#and i just feel like most if not all situations deserve more nuance than that

[dickbaeson]

it's ! a ! Bummer ! it's a bummer! it's a bummer that he experienced a meteoric rise to fame at the age where you are arguably, like, the most malleable. it's a bummer that it clearly fucked with his brain, that instead of finding any healthy way to cope with his own life he abused his power and abused other people. it's a bummer that his life ended the way it did. i don't know, im not making excuses for his behavior bc i think what he did to that girl, and she was a fucking Little Girl, was evil and unforgivable. but, i don't know, something something cycle of abuse something. it's a tragedy that he ruined so many lives, including his own, and i think it's okay to be sad about that and to understand that it doesn't erase or excuse anything he did to anyone else.

[cherry-treelane]

I find it so ironically funny when hardcore Debbie defenders use the defense that she was just a victimised teenage girl (agreed) and then proceed to slander Fiona and express their hatred for her character and lack of sympathy

as if being an adult magically absolves an individual of the horrifying trauma that precedes them and screws up their mentality and actions

funnily enough these people get mad at others for "expecting Debbie to be an innocent angel and hating on her for acting out as a result of trauma" (also agreed, debbie does deserve more sympathy, she can't be expected to grow up to be a perfect saint when she's been through so much) yet seem to hold Fiona to the same unattainable standards and put her on a pedestal as if she wasnt a child that was forced to intensely grow up while never actually being raised

like lets put this into perspective and remember that fiona grew up surrounded by corrupt morals and insanely screwed up behaviour yet still emerged as messed up, yes, but surprisingly good considering the situation she was in??? she had to navigate basic things such as morals and being a good, responsible person on her own. imagine how difficult it must be to lead a bunch of kids, including yourself, with no previous role model or good example of your own to follow. most of the time, she always tried to do what she thought was best and would have the most desirable outcome

[piratecaptainscaptainpirates]

Alright, so there's been a lot of chatter about some of the most common racist takes in the fandom lately, and I know most people aren't engaging in good faith but I'm gonna spell some things out anyway. Here's a handy-dandy White Fan's Intro to Racist Fanon 101

Why is it racist to depict Ed as uncontrollably violent?

Because he's not actually depicted that way in the show. OFMD goes out of its way to depict Ed's relationship with violence as complex and intensely traumatic for him. Because he has so many hangups around violence, Ed is one of the least violent characters in a show full of violent characters. He is always shown giving people many chances before they're able to push him into reacting with violence.

Even if you think you're just doing a character study on a guy who is really very complex and nuanced, please take the time to consider if you're assigning more weight to Ed's violent actions than those of other characters or assuming he's worse than he actually is (for example, Ed never physically hurt the crew during his kraken spiral, just Izzy. His crime was being a shitty boss, not going on mindlessly violent rampages).

What do other common fanon depictions of Ed that are racist look like?

The biggest ones are depicting Ed as untidy/messy, as illiterate, and as needing a white man (most often Izzy) to clean up after him. I hope I shouldn't have to spell out why these are racist, but please keep an eye out for them in the fanon you consume so you can be critical of how you respond when they pop up.

Are you saying that all Izzy fans are racist?

Liking a character is morally neutral. Insisting that the viewpoint of an antagonistic character is the lens through which the show should be understood, though, especially when that antagonistic character's whole deal in the first season of the show was trying to control the behavior of the brown lead so he could gain power for himself, however...

Just please consider - why do you find Izzy's tears more deserving of sympathy and compassion than Ed's?

But my hot take/fic/meta doesn't say anything about Ed's skin color!

It doesn't have to. Most of the racist takes/fic/meta out there don't mention Ed's skin color explicitly. Racism doesn't just look like saying "this character is a brown man so he's bad." Everyone who grows up in a racist society (that's everyone on the planet, btw, you included) has biases to unlearn, and those biases impact how you interact with the world around you, including with the media you consume.

The thing is, OFMD isn't a subtle show. It's very consistent with telling us who Ed is, how he responds to situations, and why he behaves the way he does. If you find it easier to throw all that aside in favor of believing what a white antagonistic character tells you about him, then you should really take a bit to examine that.

And here's the most important thing to keep in mind:

This is not about you.

Trust me, it has to be pretty damn bad for fans of color to call out racism in fandom. Every time we do, we know we're gonna harrassment and just some truly awful shit in our inboxes. But you, random white fan who Did A Racism? No one is out to get you. No one thinks you're an awful person for including a racist trope in your stuff, we just wish you'd examine it so we can make this fandom a better place for everyone.

I have had amazing discussions with white fans who saw my posts on fandom racism and wanted a sensitivity read or a check so they could fix an instance where they uncritically included a racist trope. But most people who make similar mistakes will just double down and insist they didn't do anything wrong, and that makes fandom a worse place for all of us.

Fans of color deserve to feel safe and included in this fandom, and we're just tired of feeling like we have to beg to get some circles to see poc as people. You can do your part by being critical of these tropes and your reactions to them when they pop up.

[joanofexys]

I think what bugs me the most about what happened today other than the fact that I was the one getting vagued is the fact that the conversation got warped into one that is about morality and not simply theorizing on The Ravens and how The Nest works

my original post essentially said two things:

The Ravens are victims and to erase that because they don't fit the model of the perfect victim and some have even become abusers erases all nuance from that portion of Jean and Kevin's lives and the surrounding discussion

Cults are weird. I grew up in one. And it is very easy to manipulated by one and to feel trapped and to also be completely in the dark about what is happening in a cult even when you're in the heart of it

I did not say anyone had to forgive the Ravens (they're fictional characters. fake people. that wasn't even on my mind) or that any of them are by any means good people. i also didn't say that they were all oblivious or that there weren't some of them that were abusive. I also never made this a conversation about morality and whether or not the Ravens are good or bad people for staying in a cult.

For some reason that got warped into what we are currently discussing and involved some highly insensitive language surrounding cult victims including things being said like it's not crazy to expect people to walk away from things like scholarships, financial security, or career security if it means being complacent in abuse and that it's "just basic morals".

And I'm sorry for getting personal on this but as a cult survivor I think that's one of the most upsetting and insensitive things I have heard come from these conversations today.

It doesn't matter what x thing is whether it's money or food or housing or a career. In a cult they use whatever it is you need and make you dependent on them for it. Also with the Ravens in particular keep in mind it wasn't simply being complacent in abuse. They were being abused.

If you have been in a similar situation, if you are grappling with the guilt of leaving a cult or anything like a cult, know that you are not a moral failure for having stayed for as long as you did. You are not moral failure for staying for whatever reason you did. It is not just basic morals when it comes to living in a cult. Morality becomes warped and the concept of what is immoral and moral is something completely different and that is intentional.

It doesn't matter whether you think the Ravens were aware of Riko's abuse or not. Having differing opinions on that is completely okay. What you don't get to do is turn it into a conversation about morality where you then get to insult cult survivors like we're evil people for not walking away at the first red flag because we needed something. Because we were in survival mode and we weren't able to focus on other people.

We still don't have all the details on how the Ravens function or the type of abuse players even outside of the perfect court face other than it was extreme. It's fun to theorize. And it's okay if people disagree. But if you can't be mindful about where your opinion switches from theory to some huge declaration of moral high ground then you've lost the fucking plot.

I would love to talk more about the Ravens and my theories on them. I would love to talk more about how cults work and why I think it's possible they were completely unaware of Riko's abuse. There's a lot of nuance in those conversations and I would love to take the time to treat them with the care they deserve. I'm also still incredibly upset by a lot of the things said today and I can acknowledge that this is a topic that is very personal to me. So this is me opening up that can of worms (again) and I'm more than happy to have those conversations and answer questions but please be patient with me because if it isn't already obvious this is a topic that is incredibly sensitive to me

[greenymeeny]

About Curly (Mouthwashing)

This could be controversial, but I want a more nuanced conversation about Curly. I’ve seen what people have to say on TikTok and it makes me froth at the mouth. It’s either “He’s just a baby,” or “He’s a monster who never cared about his crew,” OR, which actually aggravates me the most, “He’s morally gray,” with NO further elaboration.

So here: A deepdive into Curly’s character, intentions, and actions.

Before I begin, I want to talk about what I see as a misconception in the Mouthwashing community.

This game is masterful at subtlety. There’s a lot of specifics that we as the audience don’t know. What infuriates me is that we pretend we do.

Something I hear often is, “Curly didn’t do anything when Anya told him she was assaulted.” There’s merit to this claim, but the situation is more intricate than that and it’s contingent on one very important factor: We don’t know what Anya told Curly. All we know is that she told him something, and it had to be something that would implicitly imply Jimmy as the father, but would still shock Curly at the idea of Anya being pregnant. While this could be interpreted as Anya outright having told Curly, I don’t buy that. His response isn’t just irresponsible, it’s initially palpably ignorant.

This implies to me that Anya said something mildly vague, but still extremely concerning. Something like:

“I’m scared of Jimmy.”

This as a statement, said by your crewmate to you, as captain, cannot be ignored.

As we know, he ignored it.

More than that, he rationalized it. He ignored the signs of something more sinister in favor of feeding his idea of Jimmy just being a gloomy, down on his luck guy- more than anything, his friend. He should have listened to Anya when she said she didn’t want him in the medbay, when she said she didn’t want him near her. But he’s “known him for a long time.” He wanted to believe his instincts about Jimmy over Anya’s.

To Curly, the signs could have meant a lot of things. Anya simply being afraid of Jimmy could have meant that she just felt off about him; She just didn’t like him. A mere character clash. Of course, it was more than that. But Curly’s blindness was a mixture of ignorance and faith. He didn’t believe Jimmy was a bad person, he didn’t think he was scary. He trusted him.

In regard to the events of the game, a lot of people place a good chunk of the blame on Curly, which I do think is somewhat deserved. But I think it’s better to recognize his responsibility and how he failed.

The claims and reprimands of what Curly should or should not have done can only come from the omniscient presence we as the audience have. There’s inconsistencies in modern moral standards. The verdict of how good a person you are in a situation in where you must choose to trust or distrust a good friend is dependent on whether or not that friend is actually a good person or not. The idea that Curly knew Jimmy was dangerous is entirely baseless. Curly put all his cards on Jimmy, dismissing Anya’s discomfort as being a mere clash of character to his detriment. There were signs of his degeneracy, but Curly above anything wanted to believe in Jimmy with the standards of being “a good friend.” It was personal feelings clashing with his responsibility to pay attention as captain. To find the dead pixel.

Again, these assumptions are contingent purely on my theory of what Anya told Curly. The game not showing us what was said in specifics is intentional because they want us to know this and only this: Curly did something wrong. He has to have for the themes of the game to work. He works as Jimmy’s foil. He has to do shit wrong, not taking Anya’s fear seriously and not stopping Jimmy immediately from crashing the ship (which is also an effect of his trust- with a mixture of his own feelings of doom and failure,) to take responsibility where Jimmy cannot.

What substantiates that to me is Anya’s line, “I have to believe our worst moments don’t make us monsters.” It’s a line in relation to Curly. We’re meant to believe that this is her thinking he crashed the ship, but she’s actually talking about how he failed her. That was Curly’s worst moment. And Anya, in that statement, forgives him for it, or at the very least, doesn’t see him as a monster. Jimmy takes both “Our worst moments don’t make us monsters” and “I’m taking responsibility” and tries to reflect them on himself, but really they are statements bound to Curly. Curly is everything Jimmy wishes he was and because of that, Curly’s character shines a light on everything Jimmy isn’t. Curly ran into the cockpit in an attempt to salvage the ship, even when he knew it would crash, while Jimmy sat in a fetal position outside the door, weeping. Contrast.

That’s really all I have to say. I needed to get this off my chest, because Curly is probably the most interesting character to me in Mouthwashing, but gets a lot of one dimensional character analyses. I think a lot of it stems from the subject of SA being touchy, which I understand. People want to see it in black and white because it’s comfortable to them, but it gets complex with other people involved like Curly, who has good intentions and still ends up enabling Jimmy.

I would love to see what other people have to say about this because there’s probably a lot of things I missed. Thanks for reading all this if you did.

[powdermelonkeg]

just saw ur gale/mystra analysis post. im new to the game and dnd lore and honestly… ur take on their relationship feels like the most natural/compelling one??? esp since its all too easy to simplify topics that have many facets and nuance….

thanks for sharing i love analysis and reading people’s takes on narratives : D

My pleasure! (Bee from the future here: congrats, you spawned another meta!)

I love complicated characters, WAY more than I like a clear cut-and-dry case. Flaws, to me, are what make a character compelling and lead to interesting stories about them with choices that can get them into situations. I'm both writing a fanfic and running a campaign where I'm playing as Gale, and in the interest of portraying him properly and in-character, I've gone into SUCH a deep dive into all the decisions and facts that make him him.

It helps to, y'know, also be in love with the fictional wizard, but I digress

The thing about Baldur's Gate 3 is that no character in there is perfect. I've seen a couple analyses about the theme of continuing cycles of abuse vs breaking out of them, but in my mind, in terms of the characters themselves, it goes like this:

The origin characters have just come out of the lowest situation of their lives (Lae'zel being the exception; being tadpoled is a gith's worst nightmare. You're seeing that lowest situation in real time).

Not the lowest point, mind. Gale's lowest was probably the day after he got the Orb. Wyll's was probably the day his father cast him out. Karlach's was the day she lost her heart. But the lowest, accepted normal for them is what they've just left.

They're then thrown out of their depth and forced to rely on you to live. That's #1 priority: living. We get the extremes of these characters before we get their nuances, because they're quite literally at their breaking points.

Then once we get to know them, we see their wants, their hopes, their fears, as they open up to us. Every companion's story is at their own pace, but they all have a moment where they ping-pong between despondency and desire. Sometimes that desire is what we know isn't good for them, like Shadowheart wanting to be a Dark Justiciar. Sometimes that despondency is only for a flicker, like Astarion's realization that he's condemned 7000 people to a half-life of tortured spawnhood for as long as he's been a vampire.

Romance lets us crack all that open more, because if you pursue a romantic partner, they see you as their closest confidant. They WANT to trust you, so they're more willing to explain how they see the world and what decisions they want to chase.

And then their endings. Those often get simplified as good/bad, continuing the cycle vs breaking away from it. But how is Duke Wyll on the same platform as Ascended Astarion? He's not evil, he's not even entirely unhappy. He might even have broken out of his abusive cycle with Mizora, if you played your cards right. And Ascended Astarion is overjoyed, even if he is remarkably more cold.

I think that the endings are less a dichotomy of "this is good for them" vs "this is bad for them," and more one of "bringing out their best traits" vs "bringing out their worst."

Wyll's worst trait is being willing to sacrifice his own wants for whatever people desire of him. His best is standing for what he believes in and ensuring people are safe. Duke Wyll leans into that necessity to turn the other cheek in the name of people who count on him, while the Blade of Avernus has seized that moral compass of his and forged it out of mithral.

Shadowheart's worst trait is blind obedience at the cost of her individuality, while her best is her desire to be kind to things that don't deserve to be hurt. Mother Superior Shadowheart's whole life is defined by Shar. Selûnite Shadowheart's life is defined by her hospitality, especially towards animals.

Karlach's worst trait is how willing she is to accept that things are (to quote her) fucked, letting despair override hope. Her best is her durability in the face of horror. Exploded Karlach would rather die than try to work out a solution in the Hells, because she's terrified of facing Zariel alone. Mindflayer Karlach has accepted her fate and decides to give up her heart and soul to go out a hero, losing who she is. Fury of Avernus Karlach is willing to keep fighting for a solution, and by the time the epilogue happens, she's got her sights set on one.

Astarion's worst trait is his desire for power over people. His best trait is using the tools he has to his advantage. Ascended Astarion has let his powerhungry nature and paranoia lead all of his decisions, with his sights set on dominating mankind. Spawn Astarion has embraced what he is, and carved out a life for himself where he can do as he pleases.

Lae'zel's worst trait is her blind fanaticism, while her best trait is her individual dedication, making her loyalty a marriage of the two. Ascended Lae'zel is a meal for the lich queen, turning a blind eye to all Vlaakith's tried to do to her and literally being consumed by her fervor. Champion of Orpheus Lae'zel has turned her loyalty into something productive for diplomacy. Faerûnian Lae'zel has seized her individuality by the throat and decided her own future.

And then Gale. Gale's worst traits are his hubris and, paradoxically, his low self worth. His best traits are his creativity and wonder for the world. God Gale is the embodiment of ambition, having burned away all but that in pursuit of perfection. Exploded Gale has let his remorse blot out all hope for a redemption in which he does not die, because he thinks he's earned it. Professor Gale leads his life by embracing the school of Illusion and letting his creativity thrive, teaching others to do the same. House Husband Gale has multiple creative projects he's working on, and Adventurer Gale is always finding new sights to see and wanting to share them with you.

There are arguments to be made on which ending the origins are happiest in, certainly, or which one benefits them the most, but each ending represents the extreme of a facet they possess.

So with all that, there's a sort of malleable method to figuring out the ins and outs of a character.

You take their endings—all of them, all variables they can have—and reverse-engineer the flaws and details they carry. Then you start to notice how those work into their approvals for minor things: Astarion approving of your taking of the Blood of Lathander, or Shadowheart approving of standing up for Arabella. Getting a list of approvals and disapprovals is helpful, but having those endings on hand tells you why they react like that to a majority of their decisions.

You take their romance-route explanations of how they act, and apply those to earlier decisions. Astarion's confession to manipulating you and Araj-prompted admittance to using himself as a tool brings to light how he reacts to your decisions, regardless of his actual opinions on them. Wyll's fairytale romance and love of poetic adages speaks to his idealistic nature, and why he takes a sometimes-blinded approach to decisions in which the "right" answer isn't always the smart one.

You take their beginning reactions to stress and use that to measure how future decisions impact them. Lae'zel locks down and gets snappy when she's scared, while Gale immediately turns to diplomacy. Shadowheart has gallows humor, while Wyll turns to quiet acceptance. If they break from these and seem even worse, you know the situation is more dire in their minds than having seven days to live.

And then you factor in all their fun facts and dialogue choices and backstories.

A wizard falls in love with a goddess and her magic, attempts to retrieve a piece of her power for her, is scorned for his attempt and is cursed to die.

Give that backstory to a Tav. Look at how it changes.

A chaotic good wizard fell in love with a goddess, thought retrieving a piece of power for her would be a showy bouquet of love, and was punished for not thinking things through.

A lawful evil wizard fell in love with a goddess's power, snatched the most precious thing she owned, tried to use it to barter his way through to the secrets she kept, and was given a swift retribution.

Same backstory. Same class, same act, same goddess. Wildly different connotations. Wildly different conclusions as to who is in the wrong.

If you take all there is to Gale, all that the game shows us makes up his character, and apply it to this backstory, you get what really happened:

A wizard, enamored with magic, fell in love with a goddess. His desires led him to want more than she was willing to give. In his well-buried fear of inadequacy, he concluded that the reason she wouldn't indulge his ambitions was because he just hadn't proven himself worthy enough. So he tried to prove himself, but he lacked the context for what he was proving himself with. And the goddess, seeing a weapon that had killed her predecessor, saw this ambitious wizard as losing his way and coming for her just like the weapon's creator had. She was angry, she withdrew his link to her, and he didn't know why. So he drew the conclusion that she took his powers to punish him, and let that encompass his fall from grace.

Was he wrong to reach for what was out there?

If you knew that the answers to everything you cared about were not only known, but kept by someone you loved—someone who adored you—what would you do to ask to see them? What if your curiosities were if there were other planets with life out there, or how dark matter worked, or whether or not we could one day travel in the stars? What if it was the potential cure to an illness that's little-understood, or the way to make a program you dreamt up, or the scope of the true limits of your artistic talents? Would your answer change?

Was she wrong to cut him off?

If you were once hurt, and the person you loved—the person who adored you—brought the thing that caused it to your door, believing you'd want it, how would you react to seeing it? What if that thing was someone you thought you'd broken contact with, like a friend or family member you'd been trying to avoid? Would your answer change?

That's the sort of scope that needs to be applied to this, on both sides. You have to take the perspectives of each party, and apply two analogies instead of one.

Gale saw the vastness of the universe, untold wonders, the solution to every question he could ever dream up, and saw Mystra as withholding this from him because she thought he just wasn't worthy enough. To claim Mystra knew his perspective does her a disservice.

Mystra saw a cruel weapon she thought long gone, in the hands of someone who could use it, brought right to her, and thought Gale was willingly following the path of Karsus. To claim Gale knew her perspective does him a disservice.

Should Gale have researched his prize more, so he knew just what he was obtaining? Should he have kept his hands off a cursed book that would devour him? Of course he should have.

Should he have given up on chasing his dreams?

Should Mystra have understood that Gale's pursuit of power was nothing like Karsus'? Should she have communicated when she was angry instead of giving the cold shoulder? Of course she should have.

Should she have given him the benefit of the doubt?

That's the root of their falling out. That's what leads to hurt being inflicted. Understandable, human reactions to the situations they perceive. Unhealthy, unwise choices made afterwards.

You work backwards from this to figure out their dynamic as Chosen and goddess. You work forward from this to understand more of where Gale and Mystra are during the events of Baldur's Gate 3. Gale reached too high, and understands this. His goddess hates him, and he regrets this. Mystra isolated Gale, and understands this. Her Chosen wants redemption, and she wants to make it happen.

Just like we took Gale's character into account, we also have to take Mystra's.

A goddess is faced with a problem. She uses someone who's desperate for approval to solve it, by telling him to kill himself.

An evil goddess is faced with a threat to her reign. She sees someone who's unfailingly loyal and hates himself, and elects to have him tear himself apart rather than do anything about it.

A good goddess is terrified of the future. She sees someone who tried to hurt her, who's going to die anyways, and tells him to use it to save the world.

Same story. Same act, same power, same pawn. Different character. Different perspective. Different outlook on whether or not this is the right thing to do.

Mystra has died, multiple times, to people trying to stake claim to her domain. Someone appears with the very thing that could do it again, right as she's regained her stability.

She does not see mortals the way mortals do. She is timeless. She is eternal. She has a duty to protect billions of people, and one person lost to protect that number is more than worth the sacrifice.

People like to bring up the Seven Sisters as proof of Mystra's cruelty. For those unaware, Mystra asked permission to, then possessed, a woman, used her to court a man (with dubious consent from the woman), and bore seven children, all of whom were capable of bearing Mystra's power as Chosen without dying. The woman she possessed was killed in the process (reduced to no more than a husk, then slain by her now-husband, hoping to end her suffering), and the husband was horrified by the whole story.

Mystra needed Chosen in order to restore herself in the event that she was killed again, to prevent magic as a whole from collapsing and wreaking havoc on the mortal realm, like it had in the few seconds Mystryl had been dead. Elminster, Khelben Blackstaff, and the Seven Sisters contributed to this. The more Chosen she has, the better; what happens if Elminster dies? She can't afford to have all her eggs in one basket.

Mystra has Volo (yeah, that Volo) as a Weave Anchor, imparted with a portion of her power to prevent the Weave from shredding itself to pieces in her absence. All Chosen of Mystra are Weave Anchors by nature. The creation of Weave Anchors was mandated by Ao, the Overgod, and Chosen are the best way to make sure those anchors aren't drained by ambitious people hoping for godlike power. Chosen can, and will, defend themselves, unlike static locations (which Mystra also has). The anchors are why the Weave wasn't completely obliterated during Mystra's last death, when the Spellplague rose up, because they stabilized the Weave around them.

Everything Mystra does is in the name of the big picture, to prevent a catastrophe like the fall of Netheril from happening again. Her restriction of magic, her numerous Chosen, her creation of Weave Anchors, her destruction of those who would claim her power, it's all in the name of the stability she's been charged with. Dornal Silverhand's grief and Elué Silverhand's death, while regrettable, were worth it to bring seven more anchors into existence to save all of the Material.

So someone appears with the Crown of Karsus, potentially powerful enough to try to kill the other gods in the name of the Dead Three. She can't risk being a target of them. She can't risk the destruction of magic again.

Gale is going to die. He lives in fear. He begs for forgiveness.

In Mystra's eyes, she's offering him the best outcome. She'll let him die in service to her, to save Faerûn, and she'll forgive him. He's going to die anyways, and if he does this, she'll give him everything (she thinks) he could ever want in her realm. She's asking him to do what (she thinks) is the right thing.

"She would consider what she considers to be forgiveness."

Notably, she leaves the decision in his hands. She doesn't have Elminster lead him to the Nether Brain. She doesn't activate him as soon as he's there. When he lives yet, she doesn't revoke the charm that keeps him stable. And when he declines, when he lets it go and starts pursuing Karsus' path, she doesn't smite him on the spot.

She is (she thinks) being incredibly patient. If Gale is going to try to be Karsus II, she's ready for him. If he decides to walk off and keep the Orb, he's dug his own grave in the Fugue Plane (those who don't have a god to claim them roam endlessly as husks and form a wall of bodies around the City of Judgement).

From her perspective, she's not being unreasonable. But from the perspective of a mortal, she absolutely is.

"Now, I have a question for thee: what is the worth of a single mortal's life?"

This is a question she cannot answer properly.

I think a lot of characterization is lost whenever someone paints one of them as being totally in the right. But I also think you have to be invested in them as characters to want to see that characterization. If you want to write about Mystra, you have to try to get into her head, analyze the decisions she made, figure out why she thinks she was right, and follow the pattern.

Gale's sacrifice is a very predictable thing for her to ask for.

[alexxncl]

‼️NIGHTBRINGER LESSON 57 SPOILERS‼️

masterlist | theories/spoilers | all lessons | season 3 | lesson 57.1 | lesson 57.2

i do think it's cute how the boys with wings are holding everyone who doesn't have wings though. it kinda feels like a representation of which brothers are the backbone of the family and, at the same time, which brothers are the hardest on themselves because of that self-induced and externally expected to be the glue that holds everything together

maybe they had this idea in mind when they designed the characters, maybe they didn't. but i think it's interesting to see. more of me yapping beloe the cut lol

lucifer is the eldest and naturally takes on the role of the provider and pseudo father figure of the family because they don't really have one anymore. he's constantly stressed and overworking himself to the point of irreversible exhaustion just so his brothers can live a life where they don't have to do the same, because that's how much he loves them

he's strict with them because of the way they were treated when they fell. no respect, constant ridicule and, for lack of better phrasing, racism from every denizen of the devildom. even with the power and status they have now, he doesn't want anyone to even think of talking to or about his family in a manner as disrespectful as that, and will do anything to upholding an image so poised that you'll be the one who gets looked st weird if you think of disrespecting them. if he has to be harsh on his brothers to combat the inevitable harshness they'll face from the real world, so be it

he's carrying mc because they're able to see through the harsh, overprotective veil and into the heart of someone who just wants to do right by his family

mammon sees this. mammon knows lucifer better than anyone and is arguably one of the most emotionally intelligent of the bunch, even if he doesnt show it. mammon is the person lucifer trusts the most out of pretty much everyone he knows, and it's for good reason. when the situation calls for it, he can step into a leadership role effortlessly. nobody in the devildom outside of his circle knows about his antics because he's just that good at putting on a professional front. when lucifer needs him, he's there. when his brothers need him, he's there

when lucifer can't be there, mammon feels obligated to step up. he's proud of being the second oldest and will never let you forget it, whether it's in jest or through his actions. we've seen it in the original game through devilgram stories and bits and pieces of the main game. we saw it in nightbringer when he took on the initiative during the cerberus storyline. he saw how badly his brothers wanted to fit in, to be respected, to be normal. he saw how hard lucifer was trying to keep himself and everyone else from falling apart in the wake of the fall. he stepped in and did what he thought was right, even if it meant being reckless and putting himself in immeasurable danger for the sake of his family

he's carrying luke because he sees him the way he sees the rest of his younger brothers, wanting to guide and protect luke the way that lucifer did for him

asmo, i think, has a bit more nuance. it's easy to believe that he's characterized as someone who only is inherently self-centered. but even when we see him in nightbringer for the first time, his nails are pink and green, for him and satan

asmo was the first person to really try and make an effort with satan, not for the sake of making his life easier, but because he cared about him. because he knew that regardless of circumstances, satan was his brother. asmo is the reason satan opened up to the rest of them in the first place, helping break the ice between satan and the rest of the boys by showing him that he was more than just his anger and wrath, but someone who deserves to be treated with love and care and respect just like the rest of the boys

asmo's carrying satan as a representation of the bond they've held since the first time they met, a sign that asmo's more than someone whose only priority is himself

we saw the extent of levi's anxiety at the beginning of nightbringer, his insecurity and self loathing that left him vulnerable for anyone with bad intentions to hurt him, physically or emotionally. despite being his little brother, beel still feels the need to protect him if he can't protect himself

beel is probably the most emotionally intelligent out of everyone in the game, when his head isn't in his stomach at least. size wise, and strength wise, he feels like he needs to protect those around him who can't defend themselves

but more importantly, we've seen it with lilith. the one time his strength wasn't enough to save two of the people he cared about the most. the one time he couldn't protect everyone

he's carrying levi, belphie, and simeon not just because of their relationships, but because he can't afford to not be strong enough, even if it weighs him down over time

we've seen it with simeon, when he first fell from grace and beel practically offered himself up as a bodyguard for him. we always see it with belphie, given the fact that most people are defenseless in their sleep, and the fact that the two of them share a bond unlike any of the other boys

[tornadoeffect]

Thinking about how similar yet how different Max and Rachel are...

Rachel is obviously destructive and impulsive in some ways, whether it's intentional or not, but so is Max! She does fix things a lot in the game, or at least tries to, but there are various occasions where she can act upon destructive desires mainly thanks to her newfound powers. For example, she immediately decides to blow up the doorknob to the principal's office when she can't find a key with Chloe and the latter can't pick the lock open. She can also spill Frank's beans onto the ground unprovoked. These are minor examples, but the greatest one of course is the Bae>Bay ending where she quite literally lets a tornado swallow up her entire childhood town to keep her best friend (girlfriend?) from dying. Her very powers are associated with the chaos theory. She says herself in her dream: "You're a goddam hypocrite. You've left a trail of death and suffering behind you.". She also says later in the game: "I can't keep fixing everything, if all I'm gonna do is just break it, over and over again!" Sure, this is her low self esteem and slight self loathing talking (as well as her having a normal reaction to the awful situation she's been put into), but the words have some merit if you look into them. Her powers, seemingly designed to fix things, seem to just make everything worse or break something else instead.

More under cut.

Meanwhile, Rachel turns a small, controlled burning of a picture into a forest fire. She spikes Victoria's drink on one occasion to keep her role in a play. She throws a bottle near Chloe in a junkyard in anger. She develops a self destructive drug usage habit. I'd argue her relationship with dangerous, older men is self destructive. Her difficulty with communication adds a chaotic element to her and Chloe's relationship (even though she's by far not the only guilty party involved). She breaks a table when her pent up anger towards her father escapes containment. She's associated with fire and the storm. There's obviously nuance to her actions, which is why I mentioned them being intentional or not at the start, but it doesn't erase their destructive or impulsive nature.

Now, I use the terms "destructive" and "impulsive" loosely here. And obviously, most of the examples I provided for Rachel are a lot more extreme than the ones I provided for Max, but I still think I got my point across. They both cause chaos, destruction, and disharmony around them, mostly guided by their feelings and what they consider to be "right" or "wrong", "deserved", "necessary", etc. And if the theory about Rachel being the one to grant Max her powers is true, then destruction links them together even more.

Furthermore, they're both young women onto whom destiny shoves great burdens and seems to play painfully ironic games with: Rachel must maintain her perfect appearance despite her unstable and crumbling sense of identity and freedom and the sudden revelation of her family's past, and she ends up an aspiring model dying horribly in a dark room; Max unlocks super powers out of the blue one day and tried to do good with them, but as she figures them out she ties them (and by consequence, herself) to a deadly approaching tornado without mentioning the extremely traumatic events she goes through in a matter of a week, and ends up having to decide whether to sacrifice an entire town or her closest friend.

And most importantly of all: they are both trapped by or in Arcadia Bay, albeit in differing ways. Rachel's case is more obvious: she's literally, physically trapped due to her family's unwillingness to move and her inability to leave alone, which is especially suffocating for her free spirit, and she's also metaphorically trapped by heavy expectations from everyone around her, feeling like she has no room to define herself.... herself. She's buried in the town's junkyard after years of dreaming of freedom. Max physically leaves/"escapes" Arcadia Bay as a child with her move (though she didn't especially want to), and does go back voluntarily, but is almost immediately chained to the very fate of the place and its people out of nowhere. I'd also argue that her past with Chloe and the guilt she feels because of it also traps a part of her in Arcadia for a long time. And after the ending, no matter what she chooses, Arcadia Bay will never let her go for the rest of her life.

[projectjasper]

i started penning a post about how i always find it narratively unsatisfying when an arc ends with a conclusion the following arc breaks, regardless of how realistic the repetition of the same mistake might be, which is still true, but i actually want to talk about something else right now.

i feel like, at least at this stage, jack is in a position that is both generally unrealistic and untrue to the specific events of the series. 'jack and joker' has a clear focus on poverty and money and class issues, but it seems to treat jack in a very special way. he somehow manages to stand on the moral high ground above other characters. specifically, other poor characters. which is, first of all, a little ridiculous, since he was indeed a debt collector and, in fact, almost became the boss's son. and, second of all, is generally Not Great, because it does idolise the idea that if you "just try hard enough", you won't "allow" yourself to be backed into a corner and therefore won't have to do bad things.

now, don't get me wrong, i am not saying that our characters who have made mistakes are completely blameless. tattoo did shitty things (and hoy followed suit), safe did shitty things, hope frankly admitted to enjoying doing shitty things. however, if we zoom out a little, we will see that all these characters are in a situation that is inherently unfair to them. we have all of these poor people in immense amounts of debt and then we have this disgusting rich motherfucker whose entire wealth is literally based on making their lives as miserable and unfair as they are. and i think that, in this particular case, the series would have actually benefited from a dichotomy. don't get me wrong, i'm usually absolutely brimming with nuance and also asking "what lies outside of it?" but this shall be my exception. (though you could say that joke already brings some nuance to it - he is initially from a well-off family and he actively makes choices to the benefit of poor people, despite it resulting in him being ostracised from said family and its riches).

jack walks the line of being poor and managing not to do anything "too bad" like he is a fucking circus performer on a wire. and, don't get me wrong, he is genuinely a selfless character. he makes choices that a lot of other characters in the same circumstances wouldn't make. he remains in debt and continues working for the boss because he keeps trying to help people and pay off their debts first - that is admirable. however, he himself was already set up for more success than others. sure, being forced to become a debt collector isn't a walk in the park, but most other debtors didn't even have that choice. jack has to work for the boss in order to stay afloat - that is an undeniably hard task. the other people the boss collects debts from, however, have to come up with a lot of money out of thin air - that is not simply a hard task, that is an impossible one that is designed to trap them in the cycle of doing this impossible task forever. that being said, ultimately, jack is still poor. his own hamster wheel should be somewhere around the corner, that's always the case. this idea is where i wish they would have taken jack's arc.

from the moment when he refused to marry rose, there was no escape for him. finally, much like our other poor characters, he found himself stuck between a rock and a hard place. (and i think that it's very thematically appropriate for jack's particular "i can't do this anymore, i deserve to live a full life" sentiment to be connected to love, since he is, after all, a lead of a romance drama). he made the decision to say "no" and from that point on, he was completely and utterly fucked. because, realistically, that conversation that he had with the boss after refusing rose was insane. i don't know what he would have done to jack exactly, if that was a genuine conversation and there was no exchange of jack's freedom for the ring, but it would not have been anything good.

so i wish jack had to make the actual tough call there, instead of having joke save him all on his own (and later take the fall for it). and if it was, at least in some capacity, jack's decision to steal that ring, he would finally be placed in a situation where every other poor character already inevitably found themselves in. because the entire system is rigged against all of them and they are eventually always forced to do things that they should have never even had to consider in the first place. but they deserve better than living a life set up for them by evil rich people who literally live off of their suffering and they are allowed - no, at some point they simply have no choice but to - fight for a better life.

this, in my opinion, would have been a much more powerful message and - not to circle back to my personal preferences - would have also not left us with joke making the very same mistake that we decided we should never make again at the end of the previous arc.

[necrotic-nephilim]

How do you think bruce would react to a Robin pile situation?

oooh this is a fun thought. i think it depends *entirely* if you're working with a morally stable Bruce or a Bruce who's a little fucked up and dead dove-ish. somehow, i think it's actually more fun if it's a completely stable Bruce bc that adds so much more drama and issues if Bruce is deeply unsettled by the idea. if it was maybe just Jason and Dick or Jason and Tim dating that's sort of understandable. Bruce knows that while he may see them all as his sons (except Steph bc do know Robin pile will *always* include Steph for me and tbh Cass too as an honorary member. they're all going in the pile.) but he understands that doesn't mean they see each other as brothers. he respects the nuanced and complicated relationships scattered across all of the Batfam.

but if all of them are *dating*? or at the very least sleeping together? that raises a lot of logistical red flags. the most obvious one is the age gap of it all- at the biggest gap you have Damian and Dick who are an easy fifteen years apart, meeting when Damian is a kid. not to mention how many of them have tried to kill each other at some point. it shouldn't work and Bruce doesn't like that it does. Bruce has a history of wanting to control the relationships of the Batkids when he disapproves. and so he'd absolutely try to break them up. at first, he paints it purely as a logistical issue. saying it's smartest not to bring feelings into work and that this is dangerous. i think it's especially fun if this happens at a time when Bruce doesn't approve of Steph or Jason so that *also* plays into it, he doesn't want either of them near the ones he currently considers to be his family. he says he wants to protect them and wants to keep them safe. he tries to appeal to who he thinks would be more logical and listen to him the most. first Dick, and then when that doesn't work, Tim. and when neither of them listen, i *do* think Bruce would stoop to the low of trying to break them up by fabricating internal conflict between them, hoping to divide and conquer the weird polycule it's become.

while i don't think Bruce would be jealous in the sense he wants to be included, i *do* think he's wildly dislike the Robins having this close bond that makes them trust each other implicitly more than they trust Bruce. they will defer to each other before him and clearly keep things from him. he'd despise that. it's an inner circle he's not let in on and it makes him lose aspects of control over some of them, especially Damian who's the youngest and his son, who Bruce deserves the most control over. he would drive himself mad about it. at first for genuine reasons over the perceived fucked up nature of the relationship (even when each of them have confirmed that it is entirely consensual and they're happy) and to protect them. but he becomes so bitter over being ignored. they openly prioritize each other over him when the truth comes out because they see no point in hiding it. and i could definitely see Jason gloating about how he's back in the family whether Bruce likes it or not. Bruce would be beyond pissed about it. he's just never recovering. trying to stop them gets nowhere, even if he manages to cause some internal conflict.

eventually, Bruce would be forced to accept it for fear he would lose all of them. but he's *not* going to be happy about it and he keeps making side comments, hoping to get through to one of them eventually. it doesn't work, but he's definitely not going to stop trying. i also think on some level it would just disgust him a little bit in a visceral way, since they're his kids to him and he doesn't like to picture them in that way. esp when Jason or Steph lean heavily into PDA just to fuck with him. ass grabs, cuddling, sloppy kisses, the whole nine yards. Bruce will not have a moment of peace.

[thesophistiicate]

im not trying to act all high and mighty, im just genuinely confused by this... i truly dont understand girls who allow themselves to be put in degrading situations the same as the last anon? surely its glaringly obvious that man just wanted a body to use? i know i sound so mean but im genuinely actually confused whenever i hear or read girls talking about experiences like that i find it very hard to understand what would make them give the most undeserving men access to their bodies and souls like that... i can kind of understand if you sleep with a man for the first time and he treats you badly after but what i dont understand is going back again and again and expecting a different result. at that point maybe youre a little to blame as well? why would you even sleep with someone who youre not even in a relationship with? im just very lost i thought by now we all know better than to give just anyone our time. i see this even in my girl friends, theyre all so beautiful and intelligent yet they date terrible men that shouldnt even be allowed to breathe the same air as them and when they inevitably cheat or hurt them they genuinely get heartbroken and then they start to tell me about things the man has said to them and show me their text conversations and in my head im like "hes telling you right there in that message that he doesnt care about you..? what did you expect..?" sometimes it feels like girls get into situationships and relationships just to get themselves hurt on purpose because, and this is gonna sound so mean but i dont know how else to word this, but theres no way people can genuinely be this blind and stupid. i just find it so hard to feel sympathy for girls who numerously get shown and told theyre only being used for sex and still stick around for a different outcome. is that what love supposed to be? am i the one with the twisted understanding of love? am i missing something? i hope im not coming off as heartless or conceited, im genuinely confused i just dont know how to express or word it well

i'm happy to hold space for expressing thoughts imperfectly or even harshly, so long as we are willing to find understanding and not stay stuck in judgement 🤍 i would say the challenge for you here is learning to stay out of judgement (it is all right to acknowledge that's not how you would act, but attaching value statements and labels like 'stupid' don't help you be kind and don't help anyone else thrive either), and leaning into empathy (finding understanding when someone acts in a way you wouldn't, rather than judgement and frustration).

i say this as someone who used to be really judgemental, not to tell you off, but because it's so good for the soul to learn this growth. judgement and labels are easy, it's far more difficult to build the emotional intelligence to hold space for nuance and complexity, to extend compassion and nurture even when somebody is making imperfect decisions.

i think that you're someone with a really good level of self worth and self respect who cares about others too. that's so amazing! the best thing you can do is continue to hold your standards and lead by example. you aren't the one who has it wrong at all. healthy, respectful relationships aren't like this! keep your standards high, show your friends examples of high standards. as much as it will feel like they aren't listening, sometimes a simple, fairly neutrally toned: "wow, you deserve better" or "geez, i wouldn't put up with that" or "that's not normal" will linger and have more long-term impact than you realise.

i know it's easy to look in from the outside and say, can't you see it?! he just sucks!! or to look at the end of a crazy story and be like, girl, there was SO many red flags wtf!! (lol me at my past self!) but when you're in the middle of it, it's actually really hard. these people are master manipulators and they know how to keep their victims hooked. love bombing, mixed signals, disrespectful treatment to lower self worth... it's a wild ride inside the storm, you simply cannot see clearly because they are committed to obscuring the view.

at the core women get themselves into these situations because of low self worth. it's why i talk about it ALL THE TIME, it's SO CRUCIAL. when you don't value yourself, you put up with being disrespected. the more you are disrespected, the lower your self worth drops and the more bad treatment you accept. it's a toxic cycle. it's the exact same dynamics as in any abusive or domestic violence scenario (even if the relationships aren't abusive and he's just casually disrespectful - that is the beginning of abuse), and it's pretty well researched why women stay, how they get in those situations, why they find it difficult to leave, why the cycle keeps repeating with new partners. i'd highly recommend researching it if you want to understand it better. every woman should be educated on this topic.

you are right to some extent: if you want to get out of the cycle you do have to take responsibility for your own behaviour. you have to ask why you're accepting being treated that way. what led you there. why you are obsessing over their behaviours but not questioning your own.

but to confront all this is very difficult and painful and often related to trauma and neglect. yet another reason why so many can't escape the cycle, to face all of that can be more painful than putting up with a shitty guy who just wants sex without commitment... the crap treatment is easier to face, until it isn't.

it is a form of self-harm, a kind of self-destruction as a way a broken mind and spirit tries to cope with trauma. to end the relationship would be to limp out and finally confront how broken you are. when you stay in it you can stay delulu. it's a form of escape.

of course, to a healthy person it doesn't make sense. why would anyone ever willingly hurt themselves? and yet, it's a psychologically observable phenomenon and unfortunately the solution and path to healing is far more complex than just not doing that or getting into those situations. if only!!

but the way out DOES involve making a decision that you deserve better. which is why we need to keep talking about these things, bringing them to light, being compassionate, creating safe spaces for women in these relationships to talk about what they're experiencing without judgement, shame, being called stupid or asking for it etc 🤍

i could speak for a long time on this, but i'll leave it there for now... it's all right to not understand it. i actually think that's a good thing in a way, it means you're in a good place. but certainly if you really want to understand it, the research is there!

[invisibletoothpasteman]

Something that is completely unserious but I just need to get off my chest is how people mistake complicated family dynamics as something inherently bad and therefore gravitate towards something completely stripped of any real complexity.

While I know this applies to lots of fandoms, I'm thinking specifically in regards to Batman comics.

With the rise in popularity of comics over the past little while since their decline in popularity in the 2000s there has naturally become an increase in their fandom as well, especially for Batman and the batfam. Don't get me wrong, this is great news. The comic industry NEEDS all the readers it can get and the renaissance of sorts it's been going through really shows hope for the future of comics. And with a growing fandom comes more people introduced to these characters through the fandom itself rather than the source material, which again, is a good thing.

What grinds my gears is how throughout this fandom theres been this whole idea spread that in the comics Bruce Wayne is always a shitty parent, the batfam is hardly a family, that the fanon version of him is what we deserve and is the "superior" version of him.

This fanon version of bruce (and the batfam as a whole) is perfect. He's not perfect in the sense that he's perfectly characterized. He's not perfect in the sense that he never makes mistakes. No, he's perfect in the sense that when he makes a mistake, he can flawlessly atone for it. There's conflict sure, but whenever there is some amazing therapist-approved communication is put right into play, the batfam talks about their feelings, and boom everyone is happy.

The thing is in reality that's just not how things work. Relationships are messy, especially family. Resolving conflict is messy. This is all especially true when you apply it to a family of messed-up vigilantes that go through incredibly stressful, emotional, and just plain crazy things on the daily.

The lack of always perfectly solved conflict is what makes stuff interesting. It allows for nuance in characters and situations that there isn't normally room for if everything is designed to be wrapped up in a sweet little bow.

I feel like a lot of people see the comics solely as batman being shitty and the rest of the batfam not really being a family and just overall poor story choices. While I can't deny that sometimes there are really poor or ooc choices made (such is the nature when so many different creators get to work on the same group of characters) for the most part batman in the comics is portrayed as he should be: well meaning, but far from perfect. The rest of the batfam is similarly flawed. Their relationships with each other are far from perfect but such is the nature of family. It's messy, it's imperfect but going through all of that makes it more compelling.

While I still definitely enjoy the simplified version of the batfam from time to time and am glad so many others do too, I think it's a disservice to say its the better version of them. as much fun as wfa or the like can be, they're not able to portray the same complexity as the stories that have the batfam with their flaws and all. It's still possible to tell heartwarming and fun stories in comics where everyone is heavily flawed and nuanced.

That being said really i'm glad people are able to enjoy these characters no matter how they're presented. Goodness knows that everyone should absolutely be indulging in little things in life even if that is ooc batfam. Just consider if you're still new to batman and only familiar with the fandom getting out there and reading some comics because they're pretty great.

(sorry this whole thing was written in a sleep deprived rant state, don't take it too seriously)

[punch-love]

Could you give us some of your fic recs as well? 🙏🏼

I've been waiting for this ask. * is for all time favorites.

Classics/Required Reading:

Between Apollo and Arachne. / He is Soundless From Afar. / Blood Sickness. by elastic honey (infernoconcealed)

I got into this fandom specifically because of this author. I think all of their work is incredible but, these three are my favorites and also the first bookmarks I ever made. I like the ways they explore their dynamic, and they often explore darker scenarios between the two of them with a lot of heart and nuance.

How To Get Physical by Wilt

I like their writing as much as I like their art, but this one in particular is a consistent re-read for me. It's a trans Peter written by a clearly trans writer, and it's soft and kind and good-hearted in a way that really, really sells the history between them.

Up to the Sun (Full Speed Ahead, Mr. Parker) by SleepsWithCoyotes

The first AU I really enjoyed and also one of the best. Eldritch horror Wade that goes from a massive tentacle creature to an off-putting mercenary that gets attached to Spider-Man. It's great. The whole verse is great.

for the wrong reasons by orphan_account

This is one of my favorite Wade character studies of all time. He gets hit with a truth serum and ends up at Peter's apartment. It's sad and complicated and perfect, and I've read it more than a few times.

gunpowder and firewood / steel and flint * by periodically_puzzled

This is forever one of my favorites. It's the best first-person POV in the fandom hands down and is just so fucking good. It's got everything, idenity porn, grindr, complicated explorations of emotional manipulation, bromance, and it's so very funny.

Snake Oil by BunsofHoney

This was so good that my writing group chat temporarily re-named our chat after it. Peter is a preacher and Wade is a possessed snake oil salesman. It's very good, and also you will learn something about the 20s as it is immensely well researched.

Blazed (Smoking Weed is Gay) * by GreendaleHumanBeing

This is one of my all-time favorites. Peter is coping with his midlife crisis by being a huge stoner, and Wade has mellowed out and joins him for long smoke sessions. It's very slice of life, intimate, slow burn friends to lovers. It's one of those reads that just feels really, really good and relatable.

Paradise (spread out with a butter knife) by Sarah_Sandwich

A soulmate/slice of life work that really will make you feel something profound by the end of it. I read this one at four in the morning and didn't sleep until I was finished with it. It made me feel something big.

Dog Years by androgynousdouche

This is the only unfinished work on this list but man, is it a hidden treasure. They really build a foundation for the relationship and the intimacy between these two is so....it's really good. I wish it was finished, but even though it's not, I still think it's worth the read.

Porn:

Tip of the Tongue * by TimidTurnip

I think this is probably the work I go back and re-read the most. It's got everything. Peter Parker's insane oral fixation, his inability to come to terms with his own bi-sexuality, homies who are mean to each other dynamics, and worship based blow jobs. It's great. You should read it.

i could show you and stop (don't stop) by jilliancares

I think this is probably two of the most infamous smut works in the fandom but they both really, really deserve the hype. The first is the eating out fic of all time specifically for me but also for a lot of other people and the second is my favorite situational porn.

Meeting Minutes */ Pitter Patter by WhoopsOK

These are hands down the best watersports fics in the entire fandom. I've read the entire tag, I would know. The first has Peter being hit by a truth serum and telling his fantasies to Wade who intentionally does not sleep with him, and it's hot and good dynamic wise. The second is just a very hot scenario where Peter pisses in Wade's mouth while he works behind the counter. Great stuff.

a luxury few can afford by three-fingered (calciseptine)

I love the way this author writes them so much. It's fun and fresh and so good at building up some good old-fashioned tension. It also has some great character study moments inbetween blow jobs (my beloved)

Fucked Up Shit:

she's not going to die today / Songs for the Zombie Apocalypse / Need You Like A Gun To The Head * by (zerospoons_onlyknives)oprime

I also consider these classics/required reading but they are all very dark and go places that fans of the classic dynamic might be surprised by. SNGTDT is the best and darkest soulmate AU you'll ever read. SftZA is not only an incredible zombie AU but also one of my personal favorite pieces of zombie fiction period. NYLaGttH is one of my favorite smut fics of all time and one I often re-read (the title should be taken literally)

twisted, baby by jilliancares

The Peter "adrenaline kink" Parker work. It's dubious and intimate and exhilarating in a way that never gets old.

tap out whenever by periodically_puzzled

also known as "the fic that triggers me so bad that I've never commented on it despite reading it eight times" this is like. One of the darkest works in the fandom, hands down and if you can relate at all with the content, will put you in some sort of headspace. It's excellent. It's horrifying.

Because You're Mine *- WaterMe

I absolutely love this one. It's a sex-pollen turned non-con work that is very dark (mind the tags) but if you want to go there, this is the place to go. I always come back to it and find something new to appreciate. Also the only second person work I've ever enjoyed/felt affected by in the way I think second person is supposed to do. (honorary mention by this author: their Arbor day fic)

Sinking by coveryourheads

This one is hard to describe, but if you're interested in some really nuanced work on sexuality, this one will sit with you for a while. Peter and Wade are in an intense D/s relationship that is both abstract and personal in ways I've never really read about before.

[toastandjamie]

Okay so, I wanna preface this by saying that I have not read Sanderson’s other books so this is not a discussion about his actual abilities as a writer, and I’m not saying that he’s in anyway a bad writer. I do not envy the situation he was in At All, it must’ve been incredibly difficult to be given the responsibility of finishing such a long and beloved story as Wheel of Time. Trying to honor RJ’s story and characters when you are jumping in at the climax and expected to finish it in a way that the fans find satisfying when there is no way to make Every fan happy with the ending. Okay with that out of the way let’s talk.

So i have a lot of feelings about the final three books of Wheel of Time. There were many parts I enjoyed and there were also parts I was disappointed by. Personally, I felt like many aspects of the last three books felt rushed and incomplete and the pacing a bit odd in places and a lot of that comes down to the fact that it was originally meant to be one giant book, but like- that would’ve been ridiculous and I agree with the choice to break it up into multiple books. However I honestly think they should’ve just broke it up into more than three books to properly to pace them. There were a lot of things that Needed to happen that I think ended up causing certain things to get cut, for instance I do believe a big portion of both Mat and Min’s storylines in those last books were cut for time, specifically I think there was probably originally a lot more time dedicated to dealing with the Seanchen. What I believe to have happened is that Sanderson was given the notes about where the Black Tower needed to be and decided to dedicate the time to it and in exchange he cut the Seanchen plot line for pacing since the Seanchen were Technically already solved. Technically. Now controversial opinion but I did actually like Androl, however, I think he and the rest of the Black Tower suffered from having their storyline rushed. The plot line in the black tower should’ve started after the Ashaman with Rand betrayed them as we got to see the corruption already seeping into the Black Tower. Sadly that’s not what we got, but it honestly deserved an entire book to properly introduce it and it would’ve benefited from having pre-established characters that we cared about be more involved. Other parts of the story I think deserved more time dedicated to, the actual process of stealing the horn of Valere back from the White Tower, I wanted a heist mission with Faile and the Band but that is just personal preference lol. More time learning about Slayer and the red veiled Aiel, they were introduced and then promptly stopped actually mattering outside of being enemy fodder. Literally everything about Faine and the Evil of Shadar Logoth, Faine dying so quickly will forever disappoint me, he was a main antagonist since book one and his death felt very quick and unceremonious, like just tying up loose ends.

Next is issues with characterization. Once again I do not envy Sanderson’s job here at all. This type of thing isn’t easy but I can also see exactly where the issues were. Sanderson by his own admission didn’t understand Mat, and he Did get better at writing him but the damage was already done unfortunately and there wasn’t enough time to properly fix the issues with Mat’s characterization. Mat was not the only character whose characterization was flattened however, Aviendha and Tuon for instance also lacked a lot of their original nuance. I think it’s very clear where Sanderson struggled and that is with unreliable narrators. Characters that Sanderson seems to both enjoy the most and successfully write in a compelling way are characters who very straight forward and honest, their internal monologue matches their actions, and they reliably narrate their stories. Characters like Perrin and Galad thrived under Sanderson’s writing style. Androl is a very obvious example of this archetype being one that he’s comfortable writing. The issue he faced with both Mat and Tuon is that their unreliable narrators who act inconsistently to an outsider perspective and I think for Mat especially Sanderson struggled to get past his first impression of Mat. The biggest issue with Sanderson’s version of Mat is that his character arc was reset, Sanderson’s Mat was still running away from his destiny and trying to avoid Rand, something Mat had already worked past in books four and five with Melindra and the Rhavin incident teaching him to accept his destiny and embrace his role as Rand’s General. This meant that Mat and Tuon’s relationship lost a large part of its nuance and Mat’s actions felt out of character and immature for the point in the story we reached. There’s also the difference in how RJ wrote Mat’s “flirtatious play boy” status versus how Sanderson portrays it and it can feel a bit jarring at times, and just in general, I feel like Sanderson often wrote Mat as “stupid” where he very much isn’t. He’s reckless and mischievous but never stupid and I think Sanderson equated his recklessness with stupidity in some places.

Writers play favorites, and it does show, RJ’s favorite was Mat and Sanderson’s favorite was Perrin and both are very obvious preferences. Poor Rand was neither writers favorite but it’s okay because as the protagonist he at least got consistent page time dedicated to him. RJ definitely paid more attention to Mat than Perrin and Sanderson did vice versa. So I’m not complaining just because I wanted Mat to get more page time. My issues with it are that Mat ended up feeling a bit underwhelming during the last battle. Where all other characters got to have their spotlight moment during a Memory of Light, Mat didn’t; and perhaps that’s because Towers of Midnight was originally part of a Memory of Light so Mat had got his big moment in the final book during the original draft. The Seanchen overall felt like it was resolved in an underwhelming manner, as did the Shadar Logoth plot line and it just so happens that both of those plot lines were Mat’s and I do think Sanderson’s bias informed his decision at least subconsciously when choosing which storylines to trim down.

In summary I would’ve rather Sanderson made it five more whole books if it meant that all the plot lines could be given enough time to be resolved in a fully satisfactory way.

[aspd-culture]

Contributing to the conversation, I think it’s, I’m gonna be honest, more likely that emotional abuse would boost the chances of aspd forming because children as a demographic are routinely gaslit, emotionally abused, dehumanized, and treated as property both by their caregivers (be they family, guardians, or teachers) or peers (other kids in school). Being dehumanized routinely as a child and thinking this is all you are to others, it would make sense that being on the receiving end of ‘antisocial treatment’ (as in, things that would prohibit social camaraderie and communal relations) would contribute to an antisocial mindset that persists in life.

Aspd is very specifically also a heavy impulse-based disorder too, underdeveloped frontal lobe and prolonged emotional trauma before the healthy development of that lobe that manages impulse control in social settings met with emotional abuse, it’s probably also why a lot of kids who do develop aspd could also end up with an exception for the person who treated them like a person but one person obviously cannot offset All of the damage the rest of their environment caused. I think aspd is perhaps somewhat more underdiagnosed *because* people don’t provide a lot of support to pwaspd when they’re adults because the adult with aspd has so thoroughly alienated themselves through their disorder that people just don’t care if they get help or communal care. Because it’s easier to just let pwaspd fall through the cracks because they’re “evil” and “don’t deserve it”.

So now you have someone who has spent their entire lives being proven left and right that they’re not cared about so “why the fuck should they care about anyone else, care is obviously conditional on my behavior and even when I mask, I’m not good enough”. Anyways, yeah, I absolutely think prolonged emotional abuse is absolutely a valid and understandable cause of aspd when we look at how we treat kids.

On the one hand, there is a lot here I completely agree with, but I do have some points I feel there is more to/have some nuance/etc.

So yeah, absolutely agree that emotional abuse seems a much more likely culprit for the development of ASPD than others (assuming of course that we're putting these in a vacuum, because realistically most children suffering other types of abuse likely experience emotional abuse as well. Not arguing with that at all. The reasons you mention here all make a lot of sense to me, and I want to add that one known to be a big one is teasing; many researchers believe that specific experience is very damaging to a child at risk of developing ASPD. Part of that is what you mentioned - the gaslighting and general disregard for the trauma teasing can cause and the hurt associated with it makes the child feel like they will not be protected in other situations. Because the child doesn't see this the way the adults do - as something "trivial", unimportant, and incomparable to "real" trauma - they don't realize that the adults involved would respond differently to other types of pain. They just believe, given their experience, that the adults will always minimize and disregard the problems they come to them with and therefore do not bother to ask for the help they know they won't get in the future. This creates the need to be self-sufficient and protect yourself and, without intervention from adults, the ways to do that are limited and generally either violent or manipulative. Children dealing with any type of disregard for their problems may also learn that they can manipulate the adults into reacting the way they need them to - a seemingly helpless, caring, "gentle", naïve, etc. child will get more help than the average one - and take that as a normal part of life.

I'd argue that dehumanization is less related to ASPD personally, not in that it can't be but in that it isn't a specific risk factor. Generally, that dehumanization of children is universal not pointed, and the child will see that children are treated like this, but adults are not, and that will stick in their development as it does to all children. The things that are generally considered large risk factors for ASPD's development are things that lead the child to believe will be a problem their entire life, and therefore their brain develops to tolerate that. An example here is that all children deal with restrictions and rules older children and adults do not have, and cannot do things older children and adults can do. They see this and rather than learn it as an issue with society, they simply become impatient to grow up. Dehumanization is a serious trauma that arguably most kids deal with, and it needs to be addressed and fixed for the good of children as a whole, but I don't think it specifically lends itself to ASPD if that is the only kind of emotional abuse the child is dealing with (again, putting these things in unrealistic vacuums for the purpose of this conversation). Now there is a MAJOR exception to this:

Dehumanization that goes to demonization absolutely is a heavy risk factor for ASPD. If you treat a child like they are all bad, or even actually call them a demon/devil/terror/etc. frequently and consistently enough, especially if they hear you doing it behind their back to other people, then they will take that in as a part of their identity. Children don't understand the fluidity of identity, which is why their current interest will always become their favorite thing, their answer to "what do you want to be when you grow up" will be intense and certain yet change every few days/weeks, etc. so when you identify them as a bad kid or worse, then they will behave that way because they think that is what they are supposed to be. This attempt at correcting a child's behavior generally leads against its own goal and makes the child believe you *want* them to be bad because that is what you told them they are. But the general dehumanization of children is honestly an overall societal problem and considering how low the prevalence of ASPD is (even accounting for under-diagnosis), I think it's probably not a leading factor. That's just personal opinion though, a good portion of my response to this ask is.

It's really important to me that we address the belief that impulse control issues are inherent to and a major part of ASPD, because that genuinely is not the case. While it is a part of the diagnostic criteria, I'd like to point out that only 3/7 of those need to apply, and impulse control doesn't need to be one of them. Allow me to explain why this is important to me before anyone writes off this please, because this one actually is not opinion based. ASPD is well known to be a disorder heavily based on trauma in the overwhelming majority of cases - purely genetic ASPD without any trauma exists but is not common at all afaik. Discussing the majority who are traumatized, it's important to note that a lot of types of trauma *do not allow for impulse control issues*, at the expense of the child's safety and emotional/physical wellbeing. It is dangerous for a child dealing with trauma bad enough to cause a personality disorder to not be able to control themselves, and part of what ASPD is is a means of self-preservation in the face of a seemingly hostile, dangerous, and uncaring world/society. Thus the symptoms we see in ASPD - aggression, defensiveness, self-sufficiency, distrust of others, manipulation, lying, charisma, etc etc etc - are things that would have kept the child safer and get them ahead. For the children who were at risk if they were not able to control impulses, that symptom has quite a low chance of developing. Therefore, I don't think it's fair to say that that is an inherent part of ASPD. Our understanding of the neurology of ASPD is also very undeveloped - all research of ASPD up to and including current has been and continues to be biased and ableist, specifically mostly including inmates imprisoned for long sentences due to violent crimes, especially extreme ones and repeat offenders. This is naturally going to lead to the idea that ASPD is always or almost always associated with poor impulse control - because your average person with ASPD is not going to be included in these studies to get an accurate representation. Until we do get a largely unbiased understanding of ASPD, I don't think we can decisively say anything about the neurology of it, and I've seen several researchers and mental health professions alike agree with the idea that we don't know anything conclusive about that at this point for various reasons, including admittedly the lack of cooperative response many pwASPD would give a study like that.

I also have some notes on the issue of underdiagnosis, because I think it's based in a similar concept to what you said, but for the opposite reason. The people most likely to be diagnosed with ASPD are ostracized and isolated, as far as I've seen. The problem with underdiagnosis really comes in with the opposite type of ASPD which may well be the majority. That is the people who have crafted a seemingly normal adjustment to life and society - people who have friends (whether they're actual friends or just a front to seem normal), have healthy or at least long-term relationships of some variety, seem caring and kind, and are generally either well-liked or at least have no more effect on the people around them than neutral. It's not the ones who have been mistreated and openly get dismissed as bad and evil even into adulthood who don't get diagnosed, it's those of us who *don't* fit that stereotype. It's something a lot of us fight tooth and nail to get people to understand; I'm aware I seem empathetic and caring but that is both possible for pwASPD to learn to be and possible to fake. It is that dismissal and demonization of pwASPD that leads to diagnosis - but not from the people being demonized or dismissed by society.

All in all I don't entirely disagree with any point you make here and I think all of it is an important piece of the discussion of the risk factors of ASPD, but I think this understanding is missing a good amount too.

Plain text below the cut:

On the one hand, there is a lot here I completely agree with, but I do have some points I feel there is more to/have some nuance/etc.

So yeah, absolutely agree that emotional abuse seems a much more likely culprit for the development of ASPD than others (assuming of course that we're putting these in a vacuum, because realistically most children suffering other types of abuse likely experience emotional abuse as well. Not arguing with that at all. The reasons you mention here all make a lot of sense to me, and I want to add that one known to be a big one is teasing; many researchers believe that specific experience is very damaging to a child at risk of developing ASPD. Part of that is what you mentioned - the gaslighting and general disregard for the trauma teasing can cause and the hurt associated with it makes the child feel like they will not be protected in other situations. Because the child doesn't see this the way the adults do - as something "trivial", unimportant, and incomparable to "real" trauma - they don't realize that the adults involved would respond differently to other types of pain. They just believe, given their experience, that the adults will always minimize and disregard the problems they come to them with and therefore do not bother to ask for the help they know they won't get in the future. This creates the need to be self-sufficient and protect yourself and, without intervention from adults, the ways to do that are limited and generally either violent or manipulative. Children dealing with any type of disregard for their problems may also learn that they can manipulate the adults into reacting the way they need them to - a seemingly helpless, caring, "gentle", naïve, etc. child will get more help than the average one - and take that as a normal part of life.

I'd argue that dehumanization is less related to ASPD personally, not in that it can't be but in that it isn't a specific risk factor. Generally, that dehumanization of children is universal not pointed, and the child will see that children are treated like this, but adults are not, and that will stick in their development as it does to all children. The things that are generally considered large risk factors for ASPD's development are things that lead the child to believe will be a problem their entire life, and therefore their brain develops to tolerate that. An example here is that all children deal with restrictions and rules older children and adults do not have, and cannot do things older children and adults can do. They see this and rather than learn it as an issue with society, they simply become impatient to grow up. Dehumanization is a serious trauma that arguably most kids deal with, and it needs to be addressed and fixed for the good of children as a whole, but I don't think it specifically lends itself to ASPD if that is the only kind of emotional abuse the child is dealing with (again, putting these things in unrealistic vacuums for the purpose of this conversation). Now there is a MAJOR exception to this:

Dehumanization that goes to demonization absolutely is a heavy risk factor for ASPD. If you treat a child like they are all bad, or even actually call them a demon/devil/terror/etc. frequently and consistently enough, especially if they hear you doing it behind their back to other people, then they will take that in as a part of their identity. Children don't understand the fluidity of identity, which is why their current interest will always become their favorite thing, their answer to "what do you want to be when you grow up" will be intense and certain yet change every few days/weeks, etc. so when you identify them as a bad kid or worse, then they will behave that way because they think that is what they are supposed to be. This attempt at correcting a child's behavior generally leads against its own goal and makes the child believe you *want* them to be bad because that is what you told them they are. But the general dehumanization of children is honestly an overall societal problem and considering how low the prevalence of ASPD is (even accounting for under-diagnosis), I think it's probably not a leading factor. That's just personal opinion though, a good portion of my response to this ask is.

It's really important to me that we address the belief that impulse control issues are inherent to and a major part of ASPD, because that genuinely is not the case. While it is a part of the diagnostic criteria, I'd like to point out that only 3/7 of those need to apply, and impulse control doesn't need to be one of them. Allow me to explain why this is important to me before anyone writes off this please, because this one actually is not opinion based. ASPD is well known to be a disorder heavily based on trauma in the overwhelming majority of cases - purely genetic ASPD without any trauma exists but is not common at all afaik. Discussing the majority who are traumatized, it's important to note that a lot of types of trauma *do not allow for impulse control issues*, at the expense of the child's safety and emotional/physical wellbeing. It is dangerous for a child dealing with trauma bad enough to cause a personality disorder to not be able to control themselves, and part of what ASPD is is a means of self-preservation in the face of a seemingly hostile, dangerous, and uncaring world/society. Thus the symptoms we see in ASPD - aggression, defensiveness, self-sufficiency, distrust of others, manipulation, lying, charisma, etc etc etc - are things that would have kept the child safer and get them ahead. For the children who were at risk if they were not able to control impulses, that symptom has quite a low chance of developing. Therefore, I don't think it's fair to say that that is an inherent part of ASPD. Our understanding of the neurology of ASPD is also very undeveloped - all research of ASPD up to and including current has been and continues to be biased and ableist, specifically mostly including inmates imprisoned for long sentences due to violent crimes, especially extreme ones and repeat offenders. This is naturally going to lead to the idea that ASPD is always or almost always associated with poor impulse control - because your average person with ASPD is not going to be included in these studies to get an accurate representation. Until we do get a largely unbiased understanding of ASPD, I don't think we can decisively say anything about the neurology of it, and I've seen several researchers and mental health professions alike agree with the idea that we don't know anything conclusive about that at this point for various reasons, including admittedly the lack of cooperative response many pwASPD would give a study like that.

I also have some notes on the issue of underdiagnosis, because I think it's based in a similar concept to what you said, but for the opposite reason. The people most likely to be diagnosed with ASPD are ostracized and isolated, as far as I've seen. The problem with underdiagnosis really comes in with the opposite type of ASPD which may well be the majority. That is the people who have crafted a seemingly normal adjustment to life and society - people who have friends (whether they're actual friends or just a front to seem normal), have healthy or at least long-term relationships of some variety, seem caring and kind, and are generally either well-liked or at least have no more effect on the people around them than neutral. It's not the ones who have been mistreated and openly get dismissed as bad and evil even into adulthood who don't get diagnosed, it's those of us who *don't* fit that stereotype. It's something a lot of us fight tooth and nail to get people to understand; I'm aware I seem empathetic and caring but that is both possible for pwASPD to learn to be and possible to fake. It is that dismissal and demonization of pwASPD that leads to diagnosis - but not from the people being demonized or dismissed by society.

All in all I don't entirely disagree with any point you make here and I think all of it is an important piece of the discussion of the risk factors of ASPD, but I think this understanding is missing a good amount too.

[featherstorm2004]

*Edit* My bad transitions don't come out till later.

I was so scared they were gonna use different wording and leave it ambiguous, that being said for the longest time in the fandom and in the manga Shigaraki has been dehumanised by people as a monster or a thing. Either because his power or simply due to the fact he was a villain and then completely ignoring the nuance of his situation, of simultaneously being the biggest victim of hero society and also its biggest threat.

And people think he's the biggest threat because of the power of his quirks but in reality the true threat Shigaraki posed was being the manifestation of all of the issues in hero society that the hero's/people can't ignore, he is forcing the hero's and the readers to come to terms with the fact that their society is EXTREMELY flawed.

THAT'S why Shigaraki is the main big bad for the story and not All For One because despite having parallels with Shigaraki, he ultimately can't confront the main question of the narrative and that question is "what dose it mean to be a hero?" and as the protagonist and self proclaimed "number 1 hero" by the end of the story Izuku needs to answer that question. And how dose he do that? by doing the one thing all hero's have failed to do, something even All Might couldn't accomplish and that's getting through to Shigaraki and saving him.

That is something he NEEDS to accomplish for the narrative to justify him becoming the number 1 hero, and his first step being to acknowledge Shigaraki's humanity is excellent. It proves why Izuku deserves to be the protagonist because it's something no one else was capable of, even the past welders of One For All fell into this trap by referring to Shigaraki as a thing or that monster. Hell, even Grand Torino who of all people should feel the most sympathy for his situation blames Shigaraki for tarnishing his grandmothers legacy and even tries to convince Izuku to kill him.

So, overall I'm very happy with the progression of this chapter and how it's progressing Shigaraki and Izuku's character's, but I don't know how I would feel about Shigaraki being redeemed the same way someone like Toga was. Because unlike her, he isn't looking to be saved so to be saved in this single battle would feel a bit rushed since Shigaraki's problems are gonna need way more than a conversation to be solved.

But the manga is probably so going to end soon, so I think hopefully Izuku's talk with Shigaraki will cause him to pull an Sasuke and he'll run off to a different country or something to collect himself. Then the manga can end and then we could get a My Hero Academia Pt2 Naruto style. That way Horikoshi can take a nice long break and hopefully have time to plan out the next part of his story better without being rushed by needing to get a chapter out every other week.

Plus it would be cool so see aged up designs to all our favourite characters, but hey that's just my two cents on the matter.