#and her past deeds and general...idk...sense of morality?

[emblemxeno]

Decided to take a shot at my own interpretation of “FE Warfare Morality” and whatnot that the fandom is screaming about.

Pacifist: War is absolute last resort no matter what. Celica, Eirika and Corrin could all realistically move to Pragmatist-Retaliatory and fit, but I put them in their own pacifist tier because they all have multiple in-story instances of diplomatic attempts at ending conflict of varying success (sparing enemies, reasoning with bandits, sacrifice of self or possessions); too many to not go noted imo.

Pragmatist-Retaliatory: Diplomacy and peaceful solutions are preferred, but warfare isn’t shied away from. Well aware of war’s reality, and if push comes to shove, they will take up arms. Characters in this tier often had homes invaded and/or parents killed by main aggressor. Avenging homeland or kin may also play a part. Eliwood could actually move up to pacifist because he is that self sacrificing, but I think he fits more where he is. Alm could go to Circumstance or Martial, but idk, he’s willing to give Fernand the benefit of the doubt in Act 3 and outright sends Rudolf an offer of a peace accord in Act 4 so I put him here. Seliph could also go to Circumstance because his willingness to try diplomacy more or less comes after the deed is done (such as questioning having to kill certain people being a necessity), but since his mercy and desire to prevent/avoid conflict is a part of his character, I put him here.

Pragmatist-Circumstance: Views and actions in regards to war are dependent on circumstance:

Lyn offers no quarter to bandits, pirates, or absolutely anyone who harms her family or friends, but is fair to special cases like Jaffar and Nino and does have instances of reasoning with others. 

Ike is a merc, so he often says how he feels doesn’t matter, but is regardless known to try and talk sense into people and be willing to smack folks around in equal measure. 

Micaiah doesn’t like needless conflict but understands the necessity in toppling Begnion’s oppressive rule in Daein and is forced into becoming a ruthless general during Part 3. 

Robin is similar to Ike, in that as a tactician his feelings don’t technically matter but is also known to value diplomacy or winning a battle depending on context. 

Lucina isn’t really in the leadership position enough to make peaceful or action-initiative calls, and when she is the leader in Future Past, it’s against the undead and the very evil Grima. However, her attempted assassination of Robin and general mixed feelings on what she’d do to save the future is enough for me to put her here.

Ryoma can techinically be retaliatory, but his own ignorance and xenophobia towards Nohr often prevents him from being diplomacy seeking, such as in CQ chapter 12. Nevertheless, he’s diplomatic enough after character development that he’s more dependent on circumstance.

Xander actually encourages the diplomatic approaches of Corrin more than once, before route split and during Conquest and Revelation, the latter two which he’s also an active participant in. However, his complicated feelings in regards to Garon and Nohr leads him to do bad things in the belief that it’ll be worth it, so he’s also circumstance.

Azura values peace and is known to compliment successful diplomatic approaches; however, she often questions Corrin’s more naive choices, weaves some relatively cold and calculated plans of her own, and is known to justify conflict more often than Corrin does.

Byleth is hard to guage because his alignment is route dependent, and he more or less serves as a support for the actual main character of said route. Plus his status as a silent protagonist muddies the waters a bit. Still, there is difference enough between the lack of mercy given to the Agarthans and the merciful fights towards former students that lets him land here.

Pragmatist-Martial: Preference for action over treaty attempts or negotiation during wartime, however, that doesn’t mean diplomacy is outright disliked or not valued by them. Hector, Ephraim, and Chrom are all appreciative of how their siblings strive for peace, and the latter two even attempt to emulate such actions on occasion. Sigurd was more than happy to try and pull out of Agustria, but even then, his most common solution to injustice was always marching on the enemy. Leif from the jump was gung-ho about taking down the oppressive forces in Thracia and had to be mellowed out a tad. Dimitri during his descent on the Azure Moon route could fit here, too, though honestly he’s such a unique case. Rhea I would also put here, or maybe Circumstance.

A lot of characters in the Pragmatist-Circumstance and Pragmatist-Martial tiers could also be lumped into Pragmatist-Retaliatory by general technicality (e.g. lots of these characters had homes invaded so retaliation is the expectation), but I wanted to be specific in talking about attitudes towards warfare.

Emperor: It’s just Edelgard lol. Despite her words about “not wanting civilians harmed” or her claims about the war being the only option, it means nothing when her first action in the game is attempted assassination of two people who she (at least to her knowledge in Dimitri’s case) never met. The assistance in kidnapping, subterfuge, conspiracy, human experimentation, and of course the 5 year war which inflicts copious amounts of different harm on the populous also cements her place here.

Plus the devs outright compared her position to past FE villains where she’s different in that she’s 1) a woman and 2) playable, so the twist where she’s behind the war is more of a surprise.

So yeah, that’s my list. Though really, I think trying to fit characters into these types of boxes is kinda stupid in the first place because all the main characters are just that different due to the contexts of their stories, so it’s just generally impossible to make the kinds of compare-and-contrast tier lists like these. Except Edelgard because of her inciting conflict being the one thing no other lord ever does.

[greensaplinggrace]

So you mentioned in another post that you have some strong thoughts on Baghra, especially about how the story frames her as one of the good guys. I would love to hear about it.

@youremotionallystablefriend: I would love to hear you rant about Baghra if you feel like it (and haven’t already)! Personally I don’t think she gets enough constructive critique in the fandom for being the one that brought Aleks up and for the way she treated her pupils and especially Alina :/

Anon: Hello! I love your thoughts on the grisha books. I'm actually interested to hear your take on Baghra

@misku-nimfa: If you are up for it, I would love to read your thoughts on Baghra or your full critique of society in the Grishaverse. Your analysis is really well structured and interesting! ^.^

Anon: Hi! I saw your recent post and was wondering if you'd share more of your thoughts on Baghra?

---

Hello everyone! I was honestly very surprised to see so many people interested in my thoughts on Baghra? I'll share what I can, but please know that this is by no means a full breakdown of her character! It’s just some Thoughts I’ve had, and they’re mostly centered around show Baghra because that’s how I was first introduced to her character. Although IMO book Baghra might actually be even worse.

I’d like to preface this by saying that many of my issues with the treatment of Baghra as a character in fandom come from the wild double standard there seems to be regarding her and the Darkling. Darkling Antis and a vast majority of the people in this fandom who don’t like his character have a disturbing habit of absolutely ripping into the Darkling for all of his faults and then turning around and treating Baghra as some sort of pristine mother figure for the exact same shit.

They’ll talk about how badass she is, how strong she is, how they sympathize with her past (although they’ll continue to dehumanize the Darkling and refuse to sympathize with his own past) and sympathize with the fact that she has to deal with the Darkling (who’s always referred to as a monster she must corral or control, as if he is inhumane and beastly. These particular comments always take on the very distinct tone of victim blaming as well). They’ll laud her for all of these “powerful girlboss” moments as if they aren’t carbon copies of the Darkling’s own behavior - as if they aren’t things Baghra herself taught him. Which is why this is the wildest double standard of all to me, because every horrible action they praise Baghra for is something she taught the Darkling, and something they cannot stand to see in him as well.

It’s as if there’s a disconnect between their consumption of the literature when it comes to the two characters, and I’m of the opinion that it’s largely because Baghra is a woman and a mother and therefore infantilized in the fandom quite a bit. In fact, Bardugo herself often infantilizes many of her female characters in her writing. This is mostly through the process of excusing their terrible deeds, not allowing them to do anything remotely dark, or brushing any morally grey actions under the rug without ever touching upon them. Which puts me in the strange position of knowing I’m supposed to sympathize with Baghra for having to deal with the monster she’s created, and instead feeling resentful of the fact that this bitter woman is held up as this wise old strict teacher instead of the abusive mentor/mother she should have been.

Now, here’s what I said to make so many of you send me asks:

Last note, in reference to your first line, and also probably a pretty unpopular opinion. I do not like Baghra. And it legit has nothing to do with the Darkling or with Alina, I just don't like her "I'm going to hit you and berate you and emotionally abuse you and manipulate you and act like the good guy at the end of it" vibe she's got going on. At least Aleksander is acknowledged as the villain within the narrative. Idk wtf Baghra is on but it's absolutely wild to me that people aren't more critical of her actions. Which is, rather fortunately for you, another rant I will save for another post if anybody ever wants to hear it lol. (but like kudos to Baghra's actress. I loved the character as a character, I just don't like the way she's framed as a good guy. Weird. Uncomfortable. She literally set bees on the kids she was teaching).

This basically summarizes most of my thoughts on Baghra as a character and how she’s portrayed. I touched on it a bit above, but the way she’s able to get away with so much and not suffer under heavier critique is honestly baffling to me. There should be a lot more criticism of her out there in the fandom. This is the woman who abused her students and neglected her son. Although to be honest I don’t even know how to quite describe the emotionally neglectful yet unhealthily codependent bond she fostered in him from a young age. IMO, Baghra’s behavior around Aleksander is creepy, and I know she has a history that makes it more understandable, but it’s still incredibly disconcerting to witness.

But let’s get back on track! First of all, her students. Whom she physically, emotionally, and mentally abuses. She’s derisive, she’s insulting, she’s belittling. She works hard to strip them of any self confidence they may have. She uses pain as a means of triggering powers. And the strict teacher excuse doesn’t fly. The “it’s only a training method!” excuse is even worse. This is literal abuse she’s heaping on her students and it’s wretched.

The first thing she does to Alina when they first meet is insult her. Then she hits her. Then she kicks her out.

Second time they interact is a montage. Baghra hits Alina multiple times. She shames her. And then when Alina actually calls a light she tells her it’s not nearly enough, effectively wiping the smile off of her face and every sign of self confidence that had been building. Then we see the door to Baghra’s hut shut in Alina’s face. So now she has been bruised, battered, berated, stripped of all self confidence, and then banished again. As training methods go, this is not only entirely ineffective, but it’s also just abusive.

Then we get this interaction between Alina and her friends:

Marie: One time, Baghra released a hive of bees on me. Nadia: Worst part is, it worked. Marie: It really did. I could summon at will after that.

Which is fucking horrifying and not talked about nearly enough. That goes beyond hitting your students. Baghra used a fear tactic on a young girl to activate her powers. She literally tortured Marie to make her powers work.

Alina throughout this conversation is looking very disheartened. She’s lacking in any self confidence and the comment about the bees has clearly affected her. For someone who’s first words to Alina were “Everyone believes that you are the one. Come back when you believe it too,”  Baghra doesn’t exactly seem keen on Alina actually believing she’s the one. If she did, she wouldn’t be stripping her of every positive emotion associated with sun summoning.

Let’s not forget that Baghra demeans Alina multiple times for her status as an orphan. How she utilizes what she knows of Alina’s emotional weaknesses to provoke her and discourage her and make her angry.

And then Baghra drugs her without consent. To take advantage of any information Alina gives her in that state. To use the way Alina reacts for her own ends.

Because why else would she say this?:

Alina: We planned to run away together. Baghra: You had plans. Perhaps he never did, because where is he now?

Which is, strangely enough, the same sense of isolation and separation from Mal and her past that Aleksander is attempting to foster. Weird how mother and son are both using the same manipulation tactics.

In fact, why does Baghra never tell Alina about the letters until she’s already engaged with Aleksander? Baghra must have known he was taking them. Alina talks about it enough. Baghra must have known he was isolating her from Mal. How could she not, when it’s revealed later that she has spies in the Little Palace collecting information on him? How could she not, when she knows he’s the villain from the beginning - when she knows he’s manipulating Alina?

Baghra knows, and yet she keeps the same lies Aleksander does and furthermore uses that information to make Alina feel even more isolated and weak. Baghra literally just piggy-backs on Aleksander’s manipulation and then exacerbates it. She wants Alina to feel no attachments to her past because she wants to use Alina as well. But for some reason, because this manipulation and treatment of Alina as some sort of tool is done by the woman who opposes the Darkling, it’s suddenly okay. As if it still isn’t the same terrible shit but with a different perpetrator. I mean damn, at least Aleksander feels something for Alina. Baghra’s just cold.

So, point by point. Baghra mentions how Mal doesn’t care for Alina, she mentions Alina’s failings constantly, she mentions Alina being an orphan, she constantly hits her, she guilts Alina about orphans dying, she works to instill a sense of isolation from her friends and her family.

And when Alina finally comes to Baghra, having decided to abandon her attachments to her past and her attachments to Mal, the words that ring in her head are Baghra's words - “needing anyone else is weak.”  Which is honestly just a horrible sentiment in general, but an even worse one when considering how hard these people are working to detach Alina from anybody who can help her or give her an outside perspective.

Strangely, it’s also similar to this line:

The problem with wanting, is that it makes us weak.

...which is spoken by Baghra’s son. You know, the Darkling? Our big bad villain? The one Baghra raised?

Which gives me the impression that Baghra’s teaching methods with her students are really not that far off from the teaching methods she used on him as he was growing up. It’s a horrifying thought, and leads into my problems with her relationship with Aleksander.

First of all, show wise. What the fuck.

Aleksander: They’re punishing us for being Grisha. Baghra: Punishing you. You made him afraid. Now he wants you to fear him. Aleksander: I won a war for him. Baghra: And in doing so, started a war on us.

I get that she’s trying to convey how the king feels here, but it still feels incredibly victim blamey from a narrative standpoint. It isn’t Aleksander’s fault the king fears him when he used his powers under the King’s banner to help him win a war. Aleksander trusted this man who betrayed him and then betrayed his people, and we get a line from his mother, entirely unsympathetic, talking about how it’s his fault all of these people are dying.

Baghra: Where’s the girl, your healer? Aleksander: Dead. She died because of me. Baghra: She died because they always do. They’re not as strong as you and me.

Baghra’s use of the term ‘girl’ and ‘healer' here instead of Luda is pretty telling. She either doesn’t like Luda or doesn’t care for her. Either way, this is the woman her son loves, and Baghra talks about her so dispassionately. Then he comments on Luda’s death and there’s no reaction except to say that they always do.

Like, her son is literally broken up over here. Grieving. Desperate. Run ragged. Caged and hunted. Feeling guilty as hell. Mind running through a million different ways he could possibly save all of these people. And Baghra offers him nothing except a paltry “people die, get over it, we’re better than that, she didn’t matter anyway.”

Honestly, how is Aleksander even still functioning at this point? He has no support system and he’s working against a king and his army to protect a group of civilians he could easily abandon to save himself. The sheer amount of responsibility and mental strain keeping track of a group alone entails is already monstrous, but adding in every other factor? The recent death of Luda, the fact that they’re cornered and they’ve been hunted down while fleeing across the land, the fact that he was just a couple hours ago forced to his knees and entirely at these men’s mercy, begging for Luda’s life. And here his mother is, if anything a negative support system. Offering no other ideas, telling him to give up hope, not even offering the barest smidgeon of emotional support as he grieves, putting everything on his shoulders.

It pisses me the fuck off.

Aleksander: You’re the one who taught me how to kill, mother. Their blood is on your hands as much as mine.  Baghra: I taught you so you could protect yourself. Not them.

Once more, Baghra highlights how he needs to protect himself. How he should abandon the people he’s protecting. How he shouldn't help others and only ever himself. Once more, she says it’s my way or the high way. There’s zero effort to work with him. Zero effort to sympathize or compromise. She’s constantly pushing him to take the one option she knows he won’t take. The hell did she think was going to happen?

Also, Baghra taught him how to kill. Not necessarily great parenting, but understandable given the circumstances of his upbringing. But the level to which she takes it is honestly concerning. Like, look no further than this woman to see where Aleksander got it from lol.

Baghra also forbids him from using Merzost. Which is great and all, she gets to claim the moral high ground. But she doesn’t offer a single alternative except to flee and let everybody die. There was legitimately no other option to Merzost except for torture and death. If there was, Baghra sure as hell didn’t help Aleksander come up with one. Aleksander, who - by the way - is in no fit emotional state to be making any kind of decision right now.

So anyways, that’s just my tv show grief regarding Baghra, and it’s not even really all of it. I don’t want to make this an hour long read though lmao. But I’ll go over a few other things.

First of all, Baghra’s whole “We’re the only two that matter. We have to do whatever we can to protect ourselves,” mentality is one that she actively touts to Aleksander on a regular basis when he’s incredibly young. It’s honestly a wonder he grows up to care about other people at all. But the mentality itself is something Aleksander still heavily internalized in regards to protecting himself and those he deems worthy at any cost.

There’s a moment in the books when Aleksander is attacked and nearly drowned by some kids who wanted his bones (one of which was a close friend of his). He uses the cut in self defense and then blames the nearby Otkazat’sya village. Baghra knows he’s lying, and yet she allows an entire village to get slaughtered for harming him. This is a disproportionately violent act that Baghra approves of, and Aleksander as a kid is definitely internalizing that mindset.

Also, Baghra’s behavior around Aleksander has always been weirdly possessive and controlling. Especially when it comes to the people he loves. Her actions often come across as her trying to isolate him in order to keep him by her side, even when the relationships he has are clearly intimate. Which... is especially strange for a mother to be doing to her son.

She was also an extremely emotionally neglectful mother. Based on the show and what I gathered from her actions there, I’m actually half convinced she was physically abusive as well, in that “I think I’m being a stern, good parent figure when in reality I’m actually harming my child” kind of way. She fosters codependence with her son and then refuses to provide for any of his emotional needs. She drives it into his head that everybody dies, that he’ll always be alone, that love is useless and power is everything. She denies him the opportunity to be soft and works to harden him at a young age. She tells him he must never allow people to touch him, except she doesn’t work to supplement those physical needs in any way. She essentially abuses him.

Honestly, I could go on. But in reality the simple fact is that I just don’t like her. I think she’s a hypocrite. I think she’s abusive. I think she’s a terrible mentor and an even worse mother. And I think the fandom and the books are willing to brush aside so many of her faults simply because she opposes the Darkling.

I’m sorry if this isn’t what you guys were looking for! It sounds like a lot of you wanted a more of a sophisticated breakdown, but my thoughts on Baghra come with a heap of emotional baggage lol. It feels weird to say this now, but I actually do like the character as a character, I just,,, don’t like her in every other aspect. My feelings on Baghra are just a bit personal, to be honest. But hopefully this was at least comprehensible??

[reymurray]

25, 30, 31 <3

Thanks Gloria c: I’m gonna answer these for Kai, May, Laura, and Lonnie for the most part since they’re the main focus of the majority of the story. 

25. How stubborn is your oc? Are they open to considering different options or opinions, or are they more closed off?

The Lin’s (Kai and May) are pretty stubborn. Kai, in the sense that he thinks he knows best. May, in the sense that she doesn’t want to appear like she doesn’t know what she’s doing. She does! Usually! But she doesn’t come across as smart as she really is to other folks so she feels like she has to try harder.

Laura can be a bit of a pushover, but put her foot down if she feels it’s necessary (for example, if the other characters are considering an option that could harm others outside of their group)

Lonnie is somewhere in the middle. She’ll express her disproval, but ultimately usually doesn’t want to be the one making the big choices, so she’ll just deal with it. Can’t guarantee she won’t complain about it, though. 

30. How caring/empathetic is your oc? Are they the type to immediately adopt and protect others, or are they a true sadist?

 I used to worry that my characters were too similar because a lot of them are very caring, but I realized that’s a dumb thing to worry about. Too many people who give a crap about others? Honestly that’s probably my brain manifesting what I wish the world was like. But yeah, Laura is the most caring person you’ll ever meet. Kai is a good man, but for the majority of the story, he’ll do anything to keep May alive, even if that means she winds up hating him. As long as she’s alive and well, he’s okay. In the beginning, Lonnie generally agrees with Kai. She has this mindset that nobody cares for her, so why should she extend a hand out to others? As she grows to allow herself some vulnerability overtime though, she comes around and starts being (begrudgingly) good. Omg I can totally imagine her having a Zuko moment and fainting from doing a good deed HA. Finally, although Lonnie and Laura are good people, May is usually the one to battle her father’s ideas. This is mostly because regardless of if May cares as much as Laura, May is assertive and unafraid of expressing her opinion. 

So yeah, very caring cast. Even Kai is caring, he just has certain priorities that make it hard for him to showcase that he wants to be better.

31. What inspired the creation of your oc? Any specific things, a general aesthetic or idea, or something completely random? Honestly, guilty pleasure of mine, but The Walking Dead (show and game) got me really into zombie stories. The apocalyptic scenarios, found family tropes, moral dilemmas, it’s great. I still love TWD but especially back when I started Eradicate in 2014. Although I’ve never been much of a fanfic writer, plus there were things in TWD that I wish had changed, so I suppose Eradicate was my self-indulgent fixer upper project. When I first started Eradicate, the main character was basically a cooler version of me and it was so cringy omg don’t judge me I was THIRTEEN AH but it’s changed so much and I’m honestly proud of the ideas I have. I’d say of IT but I need to write something before i can be proud of it itself oop hantlnatlntjanhldjnognago

omg i just realized this question says creation of OC not story............... :I i have brain rot

Well Idk really

Honestly May originated as the love interest for the character that represented my real life brother, and Lonnie was basically a love interest for the character that represented me, but now they’re so much more than that. My brain has expanded past just creating women to be girlfriends thank god. It’s kinda ironic cause now May and Lonnie are love interests to each other omg what those rebels

I don’t remember what inspired Kai and Laura though. I don’t think Laura was in the very original draft, but I could be wrong. Maybe I thought of Laura because I have a soft spot for stories where they have to protect a young child, so she brought Ant with her. omg all of my women were inspired for the sake of being wives and moms what's wrong with thirteen year old me D: 

Honestly I don’t think it matters what inspired them anymore because they’re all COMPLETELY different. 

Kai started as a guy who was supposed to be an antagonistic crazy dude who wound up killing members of his own group but then I just realized there’s so much more to Kai than a dude who kills anyone he doesn’t like -- He’s a really loving father and protector of his people. 

Lonnie started off as a goofy girl without a care in the world and now she’s more realistic. She has mental health issues, she’s angry at the world, and all her wounds won’t disappear the second she kisses the cute girl or someone tells her they care about her. 

May started off as a shell of a girl, only there to be a love interest. Now she’s an independent young woman who is frustrated with the cards she’s been dealt, but is going to do her best to make life easier for everyone who’s left. She’s an innovator and researcher. 

Laura was just there to be a mother, but now she’s a woman who holds the group close together because she knows they need one another. She’s a lover and peacemaker. But she’s not perfect. She may seem that way on the exterior, but on the inside she’s broken. She is capable of doing unimaginable things but chooses to love instead. That’s who she is. 

Wow rant over omg they’ve just come a long way ok

[janiedean]

I really, really love your metas! In "Why a Jaime/Brienne Endgame in the Books Makes More Sense Than One Might Think, Based on Previous Works of GRRM's" you wrote, that you have endless reasons to assume that both, J and B, will survive the whole series - can you please name some? Aside from this mentioned meta I've only read an explantion of the weirwood dream, which can be interpreted in both ways. Or can you link a good meta that explains other reasons? Thank you very much!

hey!

first of all thank you so much, glad that you appreciate my rants. ;) that said, sure I can go in-depth. in order (btw @ginmo has written also some excellent meta about this, just check on her blog), and also counting the weirwood dream which I’ve ranted on at length in that specific meta:

now, the first thing is how grrm strategically placed these two in the narrative, in the sense that:

brienne has spent her life being passed for a joke and she desperately wants for someone to see her worth as a person and she’d about kill herself for the people who manage to get as far as to gain her trust/love, jaime has spent his life loving people without getting much in return and with that trust being used/abused/thrown away and everyone taking it for granted... and we’re assuming they’re not set up to be together when as stated grrm has written them as romantic from the first moment?

(also, jaime’s entire first chapter in asos is basically ‘I find brienne attractive but since I never considered that I could be attracted to anyone but cersei I can’t understand I’m attracted to her so I’ll stare at her and think she’s ugly all along even if I really am attracted to her. brienne’s issues are also rooted in the fact that no one sees her as attractive. jaime does. hmmm?)

both of them start from a miserable situation from which they’re finding their own way up, not down - jaime is more obvious but brienne is too because she starts at the point where she’s so starved for recognition she would die for someone who just was nice to her but didn’t really gaf about her and now she’s... well, becoming a knight because sure af that is happening, I’m sticking with the theory that the knighting is book canon too -, and if they both end up miserable or one of them does it doesn’t work;

both of their chapters have heavy foreshadowing concerning possible marriage/having children/finding love - jaime wants to father his kids and at some point resents that other men are husbands and fathers but not him because he was always the warrior and he doesn’t say it happily, brienne is half-glad her first betrothed died because she thinks she’s not suited to typical feminine things/to fit into a woman’s role in society but she’s also sad at thinking she will never have children, these two are going to get together very soon, and I’m supposed to think they’re set up for failure? k but I can respectfully disagree;

also, this goes back to that meta I wrote in which I said that grrm does not do grim for grim’s sake and he’s actually way less cruel than it seems, likes a good love story and has more than once finished his other books with satisfying resolutions to that kind of storyline, but adding to that: in comparison to whatever calvinist crap message hbo wanted to send, I have to inform y’all that grrm is a currently agnostic lapsed catholic and it’s exceedingly clear in the way he explores/deals with redemptive themes.

now, let me break the jb narrative for a moment to inform you of a few things that as an atheist born and raised in a 99% catholic country whose literature’s funding works are heavily based on catholic themes/on stories rooted in catholicism:

the ‘you need to die to be redeemed’ narrative is 100% bullshit according to catholic morals and on top of that it’s opened to anyone at any time;

like, the basic distinction between catholic and calvinist approaches to the topic (and I can’t believe I’m defending catholicism but nvm that) is that calvinism preys on a narrative where your negative qualities define you and you cannot escape them (which is because calvinism accepts predestination ie the idea that seeing your lot in life you can deduce if you’ll go to heaven or hell, so if you’re poor/unsuccessful/you committed mistakes/a crime and so on you’re not redeemable and it’s proof you’re damned) and that meant that in societies with calvinist background the death = redemption narrative is extremely popular because it’s seen as ‘hey this person is wretched and they suck so they couldn’t have lived anyway and they did something good with it for once and it’s the best they could hope for’. catholicism, at the contrary, works on the basis that as we all have free will we can change for the better and if you repent for your sins/past wrongdoings/mistakes then that’s enough to be redeemed and if you do it on your deathbed.... you can still go to heaven, you’ll just have to atone for your wrongdoings (that’s the entire point of purgatory’s existence ie making people who repented near death or too late to gain heaven atone for their sins before they can enter heaven). and the moment you repent then you’re free to start your new life and do better and gain your place in heaven, which you’ll obtain in virtue of having turned a new leaf;

(again: not to be that person, but in luke’s gospel one of the two thieves crucified with him is like ‘can you save us since you’re the son of god’, the other thief is like ‘please he has done nothing and we have sinned we don’t deserve to be saved just please remember us when you go back to your father’ and jesus tells the second thief I won’t need to remember you because you’ll sit at my right. also, in dante’s divine comedy there’s a guy who had been excommunicated in the middle ages waiting to get into purgatory for having repented on his deathbed and in manzoni’s the betrothed ie italy’s funding novel the character who’s objectively better written is a dude so heinous for his crimes that he’s called THE UNNAMED and the moment this guy gets doubts and wonders if there’s any hope for him left the local arcibishop leaves everything saying that the moment someone like that is in need then they’re more important than his own parish, goes to receive unnamed guy, tells him that just wanting to be better is enough as far as god is concerned and he’s saved as far as he cares. like, as much as catholicism sucks for the entire rest of it and for how much the catholic church is the worst ideologically the fact that everyone can be redeemed is the basic staple of the entire thing.)

now, given the ^^^, this is where I tell you that most lapsed catholics/people who left catholicism for whichever reasons usually grew up catholic and if you grow up catholic you spend your first twelve years in church at least and if your parents/people around you are also catholic you will absorb it, good and bad, so if grrm grew up catholic, he grew up with that background. (I could again rant for hours about how atheist writers who grew up catholic differ from atheist writers who grew up protestant/calvinist because if you compare grrm and idk kurt vonnegut it’s glaring but this isn’t the place for it so nvm let’s go on)

now that I’ve told you this, I’ll get back to jaime and brienne’s canon survival chances. I needed to tell you that because...

all of the stories with redemptive themes in asoiaf (jaime, theon, sandor, whoever) are not by nature calvinist. whatever d&d think or hbo thought, none of them are written in a way where death is their best option/their only way to achieve redemption/to finish their story with dignity. theon has gone through hell and back and left and regained his sense of identity, he’s not built to die now, sandor has freaking gone to rehab and I’m 100% sure he survives the series and gets closure, while jaime is exactly a poster child for the above stuff I described. like, jaime is someone who’s fundamentally good who had the misfortune to spend his entire life jumping in different kinds of abusive situation one to the other (tywin’s parentage in general, his relationship with cersei throughout at least from the moment they were *experimenting* and like hell I’m going back on that sorry not sorry, guarding aerys, being with cersei at *her* terms and being forced to relieve his trauma all over and not having his needs met etc., tywin potentially ruining his only healthy relationship [with tyrion] and so on) who in turn has done exceedingly bad things/taken bad decision/committed heinous deeds that he regrets having done out of his bad reaction to all of that, not treating his ptsd and basically deciding to stop giving a fuck and embrace being the horrid person everyone thinks he is... until he meets brienne, remembers who he wanted to be because she’s posing an example of it and decides on his own to try and be better, which is... exactly... the entire fucking point. the moment he decides to try and be better and reclaims his dreams/the person he wanted to be/tries to do good he has automatically achieved a narrative status where he chose to be better and therefore the narrative is giving him a chance to be that, and usually those stories are meant to.... have the message that you can be better than the bad things you did and you can turn back the page at any point. like. jaime is written to show you that it’s not too late to get your shit together and not letting others/your surroundings define who you are;

on the other side, brienne is presented as extremely sympathetic from the beginning. also, grrm is very good at describing how shitty is your life if you grow up a woman who is not standard attractive, that everyone laughs at and who has endless insecurities for it.... and she’s the paragon of knighthood/everything good about chivalry in the goddamned series. brienne is legit one of the best people in these books and it’s not because I stan her - she’s kind, she’s just, she’s brave she’s everything a knight should be, she’s willing to change her mind when she misjudged people, she’s forgiving and life threw her crap all along and she’s still persevering from it. brienne is written in a frankly painfully objective way to eventually succeed at what she wants. if in affc she’s crying because she feels like she’s too much of a freak to be her father’s heir and she’s not woman or man enough for anything, the entire narrative point is that she has to succeed at both being a knight and a lady otherwise grrm can’t plant hints and believe me he can;

this means that jaime is headed on a redemptive path which in that kind of story when written by catholics or former catholics never ends up badly (also, aside: redemption is good for everyone and it can’t be just ONE character having it, you don’t buy it at the supermarket, so saying that if jaime has it then tyrion or theon or sandor or whoever can’t have it is just poor reading, people change all the time irl and in narrative you aren’t obligated to redeem one and kill everyone else) or in death, brienne has been written to succeed in her endeavors after she suffers a shitton and I think stoneheart has to be the worst and the end of it (in the sense that after that situation is resolved the way for her is down, not up). which if I do the math and we have stated they’re headed for romance, means the both of them should have a chance at a future together;

also, I can go and tell you that their asos road trip ending with harrenhal is bursting with symbolism that includes death and rebirth - not going into the weirwood dream and sticking to the basics... guys, jaime starts as a prisoner, then ends up losing a part of herself he thinks define him but in truth only defines what he thinks he is (and he’s not ie cersei’s double, the kingslayer, the person who has to drive himself crazy to protect everyone else), then ends up almost dying and sitting in the middle of his own filth for the entirety of the trip (and even then he does good things ie saving brienne from being raped *cough*) and then ends up in a scalding hot bath where he confesses his most well-kept secret and source of 50% of his trauma to someone he trusts regardless of how much he likes it or not, faints and then wakes up again when everyone thinks he might be dead. symbolically, I think it speaks for itself. thing is, during the entire thing *brienne* is there alongside him and while she’s also getting her own share of trauma/ptsd (I mean brienne has totally bloody mummers related ptsd and I’ll die on that hill) she physically is the reason he survives it - she cleans him up, she gives him enough pep talks to convince him to live, she hears his confession, she changes her mind about him for it (but imvho she had after he saved her from being raped because that’s where she calls him ser for the first time) and she catches him in the bath when he faints which is.... fairly symbolic in itself, and she is the one who puts him back on his feet after. like, while jaime’s choices after are all his own, his symbolic journey through his own physical/mental filth he has to go through during asos succeeds because she helped him even if she didn’t know she was doing it, and like... guys, there’s a reason why in the weirwood dream the brienne in jaime’s head which he has conjured and who is basically what jaime sees brienne as in that moment, not necessarily the real one..... keeps on telling him all the time she’ll keep him safe/protect him and she basically tells that to anyone he feels threatened by (or his subconscious feels threatened by), and as stated before, jaime lannister has never, until that point, assumed that *he* would be in the position where someone else gives a shit about him to the point where they will defend him rather than in the position where *he* is the person that has to protect everyone else regardless of how much appreciation he gets in return. like, excuse me but if I was writing my own book I wouldn’t put this much work and care and this symbolism in these two’s history if I meant to kill one of them off or to not have them be happy in the end.

like, the point is: grrm is an extremely meticulous writer with an astonishing attention to detail and who put in book two shit that made extra sense when reading book FIVE, see theon saying he wouldn’t go to his death wearing dirty clothing in acok which makes you go like ‘....... why’ the moment you read his adwd chapters. no one, unless they have a penchant for sadism, would put that much work with those themes in that specific kind of story if then it doesn’t deliver. or, in different words, using a character I love as well so no one can accuse me of being impartial: when grrm put the same kind of work in catelyn’s chapters from got to asos and then you read them knowing about lady stoneheart and the red wedding, it’s obvious that he built her up for being an extremely tragic character and that she was destined to die regardless of all her efforts to save her family (same for robb but we’re talking pov characters). but catelyn’s storyline doesn’t have redemptive themes. it’s about regret, loss, loving your children but being imperfect/not being able to be there for them, and so on. catelyn’s storyline never promises you a happy ending from the moment ned dies and probably even before then. catelyn’s storyline promises you endless suffering and that’s fine because that’s her point in the narrative.

on the contrary, brienne’s tells you ‘hey there’s this girl who has had it like shit all her life without deserving it and whose worth no one sees because she’s ugly and who at the same time is actually a genuinely good person who’s trying her best and okay, she’s gonna suffer but she’ll come out on top while getting what she wants which is recognition as both a lady and a knight’ and given that brienne is also an extremely rare rep (say what you want, cishet unattractive women with her issues and her backstory are basically only less rare than unicorns in media) that I’m 100% sure grrm knows speaks to a lot of people (because he writes her too well to not know), if brienne doesn’t get that after all that shit, the narrative would not deliver on a fairly huge promise.

even worse, jaime’s tells you ‘hey there’s this guy who has been an abuse victim to at least three different people who doesn’t even realize it and whose life is so fucked up you’d need fifteen psychology textbooks to even start grasping it and that everyone sees as the worst person ever and who has ended up believing he is out of not managing his trauma well and hey look at him going through an insane amount of extra suffering but coming out of it wanting to be better and sort of succeeding and hey he has setbacks but he’s starting to see himself as his own person and he’s out of his #1 worst abusive relationship and he can decide what to do with his life now and you should root for him’, which means that if he dies or worst of all dies like in the show (but that’s not happening) the narrative doesn’t deliver on a huge promise and gives you the message that you can’t escape your mistakes and the abuse you received...... which is not the message grrm likes/wants to pass. like, I’ll die on that damned hill.

and to finish it, that was for them as single characters, but going back to the beginning: love is a fundamental part of both their storylines. as I said in the beginning, brienne suffered because she wasn’t loved enough and would die for anyone she loves herself without even expecting anything in return because she thinks no one will love her like that, jaime suffered because he loved too much without getting anything in return (or better, getting cersei’s abusive crap for his entire life) and he turned it into something toxic that’s not what he thinks it should be (he sees his and c’s relationship as the best thing ever where they’re soulmates because she sold him that narrative, but that’s not the kind of rship where you *turn your partner’s blows into kisses* which is actual text). at this point, the narrative is telling you ‘oh hey here’s two damaged people who actually would be very good together because their personalities match in that sense [as in, brienne would thrive with someone who loves her that much openly and finds her attractive and respects her for all that she is and jaime would thrive with someone who would appreciate that tenfold and who’d love him back just as much and who’d die for him - canon! -, and it wouldn’t be the kind of rship where anyone’s blows turn into kisses unless they were friendly sparring before] and oh hey look at that they’re in a storyline where they both influence each other greatly and oh wait he’s attracted to her and she thinks he looks like half a god and she’d die for him and he was willing to get mauled by a bear for her and they’re obviously meant to hook up’, which automatically promises a resolution where they both get what they want or you basically spent all your time rooting for it.... for nothing. which would not give anyone reading it satisfaction unless you hate jb that much, but I’m 100% sure that most people reading asoiaf casually would not hate it that much and grrm likes that trope that much to not deliver on it.

so, tldr: if one of them dies or if they aren’t endgame with a reasonable happy-ish ending for the both of them, the entire narrative fails to deliver on the promises of their individual storylines and their shared one, and there’s nothing in grrm’s writing that suggests that he would not deliver on it. I mean, if it was stephen king I’d hold my breath because I love steve but imvho his endings suck 85% of the time and he manages to do 180° turnarounds that have no sense whatsoever, but it’s grrm, not stephen king, and everything of his I’ve read that actually had an ending ended in a way that was coherent with the overall storyline and maintained its promises, so here, the above is pretty much the summary. hopefully I haven’t exhausted you. ;)

[cavaliant]

10 for everyone for Max Positivity

10. What do you love about your muse?

Wow you’re really out here wilding with the meme asks again LMAO.

There’s a couple charas on here that I don’t know if I’d say I LOVE love but I do like all of them and tried to think about the thing that draws me to them the most.

Asaello: Brusque with a soft centre might be done to death but I still love it

Balthus: :/ he’s big, he’s dumb, he cares a lot for his friends and family. Gotta love those boisterous bruisers who are cocky yet super sincere about caring for and supporting their loved ones

Beowolf: The conflict between the careless (both as in rash and as in lacking care about things) mercenary he presents himself as and the more sentimental side he can show despite that. How he really just does not give a shit about some things but really, actually does give a shit about others. You already know this but playful flirty joker with hidden depths (who cares more than they let on, who can be surprisingly serious sometimes) is my absolute fave 😔

Diarmuid: He’s very...normal and placid compared to the rest of his family lmfao. A child’s longing for family and pressure to live up to them is something common to characters in Jugdral but I still like exploring it with him in particular ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ He’s one of the most stable and mature of the children imo so while that can make him flat I also like to think about how much of it is purposeful and how much is instinctive. How did the circumstances he grew up in shape his personality/demeanour today?

Fergus: Another playful misfit who cares more than he lets on :/ ready to throw down to the death but also ready to listen and protect. The whole secret holy royal bastard in hiding but living on the wild side while still ostensibly in hiding is pretty fun. This goes for most Thracia charas but there’s a lot of room to just make shit up to fill in the gaps in their stories and Fergus’ life really has the potential for some truly wild theories/times ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ

Fred: I like that he actually stops with his commander like she’s an equal to evaluate and think for themselves where their morals stand and if they truly want to keep going along with what their country is doing when it goes against those morals. I also like that he was willing to yell at Kempf and storm a fortress alone but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Homer: He doesn’t hit my hidden depths love as hard as the others but :/ sometimes it doesn’t need to be that deep. It’s just fun to fuck around with him lmao.

Jamke: He’s just a guy who’d rather be with trees than people and I respect that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Verdane as a whole interests me bc it really gets fucked over even for Jugdral and :/ Jamke did kinda betray his brothers and country! Even if they were assholes it took him a while to commit to doing it for what he felt was right and I’m sure he felt some regret over their deaths. Also Jamke-Dew-Edain dream team lmao. They’re so funny...

Lachesis: Her growth as a character! She goes from a sheltered, inexperienced princess to a fierce warrior, someone who had to depend on others to fight for her (and hated it) to a master knight who wanted to take everything onto her own shoulders. A baby sister to a mother/mother figure who would move the world for her children but doesn’t always understand that sometimes they just need simpler things than superhuman feats. She’s someone who will bite the head off of someone and then coo endless praise for her loved ones in the same breath. She’s flawed and messy but she loves so deeply and is so fiercely passionate and 😔 I love her. Truly a lionheart.

Machyua: Ok past all the Filipina jokes there’s really not much to say here lmao. She’s a cool big sis with an axe. No secret hidden angst or wild backstory or whatever, she’s just there to support her Magi pals and do good.

Miranda: Child rulers aren’t uncommon in FE either but :/ I still like to look at the stress of being a ruler forcing her to grow up too fast and act far older than her age. While at the same time still having some childish remnants in her behaviour and desires. I love her fire but it also makes me sad how quickly it’s extinguished.

Oscar: It’s not that deep here either ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I just like older bro figures. And guys who can cook.

Ranulf: He somehow manages to strike a perfect balance between chill and responsible, joking and serious, brave but also cautious. He’s one of Gallia’s highest ranking warriors but he still goes out of his way to cheer up others. He’s one of the most even-keeled characters in the series and I respect him a lot even if idk if I’d call it LOVE TO DEATH.

Reinhardt: I guess I should say something for the og muse of this blog :/// it’s interesting to formulate my own theories about why he became the way he is. What drives someone to fall apart so completely like he does? The contrast and intersections between the composed, fearsome general of Friege, the model older brother, the fawning servant, and the pitiful man who would rather die by his sister’s hand than live for anything any longer are fascinating to me. Not that you would know from my recent posts since I now crack it up more often than not but :/

Shannan: Another big bro figure :/ a sad one. One incident so drastically changed his entire sense of priorities and the person he grew up to be and :c it makes me sad. I’m a sucker for sad tired older bros who try to hide their sad and older chara surrounded by younger ones too.

Sigurd: My love who I absolutely did not expect to become my love owo;; I love his love, passion, naïveté, his innocent desire to help people and do what’s right...and how absolutely dumb and lacking in foresight he is and how he doesn’t escape consequences for it :///

Thor: They’re really just here to mess around in Rein’s body bc I thought it’d be funny :/ and to be weird fluffy dragon gramps

Tibarn: Another one I’m not sure I’d say I ADORE but his interactions on here have been pretty fun. That’s pretty much the case for all the muses like this lmao. I like their character but it’s their relationships/interactions with others that drives me to keep them going. About Tibs specifically though I like that he’s a fearsome warrior and king but is capable of great understanding and gentleness.

Zelgius: Again the contrast between different, contradicting sides--the upstanding general and the cruel executioner, the honourable knight and the selfish groomer, the idea that Black Knight and Zelgius are both one and the same. That no matter the circumstances under which he became Black Knight, he was still the person behind the helmet who committed those deeds. What drives someone to vary so radically in their actions? How can the two sides (which sometimes start to overlap and blur into each other more as time goes on) be fit into a single person? Those are the things I want to explore with him (even though I also end up shitposting a lot with him :/ smh @ me)

[svankmajerbaby]

ok so

warrior nun has consumed my brain so here I Will Express My Thots Regarding It

probably spoilers i guess

so what i wanna talk about specifically is about the characters, which is really what sold me on the show (besides the gorgeous cinematography and the fact i went to andalucia on january and i recognize a lot of places and churches ive been to and i love watching it)

so first, of course, Ava: i think shes one of my new favorite characters, ever?? not only does she have Big Bi Vibes, shes actually really good at balancing snarky-coping-mechanism-humor. her narration and flashbacks do a great job at explaining just how much of it she had to use to cope with the awful nun that cared for her in the orphanage; as she said, its "small victories" to mock and insult the woman who verbally abuses her. but, besides that, humour is also a bonding mechanism, too: little is said of Diego, who was Avas closest friend for probably most of her life. it explains to a certain point why she has a bit of a childish side, but it also shows just how empathic she is and her relative ease to make friends. then. theres the issue that some of my favorite types of protagonists are those who may be tortured, may be sheltered (idk) but who manage to keep fighting on, love life and are in awe of it, remain positive and even spread their positivity to others. i really like when these characters have a clear enthusiasm -im so bored of dismissive, snarky, nihilist protagonists -but Ava is like. a ray of sunshine. her happiness at being out of the orphanage, at being free and able to experience everything is so contagious, i kept smiling through the first few episodes. even later in the season she finds the humour in any situation, she remains amazed by what her fellow warriors can do, and just. shes a goddamn delight. i love her and love how she grows from an overexcited teenager running for her life and evading her responsability to accepting her role as a saviour -and even willing to die to stop the cycle of "chosen ones" halo bearers.

and now Mary. my god, Mary. shes just a type of character i hadnt seen before and i didnt know i would love so much. her first appearance is crying as her best friend (and maybe something else??) dies in her arms. for the rest of the series Mary will be characterized as The Badass, a title she readily accepts. but shes also vulnerable and willing to expose herself and her emotions in order to bond with others -while also wary of being manipulated through them, as in the fight on the docks with Lilith. Mary is just a beautiful combination of this softness and kindness that has to be balanced with the fight for survival; she came from such painful places, being forced to struggle to stay alive: and yet she isnt afraid of love, of being loved: she is a realist, deeply aware of the circumstances she is in, but this doesnt deter her from ever doing the moral thing, to protect others, to fight for them and not only for herself. the fact theres a whole episode dedicated to her bonding with Ava, talking about her life and her deeds, makes it obvious to me that she is The character who mostly embodies the values of the Order of the Cruciform Sword -quite ironic, since while she is a member, she isnt one of the ordained nuns. that independence she has kind of defines her character, too -smart enough to know not to trust the church and to also fight alongside her friends for what she believes in.

and so we come to Lilith. the original Chosen One. she exists in a world defined by purpose and sacrifice: she has seen how the Warrior Nuns end up killed, and still she wants this -to be basically a martyr in a "holy war" -because not only is it her birthright, what she had been raised for her entire life, what her family has been doing for generations -but also because it is her purpose. that is her sole destiny, the only thing she sees herself fit for. this doesnt mean she is evil, though, or self-centered. its true that Lilith can be too one-track-minded, to the point of being able to kill; but she clearly views her being the Warrior Nun, the Halo Bearer, as the only way to ensure the continuity of the community and to save the world. her whole life has been consumed by this "holy war"; and, by what Mary said, its something that her pride has been feeding ever since Shannon was chosen instead of her. she should be the one. she should have the honor to suffer and die for the world. and this is her tragedy, to be honest: despite having friends, despite being loved by her fellow nuns, she feels she needs to be this hero for her life to make sense. it has been her entire life. and when someone else took that purpose from her, everything that is left is anger and anguish.

and this is a nice segway to Beatrice, whos just. while Mary is what a Nun of the OCS should be, and Lilith is what she thinks a Nun of the OCS should be, Beatrice is what a Nun of the OCS probably is most of the time. someone who, while not as self sacrificing as Lilith, is completely devoted to her life in the Order. and, as she explains, most of the nuns are much like herself: hiding past lives, cloaking secrets, trying to find a purpose in the community where they can devote their lives to something greater than themselves. its a way of coping, of keeping on, of finding love and friendship and happiness alongside girls like them. but Beatrice is one of those who arent as hidden and reserved: she yearns for understanding, for a friendship that goes deeper than surface level. this is not an attempt to diminish her relationships with her other friends; she displays the capacities of a good leader, and clearly values her fellow nuns. but theres a clear pattern of her shutting off vulnerabilities in order to be the best at what she does -overachieving, in a way -not with the intent of fulfilling a purpose, like Lilith, but to be seen as "good". as she tells Ava in that magnificent scene, Beatrice comes from a conservative background from where she had learnt to hide everything that could be seen as improper, as bad. she fights the hardest and stays the strongest because she cannot let herself fail: if she is exposed, if her flaws are revealed and her emotions uncovered, she risks her place in the community -where she has built her entire life around, where she managed to escape from her previous life. and so her story is one of opening up, of learning to go that extra step and allowing herself to cry, to be soft, to be vulnerable with others, to share her fears instead of masking them.

finally, none of these issues seem to be a problem for Camila. i dont have a lot to say about her because i think shes still got room to grow as a character, but i like how shes simultaneously "the kid" of the group, and the smartest one from a technological standpoint. shes probably the one who finds the OCS a place of friendship and community, just like Beatrice, while also being a place of deep, untapped knowledge. she is very interested in studying the history or the Order, of knowing what is the divinium, of how the Warrior Nun comes to be. she is not afraid to be vulnerable, nor to be honest about her thoughts and feelings: i feel she is the one who closest follows Mary's example. shes just less focused, less trained, less finely tuned as the rest of the nuns. and still she manages to be a really good fighter, so im just really excited to see where her character will go next.

[primrose-path-of-dalliance]

Lotor?

ngl, i squealed when i saw this. i get to talk about My Boy!!!

thank you for the ask

(send me characters and i’ll give thoughts on them!)

general opinion: fall in a hole and die | don’t like them | eh | they’re fine I guess | like them! | love them | actual love of my life

sorry, anti-lotor half of the vld fandom, but i love this guy to pieces and nothing y’all say can change that because 1. y’all’s attempts at critically saying he’s Bad are poorly done imo lmao, 2. i’m not so preoccupied with morality and purity culture that i stick my thumbs in my ears and try to shove plugs into other ppl’s ears, and 3. opinions are subjective.

like personally, i love complex characters set up as parallels and foils to major protagonists that are inherently anti-imperialist, archaeologists, and conservationists; are representative of a not-so-palatable reality of abuse survivorship; have issues of trauma, paranoia, and interpersonal defeatism; and are clearly being set up for a future arc that will be closely intertwined with said major protagonists—as well as driven by a deep, internal conviction and strength that has persisted against absolutely ridiculous odds—

but idk. your loss, i guess.

hotness level: get away from me | meh | neutral | theoretically hot but not my type | pretty hot | gorgeous! | 10/10 would bang

aesthetically: gorgeous. but i am very ace.

hogwarts house: gryffindor | slytherin | ravenclaw | hufflepuff

don’t harangue me for not calling lotor a slytherin in case you support that side lol, but i read a really good meta on this a while ago that i agreed with here.

(gonna put the rest of this under a readmore since this gets to be A Lot.)

essentially, one of lotor’s core traits is the search for knowledge and scientific advancement for its own sake. there’s no way he doesn’t love learning—he spent centuries studying a culture that was extinct, a culture that by any imperialistic measures was worthless and weak because it opposed the empire and it was destroyed. one could hardly believe he began searching for the last remnants of altea for power or ambition. he studied them because he wanted to, for the sake of it, to connect to something that’s part of him.

in a lot of ways, he does exemplify slytherin traits—he can be exceptionally ruthless when he believes he or things/people he cares about are threatened, he is unusually preoccupied with a need for power and control, and his goals could be considered lofty and ambitious. however, much of these traits and desires can easily be linked to his trauma. one might make an argument that he’s still similar enough to honerva to qualify as a slytherin, but personally i think the story sets him up as opposing haggar without hypocrisy in too many ways to be persuaded.

(honerva wanted to continue her research despite the risks, endangering an entire planet and potentially the universe, because she saw the research as empowering. she saw her research—her own ambitions—as more important than anything else, and abandoned ethics like some burdensome shackle. but lotor is seen multiple times as unwilling to endanger people and planets for his goals without either being reasonably assured of their survival (such as voltron) or their consent. he despises cruelty and the taking away of others’ agency.)

in an ideal world, i think lotor would be an obvious ravenclaw. but his trauma has encouraged him to act like a slytherin.

best quality:

superficially: HIS NERDINESS. as soon as lotor started talking about ancient ruins, learning other cultures’ customs, and rattled off an entire poem he memorized off some old-ass cave wall he probably saw like 3 centuries before, i was absolutely done for. i had been trying to maintain my skepticism of him for skepticism’s sake, but god. you can’t just throw a goddamn archaeologist in my face and expect me to not fall deeply in love.

more seriously: i love lotor’s conviction. lotor has a strong sense of self, morality, and personal drive, especially for someone with his experiences.

he accepts and embraces both sides of his heritage as defining parts of who he is. in an empire that despises altean blood, he wields an altean broadsword, spends centuries studying what’s left of the culture, and openly admires the peace, people, and traditions of altea past. and in a castle of paladins and alteans, he demands to be judged “by [his] actions, rather than [the] preconceptions of [his] race,” knowing full well that team voltron perceives him as galra, and failing to inform them of his altean blood despite the clear benefits that would’ve come from doing so.

he has a code of conduct that’s repeatedly shown in sharp contrast to the ideals of the empire—even from his very introduction, when he stands in front of an entire arena of galran soldiers and refuses to compromise his own morals for a more rhetorically effective argument. lotor’s small, four-person team of generals (compared to the typical galran fleet) seizes an entire planet while killing no one and causing virtually no destruction.

he is also incredibly self-motivated. lotor has lived for centuries relying almost completely on himself, and he will ruthlessly protect himself and his own.

his inner strength is ridiculously admirable, and i love his self-assurance.

worst quality:

idk? usually ppl say flaws or some such here, but the problem is that flaws are more complicated than just “they do dumb things because of this adjective.”

also i love flaws. they’re born of the essence that makes a character who they are. hating their flaws is ridiculous.

with that said……..

fucking hate lotor’s hair. seriously, wtf? he can tuck all of it into his helmet and have it all fall back out nice and neatly. HOW. it’s the biggest lie of the entire show alongside allura’s bun. it’s just not possible and i hate that lotor defying reality just to look beautiful is Canon.

his butt cape. like akjhdkhgkghjgk,,, a genuine BUTT CAPE. for what purpose?? preference??? drama???????? i’ve seen comparisons to honerva’s own butt cape back when she was a normal empress-consort scientist on daibazaal, which makes sense since lotor loves making Fashion Statements, but god. a butt cape.

what on god’s heavenly green earth is up with his swordsmanship? the acrobatics and the flourishing are positively ridiculous. who the fuck actually tries killing a powerful emperor and their abuser by smashing them from above with a purple final fantasy sword like they’re the hammer and zarkon is a nail. lotor is unrealistic.

ship them with:

:)

recovery and happiness.

brotp them with:

his generals. DUH. it’s clear that they’ve had a strong history together, and it’s impossible to have their relationship end here without any sort of resolution or confrontation about narti’s death. let them reunite under conciliatory terms. let them be friends again. (and let sincline return.)

allura for sure!!! their relationship development has been beautiful so far and i want to see that continue.

coran. they’re both Nerds. plus, one of them got to experience a full and long life on altea. let them talk.

the paladins in general. it might be difficult, slow-going, and hesitant/full of suspicion on both sides, but god—just imagine if they were friendly. (plus it would do worlds of good for lotor. he’s a lonely man, and it would even more clearly distance him from comparisons to zarkon.)

the blade of marmora (and keith). the show has said nothing so far, but i refuse to believe that in the past centuries, lotor and the blade have never interacted or crossed paths before. i can imagine why they would’ve been uninterested in alliance with each other, but i can also imagine what would make each appeal greatly to the other. let them interact. (as for keith, he and lotor have a lot of similarities. it’s real funny how similar allura, keith, and lotor all are to each other, really. hm.)

needs to stay away from:

haggar. she’s fake as hell and evil to boot. some ppl think that she’s reawakened some kind of dormant love in her for lotor after regaining more memories in s5, but that’s far from the case. someone who’s become and lived as she has for 10,000 years doesn’t suddenly care well about someone she’s abused horribly because she realizes she gave birth to them, and doesn’t suddenly become sympathetic in the good way because she’s “motherly” now. (not if the writing’s supposed to be decent, anyway.) she realizes lotor’s about to die and does absolutely nothing else except turn on the magic shiro television in her lab. she only finds out after the black bayard exchange has already happened, and she’s haggar. if she really wanted to stop what was happening, she could’ve done a lot more than just watch through shiro’s eyes. she’s a horrible person, folks, and lotor would do best to never see her again. (unfortunately, it’s much more likely that she will fuck his shit up some more next season. rip.)

zarkon. hopefully he actually stays dead this time, but i’ve seen some good points on how sketchy his ability to stay dead is. nevertheless, all memory of him deserves to be banished to the nether realms. lotor should never have to deal with that asshole’s legacy again.

misc. thoughts:

anyone who talks about lotor getting/not getting/deserving/not deserving a redemption arc makes me lose my shit because he hasn’t even done anything to warrant a redemption arc in the first place like tbfh. evil deeds whomst?? trying to kill voltron when?? where are these receipts of malice??? he’s never done an evil damn thing but y’all humoring the concept anyway. smh.

anyway, lotor needs a therapist, healing, and some good fucking friends. @dreamworks give lotor a recovery arc 2k18.

[home-halone]

Hey do u mind uh sharing that philosophy class revelation bc my rp characters are real flat

Oh no, if you feel you can improve on a character, then it’s great you’re looking for help on that!

but oh boy, I probably don’t have my notes on it anymore as this was nearly 5 years ago [sweaty spaghetti] and most of the readings on it can come across super boring but a lot of it involves the Philosophy of self for starters, and some ideas derived from that. 

I’m not going to delve in which-philosopher-said-what and the exact terminologies because it’s been so long and I’m not an authority on it but I’m going to try to put it in really dumb simple terms because my professor was an absolute genius in contextualizing all the ideas for the contemporary student. GET READY FOR THE ASSPULL OF THE CENTURY.

[Super long pretentious rambling and answers under the cut]

As in general writing advice, what I know in philosophy is, you need to have a strong sense/idea of character (or Self) in order to define someone’s identity. By that I mean, you really need like a high level of awareness in terms of motivations, morals, values etc. for your character’s identity. It’s best to start with the core character themselves, then move on to their relationship with the world outside and around them.

David Hume’s theory on defining one’s identity rests less on the individual self and more in relation to experiences with other people/things etc outside the self. Just think of the nurture part of the nature vs nurture thing. This thought could be really useful in shaping a character though their experiences and they could come out as a different person after the calamity and you could follow that idea in your writing.

Other philosophers have other ideas in what grounds the self and it sounds super boring and confusing but if you’re able to get through it and apply it somehow to your characters it can be pretty rewarding.

I like to think there’s some truth and sense in all theories and that’s why they do hold up, even when they’re contradicted. Not a lot of them have a “final” answer of being true/false. Most of the criticisms I hear about philosophy is that it’s all stupid and circular because you get no real answer, but it’s sort of like reading The Alchemist, where, yeah it’s absolutely circular but if you don’t find meaning in it then it will be senseless. Sometimes it gets all cherry-picking-what-you-want but imo there’s nothing wrong with that if you’re happy with defining your existence a certain way. ANYWAY.

Seriously philosophers have a lot of conflicting opinions in defining something because oh boy. In terms of morality, Immanuel Kant, for example, put a lot of emphasis in defining doing “good” as something that can only be done when consciously done for goodness’ sake in itself like. It doesn’t matter if you’re trying to be nice to someone, or it’s in your nature, or you’re doing good things because “you’d do the same thing”. These are all actions motivated by a will that isn’t purely for the sake of doing the right thing. His idea is, you have to be selflessly doing the right thing BECAUSE it’s the right thing.

See, uhh I ended up rambling lmao because I don’t follow each idea exactly, and other philosophers have other definitions of good and some of them might focus on actualization (doing a good deed) vs intent (motivation), but when I see how nuanced the ideas in philosophy are I start incorporating that in characters and ‘break’ the rules in a sense. 

I have a good two-shoes character (Saraswati) who is outwardly virtuous, softspoken, a model student and the general idea of good but she is the exact type of person that would not qualify for the Kantian definition of good. Her motivation for doing the right thing and following rules is because she’d always done so for her entire life and because it was expected of her. She had no reason to stray from that until she was removed from her safe space and thrust into what basically was a lawless place. Underneath all the good deeds and “niceness” was a lot of selfishness and she had the “if I do this for x, they would do it for me too” type of mentality. Sara wasn’t manipulative per se, but she wasn’t above hoping to instill a sense of indebtedness in people through her kindness (without cashing in on it through demands, she sort of hopes they just realize and recognize her actions, so in polite society she knows her way around). She may be viewed as ‘good’ ICly but anyone reading her thoughts might have a tougher time responding. Through her ignorance, she’s innocent but she’s definitely on the darker, muddled side of goodness, despite qualifying as lawful good.

I have another character (Laidy) who did everything from change her name and leave home, to swear off magic completely to cut ties with her affluent family. She had a solid identity as a prodigy in magic but was completely unhappy with fulfilling her role as heir to a very ancient knowledge. Her family was absolutely cold to her but doted on her brother. A lot of her frustration was the lack of affection, denial of expression and envy of her brother's freedom. Despite this, she was kind to him, recognizing a reflection of herself in him and she grew increasingly rebellious etc until she left.

At some point later in life Laidy became a performer and innkeeper who joined a band of adventurers and became their beloved mother figure. There she found all the love and support she craved, and acted as she pleased. There are two identities here, and only one of them defines her. Even if her past does play a part, her values say that it was a different time in her life that has nothing to do with her present, and accompanying this is the various changes she'd adopted to mold herself.

A particular dilemma she once faced was a life-or-death situation involving her sort-of-adopted kids, that required magic to revive someone on the brink of death. Even in this situation she would not revert to her old self (despite being more than powerful enough to make a difference) to save someone she now considered beloved. It was a real struggle (luckily someone else was also secretly a mage IC) but a closely-guarded principle she adheres to, to assert her sense of self as an individual and not merely a "foolish" extension of her former "respectable" life.

So, those are examples of how I might incorporate what I learned in a character. I take an archetype and try to dissect it and find something to explore. Try to figure out what DEFINES an archetype of a character and ask questions. What exactly makes a “mad scientist” mad? What about someone overly religious? What aspect of that do you want to delve into?  It’s less the actual philosophical ideas since I can’t remember all the stuff I’ve read tbh LOL, and more like applying the type of thinking I’ve learned after all those hecking classes lol.

It extends to their relationships with other people and even defining what love/affection/hatred is to them. Don’t stop thinking at “X loves Y”, like, actually define the act of loving. In romantic love, do they view themselves as being one with someone else (like in the poetic Christian way people describe at weddings)? What does that mean for your character? Do they overstep a sense of self and “mine-ness” and cross over into the experience of another and act on their behalf for their own sake? Are they aware of it? Is it ‘good’ in their values? Is love some sort of mutual journey of self-improvement or knowledge? Is love living separately as two whole selves and not about demanding, but giving?

Even ideals like freedom can be analyzed like, what does that actually mean for a character who was formerly held captive (maybe an Ala Mhigan)? Is it ‘freedom’ in a sense where they do as they please without consequence? Is it the type of freedom you get when you have culpability/accountability/responsibility for something, as this means you’re recognized as an individual with their own actions and motivations. Is freedom being able to choose anything and everything? Is it possible to recognize the assertion of one’s freedom in a more finite situation??

Characters that progress in change don’t always progress neatly. Sometimes they stumble, sometimes they make a complete u-turn. Sometimes it’s going from one bad mentality to another (lovestruck overconfident Ducimel becoming an indulgent but uncertain person).

IDK IF I’M GETTING MY POINT ACROSS because philosophy is a huge mess and jumping into it can be confusing and meaningless without experiencing what is being described (Descartes’ I think therefore I am’ sounds super weird and funky and very ‘people die if they are killed’ without knowing) but also because I myself am a mess

anyway tl;dr I don’t remember the EXACT revelation but this the mindset I have when I’m deciding on a aspects of my character. I take a “truth” or “fact” and question its definition to the core and try to deconstruct/reconstruct it because people have different values and perceptions and try to play with the derived idea and see how that fits with the original archetype and how it plays against it.

 I’m sorry if it wasn’t super helpful fdsjsflk