#based on moral choices they've already made

[captainjonnitkessler]

People will dismiss the importance of interpreting the Constitution because “maybe we shouldn’t care what a bunch of racist sexist slaveowners would have thought 200 years ago”

But bring up one passage from a holy book that hasn’t aged well and people will trip all over themselves to say “well, actually, in this translation, and if you use this interpretation, and if you listen to this crackpot theory that no theologian takes seriously but that I’m going to present as established and widely accepted, then -” instead of just following through on “maybe we shouldn’t care what a bunch of racist sexist slaveowners would have thought 2000 years ago”

[0v3rcast]

Gnaw (interlude one: electro)

"It's been such a long time since we've had a little chat, my maker." Electro says, having at some point gone from 'taking your hand and awkwardly not letting go' to 'holding your hand as firmly as possible without hurting you'. "Longer still since I've felt your touch. Apologies if this makes you uncomfortable, I just really missed you."

You ask what it is that makes them presume you are their maker.

"Ah. Right. You kinda locked those memories away, didn't you? You decided to have a nice little vacation in some lame low-future setting. Let's just say for the sake of entertaining your delusions that you're hypothetically our creator."

You ask why they're just now coming into contact with you instead of earlier. Why they didn't prevent your deaths, if you're hypothetically their 'creator'.

"Perhaps this will be painful for you to hear, but until now, none of us could physically come to your aid. Myself and the others are the elements of this world, and with that much power comes a certain risk to your body.

Had I come to your aid, you'd have been vaporized by the sheer amount of energy that you could easily wield before."

They give a small, awkward bow, letting go of your hand.

"To be quite clear: I am Electro. First to fall at your command, and the one who sits at your right side. Your... right hand, if you will. Your agent of change on the face of Teyvat... and your executioner."

You ask what exactly led you to need an executioner, even if you hypothetically believe you, of all people, made Teyvat.

They give you an awkward smile as the two of you begin to travel down a small path up from the beach.

"Other creations from other worlds. Heretics, dissenters, and the occasional rebellious project here. They were rarely powerful, so it took me little time to mop them up."

Other worlds? You had them kill people from other realities?

"My maker, you had me erase realities." They grin much more honestly, the symbol replacing their pupils spinning slowly for a moment. "And I thank you for that opportunity. There's just something special about unwinding another existence and watching your less favored creations cease to be."

You're horrified by this, and nearly trip. By your orders, entire universes were erased... but why?

"Usually, they sought to construct an equal to you. Something they could use to harness your power without your guidance. The power-mad, those that saw you as an uncaring divine, those who sought to take your place..." Electro purrs, their incisors less like human teeth and more like fangs. "There was always room at the end of my blade for every single one of your lost little lambs."

You ask if you made them so bloodthirsty. So... cruel. Or if you'd done something to make them like that.

They laugh, moving in front of you to walk backwards and face you.

"Ah, you're such a delight, my maker. No, no, you aren't to blame for what I am. When each of us was 'born', you allowed us each control of who we were. You even gave us little worlds to live a formatory life on.

My world was a simple one, but one that you enjoyed - you based your vacation world on my homeworld, actually, which was super kind of you - and I grew up with a loving, healthy family. A sister and two dads. Nice people, good morals, never really wanting for anything.

It was all I ever knew, then, and it was fucking boring.

I didn't want a long, dull life with responsibilities and a spouse and 2.5 children, or some middle management position I'd wither away my not-quite-century of life tending to.

I gladly indulged myself in the world's pleasures where I could get them. I'm sure you can understand what I mean. And nothing was ever enough. There was just... something I was missing."

For a moment, you say nothing, instead focusing on navigating around a rather annoying hole in the dirt path. They've returned to walking at your side.

You ask what was missing from what already seemed like a very good life.

"Choice. The ability to say 'I am me, fuck the rules, fuck what everyone else thinks.' I fought to see what I wanted to see, to tear down what I hated, to uplift what I loved. Rules meant nothing if they weren't mine. Law meant nothing when someone else made them. The only one who owned me was me... and you."

"Once I died, and you collected my essence for use, I was given my pick of the elements. I suppose that's what happens when you die at barely 30."

You ask what it was that inspired them to be Electro, and not Pyro or Anemo.

"Simple. Lightning doesn't stay in line. It falls, and it's bright enough to leave a mark on a dull world that's just going about the motions. It makes others take notice. It says 'look at me! See what I choose to be!'

How could I be anything else, when instead I could be me without regrets?

Why would I choose to narrow myself to anything else?"

You ask what they think of the Raiden Shogun. They frown, reaching out to pick a berry from a bush and toss it to you. You pop it into your mouth gratefully.

"Ei is a disappointing Archon. Just... following in a corpse's footsteps. Barely living a life. One day she'll get tired of sealing herself up in a dumb little bubble and letting a doll play house with her people.

I can't really complain, though. She chose that, and all I want is my bearers to choose something and to hopefully enjoy it."

You ask who would be an ideal Archon to them. They shrug, kicking a stone into a small stream as you two finish crossing it.

"Honestly? Don't want one anymore. I liked Makoto because she wanted to do something fucking crazy, and was going to raise hell until she made it happen. That really spoke to me, y'know?

But she's gone, and that's fine. Shit happens, and she knew it was a possibility.

I'd rather keep doing what I'm doing and give Visions to whoever I think would be fun to watch."

You two walk in silence for a while, and then you ask just where it is you're heading, now that you've noted the way the cliffs are growing steeper and the vegetation has changed.

"Liyue. S'nice. Wish it wasn't Geo's turf, fuck'em, but if we're lucky you'll be in good hands with their people. About all I can really compliment them on."

You ask if they can stay at your side and hopefully protect you from... zealous worshippers.

They laugh.

"Hahahaha, hahaha, haha, heh, no." They suddenly deadpan, entirely serious, and stop in place. "You'd probably die. It's a terrible idea for me to protect you when you're so... squishy."

You ask for something to defend yourself with, then, if they're going to be unavailable.

They grin.

"Oh, that's easy. I got you."

They grab your wrist, and you hiss in pain as electricity courses up your left arm. There is now an Electro symbol on your inner wrist, your skin there dyed a royal purple.

"That's the sort of master key to Electro. Electro energy will come to you when you call for it, and since you're you it'll shape itself into a form you like."

They lean in to stage-whisper conspiratorially. "My favorite is a lightning bolt, because hitting someone from halfway across the room with a blast of pure 'fuck you' is always a good time, but I've seen some promising animal shapes and even a couple neat weapons."

They notice something in the distance and grimace faintly after a few moments more of walking.

"We're almost to the border between Mondstadt and Liyue. If you see Geo, tell them they still owe me for all the Electro Crystals."

You ask what that means.

Instead of answering, Electro makes a peace sign in your direction and then vanishes in a sudden crackle of static and the smell of ozone, leaving you on a road. You didn't realize you'd actually been walking alongside them all this way in the real world.

You'd thought it was all sort of a daydream. The mark on your inner wrist says otherwise.

At least you've made it this far?

((Taglist:

(Wow. There's so many of you now.

@the-dumber-scaramouche @thatdeadaquarius @ssak-i @imyme20 @fried-lotud @acacla @itz-luna @iruiji @crierofirony @itsredactedlove @sweetsthetik @leafanonsforest @oxyotl @kkazuyass @featuredtofu @resident-cryptid @d4y-dr3am3r @crimson-ashes @red1sg0n3 @the-real-fandom-person @code-roevember @yourlocalsourwolf @rhoswen-drake @minimari415

@reversearrowhead

[laerien]

While I'm not necessarily ecstatic about The Acolyte being cancelled as far as the future of Star Wars television goes, rewatching the first season of Rings of Power solidified my thoughts about why I think the former needed a bit more work.

The premises are pretty similar: a story based in a time we haven't seen yet in a world that has extensive lore but lots of grey area. Rings of Power and The Acolyte both capitalized on this to take liberties and add several new aspects; whether to genuinely add to the story or to fit into a studio's motive is anyone's guess. Both had fantastical aspects, established orders who refused to believe evil was returning, love vs duty debates, and an exploration of morality.

As a Tolkien fan, I was left feeling indifferent about RoP when it first aired. There were several things I thought would be established in canon that were suddenly changed, yet there were new additions and stories that I could still trace to very evident Tolkien motifs. While not perfect, the new characters, relationships, and storylines all sat clearly on a timeline that would undoubtedly lead to the Middle-earth we knew from the existing media. The dark was gone, it's returning, and we're going to figure out who, how, and why.

As a Star Wars fan, I thought I was very open to The Acolyte coming in and creating some new stories on the timeline. I have to give them some credit, as the majority of the characters were new to avoid blatant fanservice. However, with so much room to work with, I suppose I expected a clearer establishment of the story. A lot of time was spent with so many new characters and world building, and for what? We know Star Wars for being a battle for a better galaxy, just like the LotR franchise is a battle for a better Middle-earth. Without the war, but with knowing the Sith didn't canonically reappear until the prequel era, what was the intention of the season? The Jedi Order exists, the Sith are hinting at a return, but we're not going to figure out anything by the end of the season besides small hints that the Jedi Order is already corrupt, both Mae and Osha would give up everything we learned about them in their backstories in a single moment for something they've been fighting against the whole season, and Darth Plageius is hiding in the shadows even though there's a rule of two and Qimir's motive of having an acolyte to fulfill the rule of two is supposed to still make sense? Everything else that happened in the season is inconsequential to a larger picture, and I think that's why I struggled to understand it, despite genuinely liking several aspects of it.

I recently rewatched Rings of Power, so it's fresh and, while not without flaws, it was an excellent juxtaposition to The Acolyte. By the end of the season, RoP gave us an immensely satisfying answer to the Sauron plot point given in the first episode. It began each storyline, played adequately in each one, and wrapped up each one, all while leaving plenty of mystery in a way I found exciting. The Acolyte had appeared to have all the characters revolving around one story: the Jedi stopping a mysterious dark force from murdering more Jedi. The audience was left out of the loop on so many important things, that, by the time they were revealed, we already had more questions lined up. For all the work they did in making characters with fleshed out backstories, none of it seemed to matter when they made a choice that seemed irrelevant to it all.

I think I'm mostly annoyed that the Acolyte was cancelled because I hoped they could redeem themselves in a second season. Although, I think that annoyance is about equal to watching the finale and realizing the few mysteries solved were either full of holes or just confusing. If anyone can clearly explain to me if I'm missing something huge about the Acolyte's plot and character choices, I am very open to it. It's always exciting to see something new in the fandom, and it's always discouraging to feel like you side more with the never-happy fan trolls.

In any case, let's hope the second season of Rings of Power survives these never-happy fan trolls. I'm catching a screening tonight, but would also love to hear if people think I'm missing something terrible with this show.

[queenvhagar]

asking you specifically because it's been on my mind and i trust your opinions!!!: someone who interacted with one of my posts said that it's their belief that condal & co. are planning on doing grand reveal rhaenyra as a mad queen who gets rightfully deposed at the end of the series and we as the viewers just have to be patient and extend a little more faith. and it got me to thinking, because i enjoy questioning my saltiness every so often... do you think that kind of an ending (hypothetical as it is) would be worth it? is it a far fetched hope to have? would it make up for what what they've done to the narrative (and to rhaenyra and the greens) so far? does that kind of a twist require better writing from the outset and is it too late for them to convincingly attempt it? i have my own ideas but i would love to hear yours!!

The show seems to be at odds with itself already on this. Simultaneously it's pushing a few different but contradictory messages: women are peaceful and reasonable, while men are the violent ones who want war; Rhaenyra and the Blacks are the superior choice in this conflict based on the alternatives; Rhaenyra and Alicent have no real agency or choice except when they absolutely are responsible for their own decisions; Alicent is wrong for not supporting Rhaenyra over her sons; Rhaenyra actually and uncritically does indeed have divine right to the throne (white stag, prophecy, Viserys' words); Rhaenyra is actually maybe instead of that just so delusional and high on her own superiority complex that causing a massacre makes her feel divinely ordained.

The lack of consistency with this season and the contradictions within its own writing, along with significant, lore breaking deviations from the source material, is what is plaguing this season the most. Despite the look of wrath in 1x10, Rhaenyra has been stuck in a 1x9 space for 6/8 of the season. She regressed as a character. She does stupid things and bemoans that nobody respects her for it while not actually taking any action to earn respect. Her relationship with the prophecy and religion have gone largely unexplored until this point. The show frames all of her actions as being the morally superior choice at all times until maybe this last episode. It is devastating to the character and the season that it took 7 out of 8 episodes for her character to start being meaningfully explored, and after next week it will be years until we see the next part of her story.

For me, it is too little too late. With all the contradictions I mentioned above, their execution of any arc for her character will doubtlessly appear confused. Even if they lean into the delusional religious fanatic and later paranoid mad queen arc, they have so firmly established those other aspects of her character that it will be hard to show her shift from point A to point B over the next two seasons (and if they are as short as this one, that means likely less than 16 episodes to do the rest of her story in a convincing and meaningful way).

However their presentation of her as the new Daenerys that should have been is going to bite them in the ass if they truly attempt this arc for her. Her hardcore fans will cry misogyny like the writers themselves have cried. Her critics will be looking for a cohesive story to be told that will likely fail due to the lore and story breaking changes that have already been implemented into the show. Casual fans will think HOTD is just trying to capture the GOT hype by just redoing the Dany arc of the late seasons and make comparisons between the two.

Overall the story is a mess. I'm not sure a future mad queen arc could sufficiently redeem this adaptation given the appalling other changes made to characterization, removal of essential characters, defiance of in-universe timelines and logic, and inconsistencies. If somehow there was a new showrunner, new writing team, and GRRM stepped back in to salvage, maybe it could end decently... but it looks like after Sapochnik left the writing team will stay the same, and GRRM wants no involvement going forward with them, nor does he plan on taking part in discussions for future seasons. Basically, it's so over. And there's little hope for any other ASOIAF adaptations. They'll essentially aim for a new MCU style money maker, and that's what they'll get. Mediocrity and all.

[goatofgehenna]

I have to rant about this article and I don't know where to do it other than here. So I'm currently playing a modded version of this game, it's much better than the vanilla game by the way, but reading this article made me very angry for a multitude of reasons.

I was already kind of irritated that the game was lacking so much in the way of interpersonal relationships with npcs, like pretty much the only way you get friends in this game is going on quests you can't interact with most of the Hogwarts students or really most of the townspeople. I wish we had a little bit more of a Sims like structure going on there, like come on I want to make some acquaintances some friends some best friends some enemies some crushes I can't do any of those things unless I'm just following a quest line and because the lines of dialogue don't really have any consequences, as in I can be as mean as I want and the character just kind of takes me on the quest anyways, it makes the character interactions feel lackluster.

To comment specifically on the romance element though for which this article is addressing - it disturbed me that they were calling it unethical or morally dubious to add light romance options. Have they read the original Harry Potter? Pretty sure half of the cast had crushes by the time they were fourth year or fifth year. Have they read any kind of a teen fantasy novel, forget about a teen romance, I mean like teen adventure... literally anything.. I grew up on those kinds of books - adding romantic side plots is almost a staple to them and it's not morally dubious - it's a natural part of coming of age which is another important part of that subgenre.

The Sims has multiple age groups. You can start utilizing the flirt social interaction with a teen Sim. I have never seen anything dubious about hugging, first kiss, hand holding, going on a date with the teen age group in that game. Do they think that the Sims is unethical because they've been adding this category for over 20 years?

I mean this just isn't a real argument here - it's an aggravating cop out. I don't need this to be wizard dating Sim, I just want to be able to have more variety of meaningful interaction with characters. I want my dialogue options to actually mean something. What if I had a reputation counter or a relationship counter again like in Sims... It would mean that my dialogue choices might affect how likely characters are to open a side quest to me. Say that I was really mean to them they probably wouldn't offer me to join their secret club.. I would have to go back to them and interact with them in a nicer way to win over their favor.

This reputation thing could even extend to how the other students talk to me and engage with me in the hallways. It would make the entire world of this game feel more alive and more like you the player are in control of what's happening.

I just got very aggravated at the fact that they're essentially gaslighting people for wanting a literally normal human interaction in a totally age-appropriate for it game, even being that the main characters in this game are older than or the age of the characters in the original series of books that this game was based on when they were having these kind of first crush scenarios. Like... What the hell are they even talking about?

Okay I'm off my soapbox now lol 🤣

[masonscig]

Writer Rant: Am I the only one who finds it kind of strange how many people are complaining about how the detective didn't have a choice but to join the agency? Like I totally get thinking its too soon (I personally expected it in book 4 at least, so I have no issue with the opinion it should have happened later in the series) but there's been multiple posts I've seen of people saying they're upset that choice was forced upon them/the 'no' option didn't work, and I'm kind of wondering what they expected? Idk I feel like there's this growing trend in the IF/COG community where people are mad that they can't go completely against the status quo of the story, but like...there's a difference between taking away choices for the protag/taking control out of the players hands and some plots just *needing* to happen in order for the story to proceed as intended, especially when they relate directly to the protag and their environment and not a mostly offscreen situation like the aftermath of whether Sanja survives/the treaty is signed in Book 2.

The detective being a full time agent is a major development and would effect most if not every agency/station related scene going forward - if saying no was a legitimate option that carried over as a major choice, Mishka would basically have to write a second version of each subsequent book to account for the differences until they finally join. Not allowing that to be an option isn't taking away the players choice because it was *never* a choice to begin with, its a set part of the plot already. I get the frustration of it maybe not being the most in character, but the author in me wants to scream that it's not on the author to adapt their story to fit each OC every time, especially when that OC is made to intentionally break what 'should' be happening. For all the legitimate criticism about book 3 that I've seen, this is the one that I genuinely Do Not Understand unless there's just a lot of folks in the fandom without experience writing longer, connective works, because they either don't recognize or respect just *how much* would have to change going forward based on that one call.

i completely get where you're coming from, i really do, but i have to disagree with some points here

i think that the reason people are upset is because mis/hka has like. stripped the agency (haha no pun intended) from the mc but it doesn't quite feel as intentional as she wanted it to be – (idk if i'm explaining correctly bc it makes sense in my head) let's say you're playing with an mc that has little to no agency points, they've fucked up majorly at every stat check (murphy got away, sanja died, falk didn't sign the treaty, falk was hostile, fucked up at the auction), and they're scared of supernaturals? in what world would that qualify the mc for an agency position?

if you're thinking "okay well, maybe it's because the agency is trying to keep a close watch on the mc" – okay, well, mis/hka isn't going to flesh out the idea of the agency being evil or even explicitly morally grey. she's said herself in asks before that the agency are the "good guys" (i don't feel like looking for it lmao if you do, godspeed. there's a lot of asks to sift through) – so the choice just doesn't make sense unless she's been playing the absolute longest con and they'll be revealed to be the true antagonists in the end.

if they are, i'll record myself a jean jacket with no sauce :) xoxo

but like others have said before, mis/hka is writing this series as a utopia of sorts – the mc is a fucking cop, working for a federal agency. and they're presented as the good guys. that alone means that any weird things that they do are going to be pushed aside and blamed on an "individual" rather than the "structure" itself, if that makes sense. (an option available towards the end of book 3 depending on what route you're on is being able to erase bobby's memories if they find out about supernaturals. a cop? possibly forcibly suppressing a journalist? yeah. no thought put into that option.)

what i'm getting at is, she's stripping the choice to join the agency from the mc's who don't want it, and similarly, from what she's shown us, it's not going to amount to anything, because she doesn't seem to criticize any of the systems she's established in a larger sense outside of the mc's dialogue. so if that doesn't matter, then what are the mc's working towards? <- this is a rhetorical question, food for thought if you will LMAO

sorry this is all over the place, but to tie it all back together, i think that yes, if your oc doesn't fit the universe, i completely agree – you can't blame the author for not fulfilling every fantasy you have about the series – but similarly, i think that if mis/hka is giving us the option to make mc's who are untrustworthy of the agency, it's her job to follow through with that to some degree. and that means not just pandering to mcs that love their job, love being a cop, love supernaturals, love the agency, always pass stat checks, etc.

all of my thoughts are based on things she's said about her own story, and how i think that contradicts some ideas she may be unintentionally setting up.

but again, i totally get where ur coming from – branching stories are difficult, i just think that if you're going to offer options in a story, then choices should matter, and they feel like they don't in b3. i get that things need to happen in order for the story to progress, but some of these choices the mc is able to make feels like dead ends? like it's not going anywhere

[magmacannon]

wake up ROMAN it's time for ROUND TWO 35, 40, 45, 54-57

HWUH GOOD MORNING - it's afternoon where I am rn pff

35. What is the smallest, morally questionable choice they’ve made?

To him it honestly might have been Thinking About kissing John before asking Vince if that was okay, but since that was just thoughts and wasn't an actual action he took I think it's the mild manipulation of casting sending to Blu to get him back in the adventuring group and saying that Baster needed him.

Potentially trying to go adventuring while having a family for the sake of friends far moreso than money is also morally questionable but that feels bigger.

40. How do they respond to a loose handshake? What goes through their head?

<:/ as an emotion and the thought of "man that was disappointing. Hope they're feeling alright/not a hater"

45. What’s something unimportant / frivolous that they hate passionately?

Sports team drama and patriotism... it's loud and annoying and causes problems!!! Not to mention how many people he knew went to the ER because of after-game shenanigans.

54. What’s their instinct in a fight / flight / freeze / fawn situation?

Roman fluctuates between fight and fawn almost exclusively, with more fawn probability the more he likes you and/or is trying to make a good impression.

55. What’s something they’re expected to enjoy based on their hobbies / profession that they actually dislike / hate?

😔😔😔😔war..................... He really isn't a fan of it despite the degree in War Magic and his propensity for exploding things and fighting with Deadly Spells. Hobby-wise, Roman also hasn't historically been a fan of accessorizing his wizard robes (mainly bc he grew up shy of his appearance and didn't feel the need to be too flashy given where he lives! This was probably already in the process of changing before he decided to go adventuring bc his husband started to jazz him up.)

56. If they’re scared, who do they want comfort from? Does this answer change depending on the type of fear?

In most cases he wants comfort from Vince bc Vince is the person who makes him feel the most safe 99% of the time. There's once and a while where he wishes he lived closer to his parents because that's a different sort of comfort (less effective usually, though), and when he's not got Vince around he'll want to talk to a friend about it, but if he feels like he'll be ridiculed then he'll keep it to himself and Stew in it.

57. What’s a simple daily activity / motion that they mess up often?

Running and writing neatly... he has poor running technique (and doesn't!!! want to learn a better one), and unless he's really focusing in his handwriting's pretty messy. Roman might be a bit clumsy as well, all things considered (he likely needs glasses)

58. How many hobbies have they attempted to have over their lifetime? Is there a common theme?

He's approaching 40 years old so he's tried quite a few things, though I don't know if Roman would count most of them as 'hobbies' just because they've been so sparing - mainly things like foraging, boating, a few strength-type exercises while in Tzeraz, and other outdoorsy stuff that he's enjoyed but not really continued to do. Adventuring could also be considered a hobby of his since he's done that on and off throughout his life! A lot of them are more 'exciting' than what he views as his regular everyday life stuff (though within that there's baking/cooking, alchemy, and spell writing/editing as hobbies), and many of them have to do with a Tzeraz-style understanding of Survival Skills (which he never got good at).

[chainofclovers]

I guess the main reason I'm so uncomfortable with the Michelle dating her therapist thing, is that the show had done such a good job portraying her with a lot of empathy, and this whole situation makes her a lot more unsympathetic, at least in most fans' eyes (many of whom had villainised her even before this)

I guess this is an opportunity to find out how far sympathy and empathy go! I know a lot of people already dislike Michelle, for shipping reasons or otherwise. But they gotta tell the story they've been planning on telling, and if an audience is fairweather about their sympathy for a character who's in a morally murky situation, that says more about our society (and I mean no judgment on whether someone decides to judge her for this, it's just true that we're in a society) than it says about whether the writers made a "bad" choice in telling a particular story.

Pretty much every character on this show is a person with a lot of goodness in them who nonetheless experiences resentments, hunger for power, biases based on their cultural identities, inconvenient sexual attractions, etc. I don't see why Michelle should be any different.

Personally, I think it's possible to be like "Ma'am. Your THERAPIST? And you were too scared to tell Ted before you brought this new dude around your SON?" but still appreciate the emotional burden Michelle bore during her marriage with Ted, and appreciate that Michelle, like anyone, is not immune to the emotional pull of circumstances that might not be perfectly healthy. Nothing about the story--which we still have barely any context for--diminishes her having been a good mom to Henry, her having been someone who used to genuinely love Ted, etc. The therapist thing is a potential complication for some of her feelings at the end of the marriage, but we already knew from Ted that there were some less-than-ideal ethics happening there and that he regrets going for joint counseling with someone who was already treating his wife.

If Michelle was my personal friend, I'd think she was treading in some dangerous waters, but I wouldn't question whether I'd been wrong to appreciate all the good qualities she'd displayed in the past and presumably still retains.

[bitchfitch]

I've spent a lot of words on describing Guli'vany's heartache over the whole "Best friend and fiance leaving zer to go fuck a pirate" thing and Lordakai's "lover turned out to already be engaged and definitely in love with zer best friend but ze wants to try and make things work with him because they Definitely have something too" thing but like. I've had a lot of Difficulty putting Toi'uhla's side of things into words.

Ze loves Lordakai. Plain and easy. No asterisks. Ze loves Guli'vany. Plain, easy no asterisks. They're both people who are Massively important to zer and it's Really hard to define zer feelings about Guli'vany.

Bc like, They're best friends, they've been inseparable since they met as kids and Toi'uhla never once dreaded the idea of marrying Guli'vany because it was zer. Ze would have been Perfectly happy to take their relationship in that more explicitly romantic direction. And the only reason the two of them Weren't already married when the story starts is that the being together was very much Expected of them by everyone around them based on their titles alone.

It's a sorta social rule for nobles like them to have a period of a few years after they reach adulthood to try and find a partner outside of the nobility, and once that period was up, to marry whichever other noble was most convenient. And both Guli'vany and Toi'uhla wanted to take that time to make sure they weren't rushing into anything and would both be happy in what was to come.

Which was all good, until Toi'uhla was given the chance to see a life far beyond what ze had ever known. Ze loves Guli'vany. Ze will Always love Guli'vany and would do anything for zer. But Lordakai was something New and brilliant and it was so easy for zer to fall in love with him and his way of being too.

The guilt was indescribable. Ze's impulsive and headstrong and once ze starts doing ze stops thinking. And it was all one mistake after another. until ze was finally home and had to face zer Fiance after a month in the arms of another.

Guli'vany was too kind. Ze wasn't mad, how could ze be? They'd always said they would look for love elsewhere before their wedding, if Toi'uhla had found zers with Lordakai... Who was Guli'vany to deny them?

Toi'uhla wasn't blind to zer pain, Guli'vany was a politician to the very bone and could smile through the worst news imaginable. But ze was so fucking hopeful, that Maybe, ze wouldn't have to choose. Guli'vany convinced zer to try and contact Lordakai even if Toi'uhla's own anxiety stopped zer from ever sending the letters.

When ze did talk about it with Lordakai... He had no interest in sharing. Of course he didn't. Toi'uhla agreed to his terms, knowing ze was lying about him having zer heart fully. He wouldn't know what happened between zer and guli'vany. Anything they did could be written off as being part of their arranged marriage.

and it worked like that for months. until the wedding day was drawing near and Dgow'vany asked to speak with Toi'uhla. Ze was Guli'vany's dam and the crown monarch of their entire species. Ze spoke up because ze knew Guli'vany never would.

Guli'vany loved zer so, so much, and zer relationship with Lordakai caused so much grief, and hurt and was what was making Guli'vany draw away from zer. Dgow'vany wouldn't give zer blessing to a marriage that would only bring zer child pain. Toi'uhla was free to make zer own choice, but it was Very clear that giving up Guli'vany's hand meant giving up zer roll as lord, and potentially zer place within the flock entirely. Ze had a duty, and playing at some grand idea of romance with that pirate was getting in the way.

Toi'uhla wished the decision had been harder. It didn't matter how ze spun it. Zer relationship with Lordakai was always going to be temporary. He was a violent criminal with his morals scribbled on a deck of cards. It didn't matter how happy he made zer in the few private moments they'd been able to steal, or how much his letters warmed zer. There was no future for them that Toi'uhla could see, even if ze desperately wanted there to be. Beyond that, Lordakai could handle himself.

Ze wrote the letter then in there in Dgow'vany's study, poured zer heart out like ze was gnawing off a leg stuck in a trap. And had it ready to be sent before Dgow'vany could doubt zer commitment a moment longer. Guli'vany needed zer more than Lordakai did.

Toi'uhla hoped, in some vain selfish way that ze and Lordakai would meet again, and would be able to rekindle whatever was left in their broken hearts when it was safe for them to do so. because ze really did love him.

[wilkers1]

i agree completely, since the whole game is meant to be framed as a satire and criticism of the genre, but not as a condemnation. it's not far-fetched to see this story as "this is a correct way to play" when reading only the surface-level idea of "you can kill and you can spare", specially if you've gotten spoilers beforehand (backseating for this game is still a large problem among people who gets overly excited about suggesting the game even before people actually get to play), but the whole idea of the genocide route is to try on a lens into the feeling of detachment one can get as they become familiar with the story. it literally gets spelled out loud when you get to the point where Flowey exposes you to his story.

you can frame the comparison while assuming a case where one doesn't have prior context of the game itself besides previous games they've played. you start-off not knowing which door is right, so you just follow your assumptions based on what you've known beforehand about games you have played, kill what scares, befriend what amuses, or any combination of whatever you think is right for you. by the time you're nearing to finish your first playthrough, you're still detached from the world, so the game then confronts you about the idea that your actions in the game have influence in the world within the game, like sure, you've engaged with the story, but you're not actually treating it as alive.

so like, crazy idea, but what if you just ask the player to dialogue with the artwork, and not just at it? you're familiar with the rules, you're familiar with this world, and here i'm just telling you what it means or what your actions might have been. i won't judge just yet, but that could have been better. so i propose this: you're free to go, and you can resume with whatever you're doing, and get your ending with what you've learned. but once you finish, let's run it all the way back, but this time, you listen to what it has to say. do we have a deal? see you soon.", is what the Last Corridor has to say, and all subsequent runs assumes that you already know from this conversation and starts simply giving pep talks about what you've been up to.

for as long as you keep coming back, you're still talking, there are new things to say, combinations you haven't seen before, re-contextualization of your thoughts, new ideas to build upon what you've learned. the extreme of the runs was never never meant to be the be-all-end-all conclusion to deem something as always correct, but a conclusion where you bid your farewell when you decide you have finished learning from the story.

with that context, the time where you start trying out the other extreme, you're showing your detachment from it, you've learned what it had to say, but you still want more from it, it has nothing more to show you, so it takes the role of trying to bid you the farewell, but you're no longer treating it as alive to listen, you need to know what happens after everything because you love this game.

what follows is that the main critique of the game is not that what people do in games is morally wrong or that there is a correct way to play, anyone can do a game where you don't kill anyone, that is why choices in games are restrictive, anyone can do a game where there is a correct way to play, that's why achievements are made. the real critique is that role-playing games lacks dialogue.

for an easier way to frame this, think of what the game could have looked like if it instead was a tabletop rpg, and the authors are the game masters, then run it all the way back and read this again.

As much as i do enjoy the kind of story undertale presents and i do enjoy the gameplay, i do ultimately come away with feeling like ultimately, part of the message of the work is that there is a correct way and an incorrect way of engaging with video games as art, and that the game’s creator is the one who sets that correct path. Undertale is, in part, about teaching you to engage with undertale correctly, and punishing you with a far worse time if you don’t engage with it the way the author wants you to. It’s about playing the role in the stage play correctly. Saying the right things to the characters you interact with.

[someheartlesslady]

3. How often do they show their genuine emotions to others versus just the audience knowing?

5. Can they cry on command? If so, what do they think about to make it happen?

6. What's their favorite [insert anything] that they've never recommended to anyone before?

10. What fact do they excitedly tell everyone about at every opportunity?

12. What's something that makes them laugh every single time? Be specific!

14. How do they put out a candle?

21. What common etiquette do they disagree with? Do they still follow it?

24. Did they take a cookie from the cookie jar? What kind of cookie was it?

25. What subject/topic do they know a lot about that's completely useless to the direct plot?

29. How do they respond when someone doesn't believe them?

35. What is the smallest, morally questionable choice they've made?

41. What phrases, pronunciation or mannerisms did they pick up from someone/somewhere else? (Samantha)

3. "My emotions are sleepy and relaxed, so I think I'm doing a pretty good job..."

5. "Mmm, does yawning really good count? I get tears up there sometimes, if I get a REALLY good yawn going..."

6. "Hmmm... Sleeping in the boiler room. In the winter."

10. "Pillows and stuffed animals are the same thing, someone just decided one should be cute." This is a science fact that she rambles sometimes.

12. "Garfield. Silly cat~"

14. "Let it burn out. Fire is pretty."

21. "Naps are based. We should all nap more. Lemme nap in class, I'm already passing, Professor X."

24. "Snickerdoodle."

25. "I surprise people with my sleight-of-sleeve, a lot." She produces a deck of cards from her covered hand... That specific trick is possibly less impressive with her giant sweater.

29. "I make them carry me to the thing they don't believe!"

35. "Sleeping on Penny's computer. It's warm."

41. "People say I talk like my dad? I dunno, we have kinda different accents."

[wonda-cat]

A Dismantling of c!Phil's "Advice" to c!Tommy (And Why It's Worse Than You Think)

Since Tommyinnit's last lore stream, I've seen a lot of discussion surrounding the (admittedly) short segment at the start between c!Phil and c!Tommy. The general consensus seems to be that the advice was... questionable, at best.

And while this is true for the most part, there are a few specific moments that are deeply concerning in their implications; especially for someone like c!Tommy to internalize.

I'll be explaining why, starting with the more minor, less destructive aspects of their interaction first before moving on.

(Note: All names mentioned will refer to the characters unless stated otherwise. I'll also be approaching this with a level of care for Phil's character. It's completely understandable why he believes certain things he does and I will be highlighting this later on in the post.)

Scolding and Judgement

Philza's first response to disagreement, "unfavorable" perspectives, or mistakes is usually to lecture the individual. It's a big part of his characterization. Chastising individuals for their actions can be reasonable, especially if he is also somewhat responsible for them (ie. the person scolded is his son, housemate, or subordinate.)

However, what is less reasonable is scolding someone for what they think, and not the actions they take.

This becomes especially troubling when the thoughts that Phil demeans come from an individual looking for reassurance. That's not to say that one isn't allowed to be criticized for their thoughts, but Tommy's specific scenario isn't regarding a flawed personal ideology or set of morals.

Tommy went to Phil and confided in him. He confessed to something he thought (and never acted on) and explained that he felt guilty for it; that he thought he was a bad friend. Not even for doing something wrong, but for hesitating, when made to act in an extremely stressful situation.

It's also important to note that Tommy is an unreliable narrator in this scene. The hesitation he mentions during the Final Disc Confrontation was caused by Tubbo explicitly telling Tommy to take the discs and run, something which Tommy considered briefly and almost immediately went against. Phil doesn't know this, thus, his perspective is skewed against Tommy, only working off his word.

Even still, Phil knows that Tommy was made to choose between the discs and Tubbo under a threat of death. This hesitation is extremely natural, but instead of showing compassion for why Tommy would react as he did, he immediately jumped to scolding him and insinuating that he was indeed a bad friend to Tubbo, just for expressing a single thought; a hesitation that he never acted on.

When an individual comes to someone with thoughts they've had that bring them shame or guilt, what they need is reassurance. They need to be told that it will always be their actions that define who they are, not what they consider and turn away from. They need to be told they were correct for making the right choice, especially if these thoughts were tempting or hard to refuse.

Tommy doesn't need to be told that these thoughts are wrong and that choosing the discs over Tubbo is bad. He knows this. That's why he feels guilty.

This guilt should never be validated, especially when it's not constructive or helpful. It's something Tommy's already aware of and has already fought against.

Thoughts are suggestions, not cementations of moral character. And many struggle with thoughts they cannot control or influence. They should never be made to feel guilty for the ideas that appear, which they refuse to entertain.

Repeated Lessons

After Phil learns of Tommy's hesitation, he insists that Tommy needs to learn his lesson; that the individual will always come before material possessions. Mind you, this entire lesson is based on a single moment of hesitation, after which Tommy put Tubbo first in the end.

This is not something Tommy needs to learn. He's already shown that he will always put individuals before possessions.

In fact, this is all Tommy has ever done. It was a big component to his first arc, as far back as early Season One, where he gave up his discs for L'Manburg's freedom. (Whoops, my hand slipped. Anyway, here's an entire compilation of Tommy giving up the things he cares about for the people he loves.)

Unfortunately, Tommy is an unreliable narrator yet again, as he insists he needs to finally learn to "not care as much about possessions." This guilt at keeping his possessions goes a bit deeper than just his relationship with Tubbo. He's been told repeatedly since the start of Season Two that he's selfish for loving things and wanting to keep them.

Finding a way to detach himself from his material items is also a strategy to keep Dream from using his attachments against him again. Now that he's been freed from prison, this fear is at an all-time high. He knows it's only a matter of time before the things he's been free to love are taken away. He's trying to find a way to keep himself safe, emotionally speaking.

Now, it's not exactly Phil's fault for not noticing this. He doesn't know the extent of exile and he doesn't know what Tommy's motives are for seeking this detachment. However, what is an issue is assuming that Tommy doesn't understand or that he still hasn't learned (even though he knows Tommy gave up his discs for Tubbo.)

Tommy also went into this conversation clearly expressing an understanding of the lesson before Phil even tries to teach it to him. It's frustrating not only from Tommy's perspective but from an audience perspective in turn. We as an audience know that Tommy has learned this lesson again and again and again, repeatedly.

We know he understands it and we as the audience understand the message just as much, if not more. So when Tommy is talked down to, we are talked down to as well.

That's not even mentioning Phil's repeated problem with "teaching" someone something and then, when asked about it, he almost outright refuses to say what that message is and how what he did reinforces that. With L'Manburg, he tells Ghostbur he'll "understand someday." With his lesson to Tommy at the furnace, he only says, "It'll come to you eventually."

Lecturing becomes hollow if the lecturer refuses to be understood and uses his teaching as an excuse to exert punishment, rather than to be constructive.

"Putting Up"

When Phil suggests taking down the walls he helped set up, Tommy explains that they keep him safe, remind him of L'Manburg, and bring him comfort.

To which Phil curtly replies and tells Tommy he was just pretending to go along with it and help because he thought it would make him happy. That he really thought the walls were useless and wouldn't do shit to stop Dream. That he was just "putting up with it" for Tommy. On the surface, this seems well-intentioned.

Phil did something to make Tommy happy and put his own thoughts to the side for him. However, by telling Tommy his true thoughts and revealing he was "putting up" with the situation, it has the opposite effect. This reveals to Tommy that Phil will actively lie to him to spare his feelings and isn't being his genuine self around him.

It tells Tommy that he doesn't value him enough to be truthful with him and can make him hesitant to speak with Phil about anything. He'll be stuck wondering what Phil really thinks about any situation, any thought, any plan. It also treats him as if he's not capable of handling rejection, disagreement, or negative feedback.

Not only that, but by telling Tommy what he originally thought anyway, he still revealed the very thing he expected to hurt Tommy. Of course, Phil had good intentions, but it's important to remember that just because someone claims to have done something out of goodness or to protect someone else, doesn't negate their hurtful words or actions.

Projective Presumption and Toxic Positivity

Tommy tells Phil that he misses L'Manburg. It's an off-hand comment he makes as he's doing the stone task Phil laid out for him. Phil then cuts in and says, "You know what you really miss about L'Manburg?" He then explains what he thinks Tommy is actually feeling and thinking, but frames it as if it's an obvious reality, not one based on his own flawed presumptions.

This practice is generally damaging, as it not only shuts Tommy out of the discussion of his own thoughts and feelings but leaves it up to Phil to explain to Tommy something about himself that may not even be true. It also assumes that Tommy isn't competent or self-aware enough to come to his own conclusions about his internal self. It also robs Tommy the opportunity to come to these conclusions himself, as Phil could've just asked Tommy what it was about L'Manburg that he missed.

It's important to mention that this too is also done out of good intentions. Phil is trying to make a connection with Tommy and figure out how he feels. It just isn't the greatest way to go about it.

Another damaging practice Phil employs is toxic positivity. However, this issue is more rooted in a flawed personal mindset, rather than a communication fault. He recommends Tommy take down his walls, take off his armor, and stop worrying so much; to focus more on bettering himself and growing as a person. He also says he knows Tommy is strong and more than capable of handling Dream in a fight.

This, unfortunately, is some of the worst advice Tommy could receive. Dream is dangerous and hyper-competent. Not only that, but he is currently hunting Tommy down in order to hurt him. He's actively trying to make Tommy think he's losing his mind.

Ignoring that the ability to grow or feel safe in this environment is impossible, Tommy following this advice not only endangers himself but it works to actively brush Tommy's concerns out the door. It's also worth mentioning that Phil most likely perceives Dream as a non-threat due to a lack of knowledge about exile, as well as not knowing about Punz's armor gift. He also comments about how he'd be able to take on Dream in a fight.

Even with this unknowing underestimation, Phil unintentionally sets Tommy up for failure. We as the audience know that Tommy is not capable of physically standing up to Dream. We know that if Tommy ever heeds this advice, he will try to fight Dream and lose.

It also, unfortunately, frames all of Tommy's previous failures to his abuser as Tommy simply... not being strong enough to withstand it.

At the end of the day, this advice is still non-constructive, disregarding its emotional and physical repercussions. Tommy is still in active danger, regardless of what he chooses to do. It doesn't matter what others recommend doing, Tommy is in a truly powerless situation that he has no way of changing.

The only thing he can do now is stick close to people he trusts and do everything he can to protect himself. Removing his walls and putting his guard down is the last thing he should be doing. Then there's the book Phil gave Tommy, in the hopes it would lift his spirits.

Its contents, while well-written and well-intentioned, are the hollow equivalent to a tacky 'Live, Laugh, Love' shelf accessory. Tommy appreciates it, of course, because the message is nice and Tommy desperately needs affirmation. However, it, like the above advice, is not constructive.

Offering positivity or recommending positive thinking, while stemming from goodness, often have the complete opposite effect on those who are struggling. It can lead the individual to feel guilty or confused about their negative emotions. It creates a disconnect between them and the people they're seeking comfort or validation from.

It can cause the individual to feel shameful when they fail to keep in line with positive thinking. It also encourages denial, stuffing, or bottling up emotions in favor of forcing positive thinking. Negative emotions need to be felt and worked through before actual positivity can be achieved.

Pushing them aside doesn't diminish or remove them; it hides them.

Minimization and Familiar Destruction

There's something very concerning about the ease it takes for Phil to destroy something of Tommy's. From his perspective, it makes sense. Phil has lived an immortal's life, watching civilizations and structures rise and fall throughout history.

The existence of something so meager is insignificant to him. He's trying to get Tommy to see the lesson he's teaching from his perspective and feel its insignificance with him. Unfortunately, Phil refuses to see how and why this hurts Tommy.

The item was given to Phil with confidence because Tommy felt safe enough to hand over something valuable. A safety that is instantly crushed once Phil destroys it. This destruction is almost entirely framed as a punishment (for Tommy's hesitation) and is used as an example for the coming lesson.

Destruction of property as punishments or 'teaching' examples is one of the most prominent and long-enduring patterns of abuse Tommy has experienced, especially during the Exile Arc. It was used as a method to control him, so seeing such a clear mirror of this behavior in Phil deeply affects him.

Regardless of Phil knowing nothing of exile, it is still a terrible thing to destroy the property of another person (even if the individual has no trauma associated with the destruction of property.) Especially something as significant as a gift from a deceased friend. Something that is also extremely useful, which could've been used to save his life.

Although to be fair to Phil again, he didn't know the significance of it. (But even if he did, I doubt it would change his willingness to destroy it. He did say it was "just an item" after all.)

After Philza destroys the object and Tommy understandably gets upset, he mocks him, "Oh no. You're okay. It's an item." He later also says, "Do you even care that the apple's gone now? . . . Do you even care? It's gone. Who cares. It's gone."

This tactic is called Minimization. As the name implies, the person using this will attempt to minimize their actions or another person's concerns in order to absolve themselves of responsibility or discomfort. Another popular example is telling someone, "Other people have it worse" when they bring up something they struggle with.

It's a worthless sentiment, usually derived when an individual either doesn't see the situation as important or doesn't want to deal with the fallout of a person's emotional response. It makes the person targeted with these responses feel like their issues are unimportant, their emotions are a burden to other people, or as if they're overreacting. None of these are true.

The best way to combat something like this is to either write down or state exactly what happened in the situation and exactly what's significant about it. The person minimizing doesn't need to know any of these details. Do not confront them; they are likely to minimize again.

The individual affected just needs to hold onto the reality they're experiencing or tell someone they trust. Sometimes it's extremely sobering to have your experiences or feelings corroborated by someone who refuses to distort reality.

The Attachment-Cutting Technique

(This specific moment was so shocking to me that it became the entire reason I wrote this essay. It is the most concerning aspect of Phil's advice and I needed to explain publicly why this bothers me so much.)

In order to 'help' Tommy overcome his attachment problem, Phil sets up an exercise where Tommy would break a slab of stone, turn it into cobblestone, heat it in a furnace until it returns to its base state, then repeat this process. Over and over and over, until it "becomes clear to him."

Whether intentional or not, Phil employs the same tactic Dream used in exile against Tommy, just on a much smaller scale and with a slightly different motive.

The technique is called Attachment-Cutting; where a third party makes an individual do a repeated task (either emotionally or laboriously taxing), in order to destroy that progress at the end of each session and repeat the task over again, without end. Its purpose is to force the target into a state of perpetual exhaustion. It removes emotional value from personal possessions and causes the individual to gradually view their efforts and creations as fundamentally worthless.

It destroys the person's individuality and robs them of a motivation to express themselves through their work. It's meant to make the affected individual reliant on the third party to tell them how and when to express themselves; to tell them where they should use their efforts (usually this third party's motive is to use these efforts selfishly, for their own causes.) It's a control tactic at its most basic level.

Dream wasn't forcing Tommy to create new tools, armor, and other important items just to destroy them (and force him to do it all again) for no reason. Its purpose was calculated, following the Attachment-Cutting abuse technique to a T.

Phil, on the other hand, isn't doing this maliciously, and certainly not at the same level Dream was. Tommy isn't being forced to do this. He can stop at any time. It was merely a suggestion after Tommy asked to become detached.

The actual issue with this is that Phil is unintentionally suggesting Tommy take up a self-destructive practice in order to learn his "lesson." (This lesson being... correcting Tommy's attachment to possessions because he hesitated. Which unfortunately insinuates that Phil... doesn't want him to hesitate. Even though an expectation like that isn't human. People hesitate, even when they've already made up their minds.)

Tommy is unknowingly echoing a practice his abuser forced him to do every single day in exile, with Phil's help. Needless to say, this tactic is not helpful and it certainly isn't healthy. I've seen it mentioned a few times before that Tommy needs to let go of his attachments in order to heal (as Phil was also suggesting.)

This is extremely wrong on many, many levels. It is in human nature to grow emotionally attached to physical possessions (especially if it's something you made. Even more so if it's creative or expressive.) Tommy is a naturally emotional and caring person.

His love for people, pets, items, and places is so deeply ingrained in his person that it is nothing short of cruel to expect him to uproot this part of himself. He is not selfish for wanting to keep something he made, something he earned, or something he's grown to love. This becomes even more important when you consider his position as a victim of abuse.

Keeping material items and possessions that make you happy is not only a completely harmless coping mechanism, it is also essential for healing. Victims of abuse who tend to have their possessions targeted with destruction will never heal from this specific trauma if they refuse to keep the things they care for.

In fact, forcing themselves to remove care for attachments is an example of an unhealthy coping mechanism (which Phil is unfortunately enabling in Tommy.) When an individual becomes a victim of abuse, it's common to find themselves bending to the will of their abuser. They will be forced to hide or give away the items they treasure because their abuser doesn't like them.

They will be unable to express themselves with the way they dress, the way they decorate their house, the way they create art. All of it will be disassembled or re-shaped to fit the whims of their abuser. It is essential, that after leaving this harmful environment, they reclaim this mode of expression.

That they dress how they want to, decorate how they want to, express themselves how they want to. They heal when they can reflect their inner-self outwardly; where the fear of having their expression destroyed becomes a distant memory.

Where the only person considered selfish is not the one who holds onto what they love, but the one who seeks to destroy it.

[briefcasejuice]

i do agree that the line might not have been said out of genuine desire. i've talked about matt's vulnerability in relation to his glasses and technique when questioning or speaking to his clients in posts unrelated but in relation to your idea of whether or not the matt we know would never have told karen something that vulnerable within such little time of knowing each other should it have been a true statement, i actually do think he could have depending on his circumstance in the moment (for example: if he'd had a particularly hard day and didn't have the energy to keep his walls up) or maybe even depending on how detailed or specific he would be willing get about the statement.

in 1.02 he finds himself in an especially vulnerable circumstance when he's beaten half to death and is being cared for by claire. something i find especially interesting about this episode is how expertly he tears his walls down for her. she doesn't know his name yet she knows everything about him in terms of his complex morality and the reasoning behind every choice he's made up to the moment he's found in that dumpster in relation to his father. matt isn't an inherently closed off person; that comes later when his traumas are dug up due to the events of later season one and onward after which he closes in on himself and isolates himself from first his friends then ideas of humanity due to his hyperfixation on the events of season three.

i don't think it's fair to say that he explains more about his abilities to karen than he does to foggy. in 1.10, with the changing of lighting through matt's windows, it's implied that since matt wakes that morning till when foggy leaves that night, they've been talking all day. multiple scenes begin mid conversation, the one in which matt details his abilities to foggy being one of them. foggy is furious and as a result is refusing to properly digest the information matt tells him off screen and says, "that's not-- are you even listening to me?" when foggy rebuts unfairly to his recount. i am really not a fan of his episode; a lot of foggy's reactions to learning about matt's abilities are just straight up ableist and i often also think of them as a mischaracterisation because even though we've seen foggy upset before, we've never seen him make remarks like that. @mattmurdockspainkink has a post that goes much more into detail about how kind of awful foggy's lines were written in that episode. there had to be a better way to express his emotion.

anyway, going further, i hate the conversation he has with karen even more because it goes multiple steps further and has matt making ableist remarks about his accessibility devices and how him using them, some of them being thousand fucking dollar equipment, is just an 'act'. i've detailed this at the end of a post mainly about comic!matt's blindness in relation to his heroic identity but holy shit does that remark make my blood boil. he has never even shown signs of even harbouring any kind of internal ableism before -- in fact, he seems quite secure in his identity as a blind person so the idea of internalised ableism was ruled out and i've been thinking of it as a mischaracterisation. he is a completely blind character, he can't see anything, and it's demonstrated in that very same episode in which he has lost his hearing and his ability to smell.

the idea of putting faith in that scene makes me extremely weary considering its already foundation-less base when it comes to his character but anyway, the post wasn't about his any of that, it was about his disability and the way in which some of the fanbase handles it. both ideas that he wants to see the sky again and is confident in his blindness does and deserves to coexist.

anyway i think matt should be allowed to wish to see the sky one more time without certain daredevil fanfiction writers taking it as an insecurity in his disability or a wish to not be blind anymore

[rainofaugustsith]

Heads up to anyone still trying to get a Sith Inquisitor to a specific Nox/Imperius/Occlus title or get an alignment to earn those achievements or the DS/LS gear that is alignment dependent: as per the devs, it appears that they may be resetting everyone's alignment in 7.0 and only decisions will count for DS/LS status. They are also removing the LS/DS alignment toggle.

So if you want to add some of that alignment - dependent armor or gear to a character it should probably be added now. From the devs:

What will happen to the Dark vs Light system?

First, let’s clarify exactly what we’re talking about with the Dark vs. Light system. The individual character alignment system, where morality choices made throughout the story in conversations or via the Diplomacy crew skill in order to move a character’s alignment between Dark and Light sides of the Force, will remain unchanged. The server-wide Dark vs Light meter which would pop up every so often to reflect the balance in the galaxy will be removed. The small alignment widget in the UI will be removed The alignment choice every time group finder pops will be removed The DvL bosses that spawned in the world when one side was victorious will be removed temporarily. We plan on re-introducing them in a future update. The DvL rewards vendors will remain in place on both Fleets To compensate for the loss of constant alignment gain, character alignment levels and thresholds will revert to pre-Dark vs. Light system totals In a way I think this is good that alignment is to be based on actual choices- I mean Viri is a Dark V and she certainly has never made decisions that reflect that. But on the other hand resetting the alignments people already have completely sucks. Aaaand that affects combat choices they've been touting so heavily. Want a Jedi with Sith skills? They have already said you will need to get to DS/LS V to unlock the other side's skills. I don't think anyone who has been through the story already can make enough decisions to do that. So kiss goodbye to that possibility for characters who already through the story I guess, unless you're willing to make two new characters and push them to LS/DS V. This certainly goes along with the devs destroying everything they can get their hands on in 7.0. At this point I honestly do wonder seriously who is trying to get the game shut down, and why. They seem to be going out of their way to make things miserable.

[spectralscathath]

Bulldogs (Adam/Marrow) headcanons, owo?

Okay I don't think I've recently reblogged any ship headcanon ask meme thingies recently, but let's use that general idea as a sort of base. So. Bulldogs. Let's go.

My headcanon for Bulldogs is that they're childhood friends in Mantle, who both worked in the mines together as children. Marrow worked as a trapper, specifically, look that up if you want to get really mad at coal miners in the 1800s, and Adam pulled carts through areas adults couldn't fit in. Life sucked for them both, but that's what forges strong friendships that, unfortunately, do not get to prevail due to the SDC being The Worst.

Years later, after everything Happens, Adam is arrested. Marrow decides 'I can change him' because he feels like he kinda owes the guy after the event where Adam got branded, and so now we have uneasy roommate rehabilitation.

There is a lot to sort out. Like, a lot a lot. On both ends. Going to couples therapy before you even become a couple ftw.

They don't talk about the brand.

Marrow: when you have to live with your best friend who you loved before you even knew what love was and then spent the rest of your life pining and then they come back all in black and red and angsty and murdering people and it's not good morally but it's also really not good when that crush you tried to forget comes back with a vengeance and then you're living together with all that unspoken stuff, that's relatable, right? Harriet: Marrow what the fuck.

I like to think Marrow confesses first by accident, likely during an very emotional moment where the words 'I love you' slip out, it's probably angsty because we're not here for the fluff yet. Adam is poleaxed, moment over immediately, they're just left staring at each other.

Marrow jumps out a window to avoid unpacking all that.

But anyway they have another emotional moment eventually, and they start working through Emotional Vulnerability too.

Relationship get!

Now we can talk fluff.

Adam is a morning person by force and not choice. Now that he doesn't have to get up for mine shifts, survival, or white fang duties, he will sleep in til, like, noon. Marrow is just as bad when he doesn't have work, what is a morning.

They subsist only on the goodwill of Elm and takeout. Elm is a marvellous cook who has kept Marrow alive with a variety of bakes, casseroles, and soups for years. She now makes them all vegetarian. Adam is grateful. Marrow is not.

They're not really allowed have roadtrips until, like, 5 years in when Adam's been a Certified Good Noodle TM and his parole is lax enough that he can have supervised leave of the apartment. In order to prevent arguing they made a shared playlist and it's all punk, death metal, hip hop, and despite Adam's best efforts, a little bit of bubblegum pop. He maintains a great stoic face when those ones play.

They eventually talk about the brand.

They both do campaigning for faunus rights still, Marrow by using his Ace Op status, Adam by being a bitch to racists online because he's not actually allowed near any active faunus rights demonstrations due to his parole.

Sparring matches only ever happen hand to hand, because their weapon styles are so different, and it's generally a tie who wins. They're also both ridiculously competitive so there's actually no chance of sparring turning into makeout sessions, they spar to WIN (it also decides who cleans the tupperware).

Adam is already a crafts guy. He liked engraving, embroidery, all that sort of stuff. Then he suddenly has a lot of free time on his hands due to Mandated House Arrest. The hobby becomes a Lot More Integral.

There are many handmade ceramics and embroidered cushions and Weird Sculptures. They multiply. They've taken over what used to be Adam's bedroom. They're expanding into the main apartment like an infestation. Adam is proud of them. Marrow is quietly dreading whatever may come next. Jokes on him, it's Adam's Windchime Era.

They don't ever get married because they're cheap and also valid, but they do eventually change Marrow's address residence to say 'Amin-Taurus' on the apartment button buzzer sign. Marrow tried to put forward 'Taurus & Amin Co.' to make it sound official. Didn't work.

They eventually foster, way off in the future, when Adam has somewhat reintegrated into society and because Marrow is definitely a family person. They'd specifically try take in troubled faunus teenagers who got bounced around a lot and try to help them out, give them a home. Marrow is Nice and Adam is Stern, it works out better than expected. Lots of weekend visits. They feel content with life.

Marrow wears a scarf Adam embroidered everywhere. It always feels like a piece of home.

And here's what I got. Hope you enjoy, smols!

[buckysboobs]

"It's very obvious that the majority of fans are reasonably upset with him" Then the majority of fans are toxic assholes. I've seen so many people who objectify him Every Day and even some who write Seb porn, not just Seb as Bucky porn, try to shame him for watching a video that Pam did consent to. But they've decided her consent doesn't matter, just like they don't care that she's never said the show is traumatizing. They want to punish him for not either being or playing Prince Eric.

the thing is we can't choose what people are upset with or no, we can't change their opinions seeing how they already have a narrative of him in their heads and no amount of explaining or proof is going to change it simply because they made their choice. most of them did it out of the saviour complex they have and the other are genuinely upset for whatsoever reason that i won't hold against them honestly because it's not my business and to be honest? i don't care.

i'm looking at it practically; he's playing a real person in a show that is literally based off the tape; the producer is literally seth rogen out of all people so even thinking of the possibility of them not watching the tape was minimal. pam and tommy came to a settlement and chose to sell the rights to the tape. seb watched the same thing as every other legal porn, not for his pleasure but for an insight. the same moral complex that people have about violation and consent is not a valid argument in my eyes because even pam doesn't believe in it, and the tape is legal, and i genuinely don't think she would give a fuck either considering the kind of person she is. their argument of violation and consent was contradicted by pam herself when she made comments blaming weinstein's victims and as from what i've heard, sold her partner's tape without his consent as well. this fight about ethics is for a racist trumpie anti feminist white woman who has sold the rights to the tape making it legal.

there is no argument anymore and i'm not gonna deter from my opinion. people can have their own, they can think seb is a mysoginist or a creep or whatever they want, i can't change their thought process or the white feminist saviour mentality in their heads. if anyone gets offended, good luck charlie.

another thing to add on; lily was literally right there, nodding along to what he was saying. she even admitted in an interview that she watched it as well. yet i have not seen a single comment about her, the entire blame is going on seb when lily is just as much at fault, and seth rogen is right fucking there. people choose who to hate so i can't take them seriously anymore because at the end of the day it's all performative white feminism.