be handled with care. An easy but mistaken route during this warranted crackdown is finding professors and administrators who have said unsavory things and firing them. But not only is violating genuine free-speech rights not in the interests of those who wish to see a renovated academy, it also risks falling into the same trap of pinning systemic problems on individuals. The problem is not that influential people have said insane things. The problem is that every level of the university is currently geared towards perpetuating and mainstreaming those insanities. Tactically, critics should remain focused on reorienting the processes that led to hiring radical staff and admitting sympathetic students, rather than getting bogged down in energy-intensive campaigns targeting individuals, which are distracting and likely to draw legal and cultural backlash. 

Another crucial strategy jumps right to advancing a positive vision of the university, aiming to pressure the old guard by subsidizing its competition. Some new and revitalized institutions have already begun drawing attention from donors who in the past would have given to traditionally prestigious institutions like Harvard and Penn. Donors and policymakers should feel a special solicitude towards those institutions that position themselves as explicitly pro-civilization, counterbalancing the very forces driving the traditionally prestigious schools mad.

The University of Austin, University of Florida, and Hillsdale College, to name just a few, deserve serious attention from donors and faculty who no longer wish to lend their support (and the prestige that comes with it) to experiments in anti-civilizational revolution. Organizations such as the Tikvah Fund, which has scaled up its pro-America, pro-Israel, and pro-Jewish educational programming for students of all ages, have risen to the moment by responding to the campus barbarians with a full-throated defense of Western civilization. (Full disclosure: both authors of this essay have held affiliations with Tikvah in the past.) 

New and truly prestigious graduate programs in attitudinally friendly, high-paying sectors like law, engineering, and finance, would add heft to the effort. Ackman-Rowan University, sporting a beautiful $5 billion campus, would attract serious academic talent and send tomorrow’s leaders and political thinkers into the workforce with a Masters of Economics or Finance that would command immediate respect from top-tier employers.

Increasing higher-ed competition is a long-haul strategy but a crucial one. Harvard, MIT, and Penn, among many other elite schools, largely maintain their reputations by inertia. Having abandoned their short-lived 20th-century experiment in meritocracy, they no longer even pretend to select among applicants based on objective qualifications, preferring instead some proprietary blend of academic adequacy and social-justice commitment. They have returned to their pre-1960s roles as finishing schools for American elites, only now they select for elite beliefs more than elite heritage (though they do that, too). Ultimately, they do not enjoy their current status on account of current merit. They are coasting on residual prestige from a time when they could at least claim to be something more than glorified communist summer camps. 

Eroding that prestige—which keeps employers coming back to campus job fairs and treating Harvard degrees as an application “plus,” and keeps talented high-schoolers dreaming of autumns in Cambridge—requires propping up competitors so they can compete for genuine teaching talent, build the amenities that will attract the best and brightest, and thus begin to drain the Ivys (and peers) of their mystique.

For years, wealth has been compounding at elite universities through the cycle of graduates obtaining high-paying jobs and repaying some of their income to their alma maters. But prestige, which is partly a function of wealth, is socially constructed. It can subsist on old gifts and accruing interest for a while, but not forever—especially if legislators work to prevent large gifts from adversaries like China and Qatar. And the best way to make pro-civilization campuses prestigious is simply to treat them—in our capacities as employers, parents, friends, consumers, and critics—as though they are. 

The public shaming and mocking of university leadership should continue until the moral rot is gone. Most Americans are not donors, legislators, or potential litigants who can wield these weapons in this fight. But they can work within their local culture to bring universities down to size. To be blunt, Harvard, MIT, Penn, and most of their peers should be laughing stocks, whose names receive the same respect we give Trump University. They have lost sight of their mission, welcoming a takeover of their administrations, faculty, and student bodies by an analytically pathetic and morally perverted ideology.

We regular citizens need to treat them accordingly in our everyday lives, by encouraging bright youth to take their talents elsewhere and maintaining a healthy skepticism of the value of the degrees they confer. And until they begin dismantling their own systemic institutional radicalism, university leaders should have their feet held to the fire at every public appearance, where they should be held to account for continuing to provide succor to those who hate the West.

It bears repeating that universities need not draw this kind of scrutiny forever. A commitment to free expression and academic freedom can coexist with some minimal commitment to not use university resources to work towards the demise of the nation in which it exists. But as long as the academy is committed to forming young people who are not interested in being decent citizens—indeed, who are trained to be exactly the opposite—it should be treated as the locus of the civilizational crisis it is. 

==

“To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior 'righteous indignation' — this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats.” -- Aldous Huxley

[clearholidaysindia]

Suraj Tal Tourist Spot in Lahaul and Spiti, Himachal Pradesh

Suraj Tal is a stunning high-altitude lake located in the Lahaul and Spiti district of Himachal Pradesh, India. Nestled between the majestic mountains, this beautiful lake is known for its crystal-clear waters and breathtaking scenery. It’s a perfect spot for nature lovers and adventure seekers alike. If you’re looking for offbeat places near Suraj Tal, you’ll find plenty of hidden gems waiting to be explored.

One of the best places to visit near Suraj Tal is the famous Rohtang Pass. This high mountain pass offers spectacular views and thrilling opportunities for trekking and photography. You can enjoy the fresh mountain air and take in the beauty of the surrounding landscapes. Another nearby attraction is the picturesque village of Keylong, where you can experience local culture, delicious food, and friendly people. Walking through the village gives you a taste of life in the Himalayas.

For those who love adventure, the stunning Chandra Tal Lake is a must-see. Known as the Moon Lake, it is famous for its unique shape and vibrant colors. This lake is perfect for camping and enjoying a peaceful night under the stars. Overall, the places to visit near Suraj Tal offer a mix of natural beauty and cultural experiences, making your trip to this region unforgettable.

[crayonverse]

I might just all of my fnaf au stuff on tumblr at this point because is imploding

[junos-cacophony]

people what now

why tthe fuck do you guys hate Tally Ball so much

[abr]

Dunque, riassumiamo i mantra:

- l'attentatore di Magdeburgo è islamobofo,

- quello di Trump era repubblicano,

- Salvini con la sentenza a non procedere perché "il fatto non sussiste", ha subito una clamorosa sconfitta - sic tal Giannini su Ripubblica, domani,

- le multine ai novax eran benecomuniste educative e andavano tenute, quelle ai monopattini no e van tolte,

- le auto elettriche subito, senza se e ma, basta sian cinesi e non di Musk,

- le tasse sono belle e fanno il benecomune (imperituro).

Ecco come si sono ridotti.

Meglio Negazionisti che creduloni psicopatici autoespulsi dalla realtà.

[thewardenisonthecase]

Something very dear to me in DAO, when it comes to Sten and then Qun is that, unlike the next games, it doesn't feel like the Qun is portrayed in that much of a negative of a light?

Sure, some of its issues are still adressed. Sten will ask 'how are you a woman if you fight' to leliana, morrigan, wynne and a female warden, and it highlights the gender roles in the Qun, but considering that if you play as a female warden you get ask/told again and again that there aren't a lot of wardens or that people are surprised you're a warrior (cof cof howe mentioning its unusual that bryce would train a female cousland as a warrior cof cof) i don't have much complaints with that. it is what it is. And at least, you can stand up to Sten when he says those things.

I think the only time i was like 'ok that is fucked' was when Sten brought up how the Qun treats its mages, because even when he talked about how everyone under the Qun has a role, he doesn't talk in a way that makes you feel like this is some sort of extremely bad and rigid thing. In fact, Sten makes the argument that its better because then people don't have to spend their life trying to fit in into something they're not (and lowkey, Wynne expressed similar sentiments when she talks about that it's better to embrace the role/destiny that the Maker gave you than fighting against it).

But what really drives home to me about home to me is that, at some point, Alistair asks the Warden how they feel about the other companions and when talking about Sten, there's a possbility for Alistair to say that, in the way Sten talks about the Qun, it doesn't feel as vile as the chantry makes it out. And you gotta keep in mind that Alistair spent a good portion of his life living in the chantry, so for him to say that, for me, is a big deal on how the Qun is portrayed through Sten.

I think about this a lot because I honestly was like wow, besides a few things, the Qun seems lowkey to be pretty good until we got to DAI and there was the whole thing with re-education, and hunting tal-vashoth (which, its adressed in DAO, but i feel like they were much more subtle about it). Like heck, even in DA2, I don't think the Qun itself is portrayed that badly, because 1) the Arishok doesn't do shit to Kirkwall until he's provocked like 3 different times and 2) Kirkwall is a shithole, so when he talks about the city, he lowkey makes sense.

Idk. I really liked how the qun was handled in DAO because of Sten and his perspective, and then in DAI and DATV I was just going 'yikes' most of the time.

[dragonagekeeper]

Dragon Age Inquisition Polls

See choice descriptions from Dragon Age Keep below

Adaar

You are Tal-Vashoth, a Qunari who has rejected the Qun and never even lived in Qunari lands. As part of the Valo-kas mercenary company, you have earned a living by your own wits and the strength of your blade, ignoring the fearful looks you receive from those around you.

2. Cadash

A cast-off "surfacer," unwelcome among the dwarves or most humans, you have scraped by as part of a criminal fraternity known as the Carta, smuggling magical ore known as lyrium. As part of the ruthless Cadash crime family, you spent your life on the streets of various Free Marcher city-states.

3. Lavellan

If Mage:

The Dalish are nomadic wanderers who strive to keep the ancient elven religion and traditions alive. You grew up in the wilderness, a member of the Lavellan Dalish clan and apprentice to its leader and guide, the Keeper.

If Rogue or Warrior:

The Dalish are nomadic wanderers who strive to keep the ancient elven religion and traditions alive. You were raised in the wilderness to be a hunter, relied upon by the Lavellan clan for food and protection.

4. Trevelyan

If Mage:

Born to the Trevelyan noble family of Ostwick in the Free Marches, you were originally intended for a life of privilege—until magical abilities surfaced at a young age and you were forced into a life of confinement within Ostwick's Circle of Magi. Protected but stifled, educated but isolated, the Circle would have been your entire future had the mages not rebelled against Chantry rule.

If Rogue or Warrior:

As the youngest child of the Trevelyan noble house, you grew up in the Free Marcher city of Ostwick and have enjoyed a life of privilege. With close family ties to the Chantry, and many relatives among the priesthood and the templars, you were always expected to follow a similar path in service of the Maker.

[anneapocalypse]

Demands of the Qun, or How the Inquisitor's Choice Answers the Iron Bull's Most Important Question

I was having a chat about the Iron Bull and his personal quest with some friends and one person said in response to something I said that I should make it a Post, so here it is! And a usual disclaimer: this is not about which in-game decision is "correct"--it's an RPG, there's no wrong way to play the game. I just want to talk about the meaning of this decision for Bull's character and for his future.

Dragon Age: Inquisition’s “Demands of the Qun” is, for me, one of those quests where the RPG format of “player character makes major decision for companion character” really works. I do not see this as an example of game mechanics taking away agency from an NPC. I think Bull has agency in this situation.

The Chargers are not Inquisition soldiers. They are mercenaries, and Bull is their commander. If the Inquisitor makes a call he doesn't like, he is free to say "Screw you" and take his people and leave, because they are not soldiers, they're independent contractors, so leaving isn't desertion, it's just quitting. If he were already certain he wanted to leave the Qun, he could simply call the retreat himself, take the Chargers and leave. Similarly if he were certain of his loyalties and willing to sacrifice the Chargers for that purpose, he could do that, regardless of what the Inquisitor says.

He lets the Inquisitor make this choice.

The Iron Bull has had one foot out the door of the Qun for a long time now. But he's gone back and gone back, submitted himself for re-education and done his best to keep serving the Qun, because he believes he needs the Qun. To him, becoming Tal-Vashoth means losing himself, his identity, his purpose, his very sanity, and as the Fade tells us in "Here Lies the Abyss," this is quite literally his greatest fear. Bull could never bring himself to leave the Qun with nowhere to go instead, nothing to give his life purpose and meaning—and no one to entrust himself to should he doubt his own sanity.

But in his work in the south, the Iron Bull has found community and identity and purpose outside the Qun. The very name he has given himself speaks to that, as does his close relationship to the Chargers.

Right from the beginning, there is tension in "Demands of the Qun." Bull remarks that he's gotten used to the Qunari being "over there" during his life in the south. I think Bull has a very potent anxiety when he meets Gatt again on the Storm Coast, and introduces him to the Inquisitor and their party. To me, it very much has the vibes of introducing two friend groups, where you're not only pretty sure they won't get along, but you're also very aware that they know very different sides of you—and neither of them are going to like seeing the other side. Bull's discomfort is visible both when Gatt speaks freely about Bull's work in the Ben-Hassrath, and when the Inquisitor's other companions make disparaging remarks about the Qun. His two worlds have collided, calling into conflict two sides of his sense of self that he has thus far managed to avoid confronting.

And this is likely part of the point. The Qun does not truly respect alliances with any outside the Qun. I wouldn't say for sure that the Qunari set up this whole situation just to test Bull—it's possible they knew exactly how many Venatori would show up, but they couldn't have known precisely how the Inquisition would respond. That, and their desire to root out the Venatori is no doubt sincere. But I do think they are watching Bull's actions very closely throughout this proposed alliance, gauging his loyalty. Gatt tells him outright that many already believe he has betrayed the Qun.

Bull's internal conflict quickly becomes an external one when the Venatori reinforcements show up, and Bull is faced with the decision of whether to withdraw the Chargers or defend the dreadnought at the cost of their lives.

The thing is, Bull is not neutral on this. He tells the Inquisitor what he wants. He wants to save the Chargers. If the Inquisitor says that the Chargers still have time to retreat, Bull agrees. When Gatt tells him they need to hold position, he says in a low, intense tone, "They're my men."

And then, when Gatt tells him in no uncertain terms that calling the retreat will make him Tal-Vashoth, the Iron Bull looks to the Inquisitor.

Again, he is not neutral. He knows what he wants. He is standing there basically begging the Inquisitor with his eyes to save his boys.

So why doesn't he just make the call himself?

Because just as this whole situation is in part a test of Bull's loyalty, this is also a test of the Inquisitor.

What Bull needs to leave the Qun is not simply for someone else to make the choice for him, but to believe that there is a future for him outside the Qun. That he will still be himself, that he will have purpose, and meaning, and that someone else is worth trusting. Bull cannot bring himself to leave the Qun if it means he will be left utterly alone with nothing but his own mind and his deepest fears. And if that's what leaving the Qun means… then in his mind, it would be better to stay.

The Inquisitor's choice will answer that question.

To sacrifice the Chargers leaves Bull with nothing outside of the Qun. He has just watched his closest friends die, and he cannot trust the Inquisitor. With Krem and Rocky and Skinner and Stitches and Dalish and Grim, the new sense of self that the Iron Bull has found in the south also dies.

Of course he turns back to the Qun. He has nothing else left.

But if it's the Inquisitor who makes the call to save the Chargers… Bull can leave. He has friends who care about him. He has purpose. He has someone whose command he can trust. He has hope. None of this makes the choice easy for him. It is quite clearly very painful and difficult, and I don't think there's any way it could be otherwise. But he has a way forward nonetheless. The choice makes leaving possible.

The Inquisitor doesn't force the Iron Bull to become Tal-Vashoth. Instead, Bull implicitly asks a question, and the Inquisitor by their choice gives him an answer.

[mllemaenad]

Okay. Hang on. Wait a minute. Just a minute ago you gave me this codex entry:

The official story of the Qunari attack upon the South holds that the "Dragon's Breath" plan to attack the south was a rogue action against official Qunari orders. This is true, but it is not the whole truth. The Salasari, Triumvirate of the Qun, represents the Qunari people: the Arishok commands the Antaam, the military branch that represents the body; the Ariqun leads the scholars and priests, representing the soul; and the Arigena guides the craftspeople, representing the mind. After the Breach wreaked chaos across the South, the Triumvirate suggested caution and sent a Qunari representative to observe and report on the Inquisition. But some in the Antaam and the Ben-Hassrath believed their leaders lacked the will to end the threat. Dragon's Breath was indeed unsanctioned, but it was not unpopular. Qunari who had fought the blood mages of Tevinter had learned to fear all magic. They wanted a fast solution. When Dragon's Breath failed, the surviving Ben-Hassrath spies surrendered. In contrast, the Antaam insisted that Dragon's Breath had failed because it did not go far enough. The bas, they declared, did not merit education under the Qun. They must be conquered or destroyed. When their Arishok, who had fought darkspawn in Ferelden during the Fifth Blight, argued against this demand, his own kithshoks declared him corrupt. They ambushed the Arishok at the war council, leaving him badly injured. And then the bloodthirsty Antaam went to war, a body now bereft of mind and soul. —Excerpt from Marloqun: The Loss of Reason by Seer Rowan of Dairsmud – Dragon's Breath and the Antaam Schism

These aren't "Tal-Vashoth" in the traditional sense. They're not a group of rebels or mercenaries who have rejected the Qun. This is a religious schism. The Antaam insist that "Sten"/the Arishok is corrupt – that he's doing the Qun "wrong" because he's defending the bas, whom the Antaam no longer believe are worthy of conversion to the Qun.

This is more in line with, say, the White and Black Divines: both the Orlesian and Tevinter Chantries will insist that they are Andrastian, and that they are the ones doing Andrastianism "right", while the other Chantry is "wrong".

The Antaam, as I understand what has happened here, should very much believe that they are the true followers of the Qun, and that the people back in Par Vollen are fucking it up royally.

This ... kind of just feels like an attempt to paint them as evil? We don't have to contend with why they believe what they do, or even put together a coherent philosophy for them to follow. They're just ... mean, bad, nasty people who follow the elven gods for some reason.

[pondering-gales-left-orb]

this was originally tags on a re-blogged post but i had so much more to say so here we go

THE QUNARI AND WHY YOU ALL SHOULD BE NORMAL ABOUT THEM

the qunari story and lore drives me insane with how the fandom treats them

because we see them form the eyes of feraldans and orlesians and kirkwallers we never get a look form the inside

we only see what they see and they only see the military side so ofc to them they think they are all rigid and strict! even when you try to know more from the qunari we meet, they only talk about their training and military life which is normal ask any army soldier about his daily life and he wont talk about the flowers he saw walking down the street obv

the three Qunari characters that we see are literally the military convoy dispatched to another kingdom, the fucking president who is also the leader of the military forces, and the secret police guy (not even mentioning the actual straight up army and army general we meet in trespasser) why would they present as anything but scary intimidating and imposing when talked to by strangers??

everything anyone is gonna tell that is bad about the Qunari im gonna tell you you dont know if every single Qunari does these things do they all believe in force conversion? the Full Qun is not taught fully to everyone you only get taught the relevant parts to you and your potential, only the priests know it all, so how many Qunari actually know and agree with the actions of the secret police and conversion army?

the military and police training even in our world includes a great deal of unlearning kindness and care and relating to people and involves a great deal of dissociation but do regular people do that to?? do the Qunari people learn to disconnect the same way a ben-hassrath does? the logical answer is no because why would a baker or a shoe maker or a tailor need this heavy military training?

both Sten and iron bull once they get to know you TELL YOU that you cant judge the qunari based on them only, there are a whole nation of regular people in there that just living their life they do not have the harsh life the military trained have, they laugh around the fire and enjoy life in their own way and its different but not at all at the same time

the fucking arishock himself tells you you cannot inquire about regular qunari life from him because he is not a regular person he is a military man -the leader- he didnt live the life you are asking about he didnt learn the answers you need

when Wynn says to Sten "your people dont seem like music people" and he calls her out on that saying" based on what how do you know that?" and proceeds to tell her that he is not the equivalent of his people not every person is like him and he doesn't represent the nation as a whole they have music and art they have fun they have a beautiful life just not him in that moment because he has a job to do away from all that

in the fade you see his memories of relaxed qunari having fun and laughing and making fun of each other and that's STILL his military coworkers

do you think a regular ass Qunari that's like a cook in a tavern is gonna talk so much about the re-educators the same amount as bull?? do you think they even interact with them beyond childhood education (aka school....the part of the qun they need to be a cook)

all three of them ask you is that bad? is that worth destroying like your people think? do you think they are savages like your people think? compelling you to think beyond them to the people of par vollen

and im sad the fandom doesn't think about these questions critically and just generalizes the military experience on the nation of Par Vollen and by extension the Tal-Vashoth too

for example do you think the baker in par Vollen wants the Tal-Vashoth dead or is it just the military leaders? i bet if you go to a par Vollen vegetable seller and tell him "the Arishok is going to hunt Tal-Vashoth tomorrow" hes gonna blink twice and then say "alright....anyway so are you gonna buy something ?"

the transition of iron bull from Qunari to Tal-Vashoth is supposed to show you that regular people on both sides don't reflect the military goals of the leaders they both just want to live a fulfilling life how ever different that is from what we consider a fulfilling life and we get to see what that looks like to Qunari through the tender moments shown to us like with Sten and the whole charges and the bull story, the ones who want them dead are the military

but no the fandom has decided All Qunari bad All Qunari fascists or whatever as if the military goals of the chantry are better somehow

but then they give andrastian people grace they dont afford to the Qunari even though they are both regular people that follow two beliefs that doesn't consider the small folk in anyway shape or form as anything but fodder to further their ideology but one of them only has their death justified and accepted while the other are allowed to live and are given a plethora of excuses

[degenerateworm]

holaa, me encanta como escribes y queria pedirte tal vez algunos headcanons de pocketcat (el lector le corresponde en sus sentimientos)

I am so sorry my beautiful anon, I am as thick as a brick, and I only speak English. I am very sorry to disappoint, and I'd love to answer your ask precisely, but I'm afraid I only have a basic level of education.

From what little Spanish I know though, and the admitted help of the ever dubious Google translate, I think you are asking for headcanons for Pocketcat with the reader reciprocating his feelings?

Do tell me if I am wrong! And thank you for your request, my friend!

---

Pocketcat, with his ever delusional outlook on life, would absolutely adore a reader that reciprocates his feelings.

This would admittedly put the reader in a safer position with him, as he feels he does not need to force his love upon them in any dangerous ways, rather he would come waltzing up to them looking for kisses that his partner would gladly give.

He purrs so loudly and so hard around you often, even on sight! When you hold him, you can practically feel the vibrations in his chest as he becomes a happy little truck motor.

"Prrr... You know just how to spoil a partner!"

Get ready for SO much purple cat hair on every item of clothing you own!! Nothing is safe from his shedding, not even the inside of your mouth.

And biscuits!

If you ever get him into a state of absolute relaxation, with maybe some pets and kisses to his soft little head, his paws will start to knead on any available surface.

He is rather strong, so you will have to notify him if he starts to push too hard, or if you can feel the prick of his claws through your clothes.

"Oops... Ah, I just got a little too excited..!"

And it wouldn't be Pocketcat without something perverse, now would it?

Pocketcat LOVES to have his hands on you, at any possible time. An arm slung over your shoulders, wrapped around your waist, cradling your cheeks...

And you're just so adorable in his hands, how can he not go further..?

Expect to be pinned against various surfaces often, caged by Pocketcat's large, furry form, with his hands tugging impatiently at your clothes.

"Oh darling... Huff... You're just irresistible! Be a good partner... Huff... Take care of what you caused, hm..?"

---

I won't go into full nasty as you hadn't requested it, but I hope this was acceptable! Thank you for your request!

[flan-tasma]

He didn't love you (Alastor x GN!Reader)

💖~ I think this is the first time I've written for Alastor and it's not that fanon. I don't know, I hope I did well.

I really like the idea of this type of love where they don't really love you, but they have you.

Warning: angst, toxic relationship, Alastor being Alastor | English is not my native language, so if I have made any mistakes in the translation, I am open to corrections | Content in spanish and english!

Spanish:

Imagina a Alastor cuando estaba vivo. Te conoció por azares del destino y no pudo dejarte ir nunca más. No te amaba, no había espacio para un “tú y él” en su corazón, pero tenerte era divertido. Sus palabras serían dulces, cordiales, siempre sabría lo que necesitabas escuchar y te endulzaría el oído para mantenerte a su lado, para que fueras leal como una buena mascota.

Tal vez funcionó, tal vez fuiste su mascota preferida que siempre ladraba cuando él quería y le dabas la pata cuando te lo ordenaba. Probablemente fuiste muy obediente y por eso sintió que te necesitaba aún más. No te amaba, pero sentía la necesidad de llevarte en su bolsillo a todos lados, ponerte un collar que solo él podría quitar cuando ya no te quería. Y eso no pasaría pronto.

Entonces conociste a alguien más, alguien más dulce, sensato y gentil. Alguien realmente gentil, y eso lo mató. Su sonrisa encantadora tembló al verte junto a ese bastardo, sus manos se hicieron puños y su sangre hervía por todo su cuerpo.

Nadie supo lo que ocurrió esa noche, nunca nadie te volvió a encontrar y nunca supieron con quién fuiste. Pero Alastor compartiría ese secreto contigo, esa cena y la despedida definitiva que eran solo suyos, porque definitivamente no serían tuyos. Sintió placer al ver al bastardo triste por tu desaparición, pero ese era el castigo que Alastor eligió para él. Tal vez no estabas tan enamorada de ese hombre entrometido desde el inicio, tal vez tu interés solo fue mera educación y por eso desapareciste sin dejar rastro.

Alastor no lo llamaría un crimen pasional, no te amaba en primer lugar. Pero le pertenecías incluso si no estuviste de acuerdo, eras parte de él aunque no quisieras y él se encargó de ello. Alastor no te amaba, pero prefería verte muerta que siendo la patética mascota de alguien que no fuera él.

English:

Imagine Alastor when he was alive. He met you by chance of fate, and he couldn't let you go anymore. He didn't love you, there was no room for a “you and him” in his heart, but having you was fun. His words would be sweet, cordial, he would always know what you needed to hear and he would sweeten your ear to keep you by his side, so that you would be loyal like a good pet.

Maybe it worked, maybe you were his favorite pet that he always barked when he wanted and you gave him your paw when he told you to. You probably were very obedient and that's why he felt that he needed you even more. He didn't love you, but he felt the need to carry you in his pocket everywhere, put a necklace on you that only he could take off when he no longer wants you. And that wouldn't happen anytime soon.

Then you met someone else, someone sweeter, sensible and gentle. Someone really gentle, and that killed him. His charming smile trembled when he saw you next to that bastard, his hands became fists and his blood boiled throughout his body.

No one knew what happened that night, no one ever found you again and they never knew who you went with. But Alastor would share that secret with you, that dinner and the final goodbye that were only his, because they definitely wouldn't be yours. He took pleasure in seeing the bastard sad over your disappearance, but that was the punishment Alastor chose for him. Maybe you weren't so in love with that meddlesome man from the beginning, maybe your interest was just mere education and that's why you disappeared without a trace.

Alastor wouldn't call it a crime of passion, he didn't love you in the first place. But you belonged to him even if you didn't agree, you were a part of him even if you didn't want to, and he took care of that. Alastor didn't love you, but he'd rather see you dead than let you be the pathetic pet of someone other than him.

[voelene]

What languages do the team know ?

I mean, they all speak trade, of course, but let's think about the other languages.

Harding : according to the wiki, Ferelden only uses trade now, the alamarri language abandoned for centuries. But she might speak some dwarven dialect, even as a surface dwarf. She also could have picked up some Elvish words, Avvar, or Orlesian from her travels with the inquisition.

Neve : Tevene is obvious. As she doesn't seem to operate outside Minrathous from what we know of her, I think that's it (I might wrong, haven't read the missing comic where she appears)

Taash : depending on wether she is Tal Vashoth or Vashoth (and what her caretakers taught her in this case), she might speak Qunlat or not. She speaks Rivaini, obviously.

Lucanis : Antivan is no brainer, but he very probably picked up Tevene, having spent some time there for his venatori contracts. He might have been taught other languages during his education (while not a spy, it could still be useful to listen on private conversations)

Bellara : as much Elvish as is possible to know for a modern day Dalish. Apart from that, her drive to learn could have led to other languages, but I can't think of a specific one.

Davrin : some Elvish too. We don't know where he hails from, but depending on his former clan preferred hunting grounds, he might know the related language (same with Bellara)

Emmerich : Nevarra doesn't have a related language in the wiki, but they probably have a distinct language to go with their very particular culture (and they probably have ten different terms to speak about a dead person depending on the freshness of the corpse and how it was entombed). But as a scholar, he very probably knows other languages, at least in their written forms.

I know it's not very important, but I want to know who will react when Lucanis calmly insult someone in Antivan, or who will be able to spy on evil magisters or qunari invaders. I want Taash to go on a tirade in Rivaini for five minutes and everyone being "can you start again in a language we actually understand?", while Emmerich just goes "I can translate if you wish".

[ranahan]

Meg ori’shya onid o’r ge’kaan, meg kih’shya tal o’r akaan.

The more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in combat.

—an ancient proverb

I first used ba’jur instead of ge’kaan and reconsidered because ge’kaan is a better word for military training. However, on a third thought, ba’jur would have worked as well: I think akaan here could figuratively mean any kind of real-world challenge and not just combat, in which case “education” would also be appropriate.

I’m not totally sure about the grammar of the “the more … the more …” construction here. It’s my first idea of how to do it using the little grammar we have, but I might have second thoughts later.