#because by the end of genocide you have to make the decision to kill them all in the blink of an eye—as youve been doing the entire game—

[down-thedrain]

"this world will live on...!" girl no it wont im sorry

[raymurata]

Bellara's main choice and DAV's implicit (or accidental) stance on book burning

Okay, so. Prefacing this with -- I enjoyed the game. I'd even play it again. That being said, one of its biggest flaws is trying to deliver something so morally sanitized it shies away from giving its characters (aside from Solas) and plotlines (aside from Solas's) real nuance. And in the same breath, they end up sending messages that I doubt they intended to send.

Bellara's main decision is particularly annoying to me.

First, I find her arc to be lacking -- She starts the game grieving her brother and blaming herself for his death despite not being responsible for it, then she finds Cyrian again only to grieve him again, so she's back to the start, only this time she has had the guilt removed from her because Cyrian tells her what she needs to hear, and the blame is placed on a big bad evil. Fair, fine.

But I don't like the cinematography of that scene at all. There was plenty of time for Rook and Bellara to react between Anaris grabbing Cyrian's foot and throwing him at the wall. People in Thedas have survived way worse injuries, too, and Bellara literally has healing at her disposal. Why doesn't she even try? His death is clearly plot-driven but it doesn't take her arc forward all that much? But again, that's fine. Not too bad.

But then the choice I have to make for her is whether or not to keep the archive, why? At no point in the game (please correct me if I'm wrong and missed canon information that contradicts me. That would make me way less angry!!!) do they tell us that it was Bellara using the Archive that summoned Anaris, or that it could summon him at will. As far as my interpretation goes, the Archive is, as its name says, the equivalent to a library curated by a comically self-aggrandizing jerk. At no point do we hear it share any actually dangerous lore either, do we? No blueprints for nuclear weapons...

So why does the game choose this wording:

Now, unless the Archive has powers we are unaware of, what this is saying is basically "burn the ancient elven library (it will be safe)" or "don't burn the ancient elven library (it will be dangerous)" and, for a game that is so irritatingly set on giving you only 2024-morality-board-approved goodTM and unproblematic companions and allies... Why does it tell me that burning books is the safe option, ESPECIALLY given that these books are priceless historical artefacts from a marginalized and subjugated ethinic group who have long lost their history to genocide? Like, wut?? Even if the Archive were in fact a dangerous weapon, the game shows us through the Veil Jumpers' vault that they have trained capable scholars and developed (or are developing, with Bellara spearheading it) safe tools to study and keep these artefacts. How condescending is it to tell them that they won't be able to safekeep this one? How pointless? (and her cutest armor AND best skill are locked behind that choice? outrageous lmao.)

And what pisses me off is that they had everything set up already, they just had to deliver it differently. If they told us explicitly that the archive is Anaris' phylactery and that keeping it would mean allowing Anaris to eventually come back? THEN we'd have a real danger. NOW there is a non-fascist risk to maintaining knowledge.

Or what if the only reason Cyrian is back is because Anaris brought him back? What if Cyrian's life is therefore tied to Anaris', and you had to choose between letting Anaris live (perhaps that results in him getting imprisoned in the Archive, tampering with the information in it and destroying its historical value forever, plus Anaris might one day figure out a way out) or killing Anaris for good even knowing that Cyrian will also die again if you do (but then the Dalish get to keep the archive and all the knowledge in it, and Cyrian's sacrifice is not in vain)? Or maybe... The Archive is a spirit, isn't it? Drive home the fact that being tied to that device was a cruel thing Anaris did to it, and keeping it there is just as cruel, even if it would mean giving the elves access to information. Make the wording "free the archive" really mean something here, and the player really think that the knowledge will be lost. Then maybe have it that, if she frees it, it gives her information freely and with its own interpretation of that knowledge, and THEN it leaves (so it's not forever but there is a reward for being compassionate). And if she keeps the spirit in the device, then it is always rude and it gives her information curated by Anaris' point of view, but it is available to all upcoming generations. It'd be real nice and nuanced to pit her compassion against her drive for knowledge. If this were DAO or DA2, you wouldn't make the choice FOR HER. You'd make the choice yourself because you are the leader, and if you chose to keep the spirit, you'd garner lots of negative points with Bellara (and with Emmrich) because, let's be honest, she is written as inherently more compassionate than driven, and she'd resent you making an oppressing choice even if it is well-meaning and good for her people (just like Alistair resents you killing Isolde even if he understands it was a difficult choice).

I just... So many ways it could have been an actually weighted choice, or that it could have affected your relationship with Bellara (and other companions) as Bioware RPGs were wont to do. They had a good set up, but the landing was absolutely bonkers.

[sokkastyles]

Do you think some parts of the world would have been unhappy in Aang's decision to spare Ozai? That people would be so bitter - this madman gets to live, while their friends and loved ones died? Why is that? Oh - because the Avatar didn't want to compromise his own morals, to kill someone? Tough, it's a war. People die.

The thing I don't like about the way the show frames it is that the narrative doesn't really give Aang a choice, either.

I think people who frame this as Aang respecting Air Nomad culture are trying to give the show too much credit, because the show doesn't act like Aang gets to choose a moral high ground, they act like he has no choice. Aang seems to believe that the only way he can honor his Air Nomad heritage is by not killing, and...what about all the Air Nomads who didn't have that luxury? What about Gyatso, who was faced with the choice of kill or die, and killed, and died?

I think a lot of people would see Aang's choice as a slap in the face. Every person who had to do things they considered against their personal morals to survive. People like Jet who sincerely wished to stop leading a violent life, but couldn't, because that life was chosen for him the moment his parents were murdered. People like Hakoda who felt deeply ashamed of having to leave his own children to go to war. Are these people just inherently less moral or more bloodthirsty than Aang? No, they simply didn't have the power Aang had at his disposal that allowed him to avoid the kind of violent lives that many people, children included, were forced to lead during the war.

That's also why the "Aang reminds Katara/Zuko that they are kids" thing annoys me. What Aang does is remind them that HE has the luxury of thinking of himself as a kid while they don't. The reason Katara hadn't been penguin sledding in so long isn't because she's a buzzkill who hates fun or she "forgot" that she's a kid, it's because she was forced into a role where she had to take care of her family in her mother's absence, and that doesn't go away with the introduction of another kid she has to parent. As for Zuko, that "well you're just a teenager" line is funny and it's easy to think of Zuko as someone who takes himself too seriously (and part of why it's funny is that teenagers in general do view themselves as so much older than younger children), but Zuko was kicked out of his home at thirteen and expected to be fighting a fully-realized adult Avatar. Even when he was Aang's age, he never had the luxury of thinking of himself that way. You can see this also in the way Zuko interacts with adults early in the series, notably Zhao and his crew. He is desperate to be seen as a hardened adult because he has had to act like one to survive.

These people don't act this way because they've lost their morals or sense of fun or because they don't value peace enough. They act this way because this is what they were forced to do to survive. I think people would rightly be offended by the idea that wanting to see Ozai dead for his crimes makes them just as violent as a genocidal tyrant, and they would be right to feel resentful that Ozai gets to live when he was responsible for so much violence. This is also why Zuko tells Ozai that he's lucky that Aang spared his life. Because in the end, Aang has NO moral obligation to spare Ozai whatsoever, not because of his culture or any reason. Pacifism has never meant that you aren't allowed to use necessary force to stop violence from happening. And anyone who uses the argument that Aang has to spare Ozai because of his culture or that this is his only way to honor his people is LYING.

[kudossi]

Tigerclaw and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Senior Warrior Position AU

In a world where deputies can only be named after their first apprentice has been granted their warrior name, Tigerclaw struggles to keep an apprentice alive long enough to earn their name.

or, a comedy-tragedy AU in which having an apprentice isn't enough — you have to see them to their warrior name, and Tigerclaw cannot fucking get any of his goddamn apprentices to live, damn it.

—

It starts out mostly normally, except for the fact that Tigerclaw hasn't gotten any apprentices to their warrior name, and he needs that so he can accomplish his (very noble, of course) kitty genocide goals. And also be the supreme leader of the world or something. Darkpaw died stupidly, he hasn't had a chance since, and now he's got some tiny thing that's afraid of his own shadow.

Well. It'll have to do.

So naturally this man is so protective over Ravenpaw that Ravenpaw barely even leaves his sight. Firepaw and Graypaw think that this is adorable. Look how much Tigerclaw cares about his apprentice!!

Ravenpaw, of course, is fucking terrified and also slowly losing his mind, just in a different way.

—

"Redtail assigned us to go on a patrol to Snakerocks." "OH NO HE DID NOT. WE'RE STAYING IN THE SANDY HOLLOW WHERE IT'S SAFE."

"Nothing matters more to me than making you a warrior, Ravenpaw. Nothing." And the terrible thing is that Ravenpaw is sure he's being sincere.

—

Ravenpaw disappears and Tigerclaw nearly fucking has a conniption because the timing was all RIGHT and he was going to finally get the position AND HE NEVER GOT HIS DAMN NAME FUCK.

"Do you think I could convince the elders that Fireheart was my apprentice?" "Fireheart was Bluestar's apprentice, as approved by StarClan. You're going to have to wait for the next litter to be apprenticed."

So he begs and begs and gets Cinderpaw and then she accidentally falls into the trap he'd set for a better deputy candidate at the Thunderpath. Fuck.

—

Well. Time to resort to drastic measures.

"I was thinking that Darkstripe would have been a good name. Because he had dark stripes." "Again, Tigerclaw, it's admirable that you loved your apprentice so much, but I cannot grant him a name." "Are you sure?" "Honestly, Tigerclaw, I'm not sure he ever would have gotten a name. Missing quite a few feathers from his nest, that one..." Fuck. The worst part was that she wasn't even wrong.

— Swiftpaw and Brightpaw get mauled by the dogs he set up to happen like right after he got the title and they sprang it before and he's like FUCK NOW WHAT DO I DO WITH THESE DAMN DOGS? His world domination plans literally never come to fruition because he cannot keep his apprentices alive/in the clan/his own.

— "Brightheart counts. She HAS to count." "Actually, Cloudtail took over her training…" [demented noises]

—

Turns out that Ravenpaw is alive and no one — no one — in the Harper Collins Extended Universe is happier than Tigerclaw.

"You're alive! …You deserve your warrior name!" "Actually, I've come to peace with my name and my way of life. I have no need for a—" "GET YOUR FUCKING NAME RIGHT NOW RAVENPAW OR SO HELP ME STARCLAN—" "I know you really wanted Ravenpaw to become a warrior," Barley says gently, "but he's made his decision. It's very kind of you to acknowledge that he deserves it, though. You must have been so close as mentor and apprentice." Tigerclaw's eye twitches. "Yes. Close. Very... close." —

He finally, finally retires as an elder after his plans go absolutely nowhere for years on end. And maybe StarClan is still like "Brambleclaw would be chill actually, we can forget that pesky little law" and Tigerclaw is sitting there like "excuse me what the actual fuck?" —

But at this point Tigerclaw is about as dangerous as Ashfur without a freak forest fire. Which is to say about as dangerous as using a leaf as a weapon. Which is, incidentally, how Darkpaw managed to get himself killed in the first place.

—

"Is this the Dark Forest? This has to be the Dark Forest. It doesn't look like Thistleclaw described it, but it must be. This Clan is all an elaborate punishment meted down by StarClan for my sins." "Tigerclaw, sir, I'm just here to help you with your ticks. See? I have the mousebile right here." "…Yes, thank you, Alderpaw." — Graystripe joins him in the elder's den and he's like, "You know, Ravenpaw thought you were up to some… scheme, back in the day. Crazy, right? You've been a model Clanmate as long as I've been alive." [muffled screaming] "Huh, what do you think that is? It sounds almost like someone killed a rabbit, but they know not to come this close to camp…"

[anistarrose]

Really Small Problems starts with King's bread puns, so obviously, it's already crucial to the emotional arc of the finale. But knowing that the Titan was watching that day, do you know what else the Titan must have noticed, and how that makes the finale so much more impactful?

[ID from alt: King talking to a disguised Tibbles, then Luz kissing King on the forehead after they reconcile. End ID.]

In the episode, King gets used as a pawn by Tibbles — who preys off of King's desire to spend time playing with Luz — and as a result, King puts Luz and her friends in a lot of danger. But Luz, while initially angry, realizes that King was being manipulated, not malicious — and at his absolute worst, just an irresponsible kid who really wanted to spend time with his friend — and she reconciles with him, leading to their bond becoming stronger than ever before.

But hey, for no particular reason, remember what the Titan's greatest regret was, again?

[ID from alt: a projection by the Collector, of the Archivists reaching out to the Collector, then a projection of the Titan glaring menacingly. End ID.]

When the Collector was being used as a pawn by the Archivists, who were the ones who really killed all the Titans, King's dad didn't realize the truth until far too late. Rather than talk to the Collector and try to understand, let alone reconcile, Papa Titan lashed out at the Collector for their perceived betrayal — imprisoning the Collector, thereby plunging him into traumatizing isolation, for millions and millions of years. It's the Titan's worst mistake. The Collector didn't deserve anything like that — the Collector was just a misguided little kid. But the Titan had let his rage consume him. And now, slain by the Archivists, the Titan can no longer undo her mistake.

So... fast forward to when the Titan's own kid has finally hatched, and started to grow up. The Titan sees his kid make a friend in Luz, whom the Titan already likes, because she was kind to King and respectful to the Isles. But then — the Titan sees her own kid do something misguided. The Titan sees his own kid put his friends in danger. Only... instead of fallout from Luz's feelings of betrayal, the Titan sees Luz actually reconcile with King. The Titan sees Luz recognize that King didn't want to hurt anyone. In other words, the Titan sees Luz avoid repeating the Titan's mistake.

Of course, dealing with Tibbles is far, far lower-stakes than dealing with genocidal Archivists. But what the Titan sees is Luz proving that she can be levelheaded, and forgiving, and most of all, trustworthy with the challenging decisions that the Titan himself has messed up before. Luz finds her last two glyphs rapid-fire after this episode, after the first two were comparatively slow-going. She still has to work for them, by being attentive to nature and to magic, but that change in pacing isn't a coincidence. The Titan is selective about who can be trusted with glyphs — but Luz earns that trust. By being kind to King, first and foremost — but even more specifically, by extending understanding and forgiveness, instead of blame, to a child who had just wanted to play.

And that all culminates in why the Titan trusts Luz to wield the full power of the Boiling Isles in the finale. It's why the Titan believes Luz is a genuine and kind person, who can defeat Belos by force without ever being or becoming as bad as he is — because Luz does give people second chances, and resolve things non-violently, when people aren't as malicious or set in their ways as Belos is. Because Luz gave a second chance to King, and even gave a second chance to the Collector — thus, doing what the Titan couldn't. The Titan trusts Luz not to give into destructive, punitive options — neither killing, nor imprisonment — unless there is truly no other option, in which case killing Belos isn't punitive or retributive in ideology; it's just self-defense.

So, when the Titan makes some of her final words a bread pun, it tells King and Luz and the viewer so much. That the Titan was watching the whole time — but that the Titan was watching Really Small Problems, specifically. That the Titan watched King mature, and the Titan watched Luz forgive him. The Titan watched and made reference to a story about second chances and reconciliation working — because they do work, most of the time, and the fact that Belos is the rare exception is crucial to the message of the finale.

And in a more meta, ironic way — yet one that I'm sure the writers were aware of — the Titan was even watching what some fans called a "filler" episode. But Titan cared so much about Luz and King's development within. And what a brilliant way to tie the whole show together! What a good tribute to the value of gradual character development! And to rewatching a show with fresh eyes, now metaphorically from the Titan's perspective!

It changes everything. It makes you appreciate Luz and King so, so much. It's such a subtle, beautiful writing choice. And the Titan is such a beautiful character. Really Small Problems is not a skippable episode. It always had good character development, but the way it's utilized and recontextualized by the rest of the narrative is nothing short of brilliant.

[imustbenuts]

eito aotsuki meta appreciation thoughts, ie why i like this character the most in THL. im like 50% done with the game maybe. spoilers spoilers spoilers etc

simply put hes actually how i feel when i see takumi doing things in a lot of routes, and his character often reflects that quite well

casting aside the possibility of certain routes just having weird or off-putting writing for whatever reasons, takumi has some major characteristics that makes him a very effective villain protag. hes like. mundanely evil. he can be heroic once in a while, but the road to the heroic routes involves a lot of "WHY WOULD YOU DO ANYTHING BUT X HERE"

to be clear takumi can be selfless as evident in route 0 but after the events of that first 100 days, he becomes dogmatic about surviving to the end at any cost with his friends, and will repeatedly convince himself he did the right thing despite... often not actually doing the right thing in whatever route he's ended up in.

his inability to basically break out of his circular reasoning mentality is his biggest flaw. seriously this kid would rather honkshoo than go "fuck it i ball". he does not plan. he's not curious. he cannot do abstract thinking. he's sometimes a massive fucking dick. things happen to him. its not exactly his fault but it so very often is his fault. (and i will stand by that he also triggers cute aggression so hard and still treasures his friends (+ eito) that takumi as a whole makes me want to clobber him with a steel pipe affectionately)

for example, the multiple eitos route. the reason why eito decides to fuck with takumi so hard here seems to be mostly out of anger at him. takumi doesnt want to find the truth to the war here, he doesnt try to think beyond sirei's orders to kill eito, and he, with the decision to kill eito, shows that he deeply does not care beyond whats infront of his nose.

in the killing game route, a similar anger seems to be present from eito wherein hes present to fuck with takumi because this timeline's version of him got killed. assuming hes aware of the greater scope of the war thats going on as with the other timelines where he consistently figures out a good chunk of whats going on, hes still understandably peeved at takumi here for taking the easy way out.

so far im seeing the most chill eitos in the truth and rebellion route where the choices to get to this route involves doing the most difficult thing and just rolling with the punches. this means sacrificing a willing kyoshika to banzai on vesh, and sparing eito bc eito has information and has technically not committed a crime in the eyes of humanity. these routes involves examining and tackling whats being fed to the group by Sirei, and then having the proverbial rug pulled from beneath them as a whole. the eito in these route chills out and is on even footing with takumi having learned that they're all cannon fodder monsters and the war is xenophobic genocidal rubbish.

the routes im not familiar with are the s.f, cult of takumi, coming of age so i cant comment on those yet. so this is an incomplete understanding of the game possibly. mengo.

eito gets as bad as takumi does and as good/heroic as takumi does narratively speaking.

theres also the whole naming shit going on.

eito addresses takumi as "takumi-kun", his given name plus friendly address, which feels like him breaking directly into takumi's bubble and breathing all over him for a pair who just met. in jp context anyway

takumi addresses eito as "aotsuki", his surname which feels very respectful with a distance, and appropriate for a pair who just met. but, he doesnt change this address AFAIK no matter how much eito behaves himself

its no wonder then they have this dynamic where takumi behaves like a skittish freaked out cat around eito. and eito just really wants to do ???? things to takumi.

theres also the fucking wordplay here

済野　sumino = empty/vast field. so 拓海takumi 済野sumino = crashing waves, empty field

衛人　eito = defender. so 衛人eito 蒼月aotsuki = defender, pale/blue moon

if you pair the dynamics of whats going on it gets fun too

Eito + Takumi addressing = fair standing as equals, and would be Defender + Crashing Waves. kinda... oxymoronic bc how do you defend the shore being eroded by crashing waves

Eito + Sumino = Defender + Empty Field. honkshoo.... youre defending nothing... nihilism mayhaps, or optimistic nihilism maybe if its gotta be interesting.

if its Sumino + Aotsuki = also fair standing as equals, and would be Empty Field + Pale/Blue Moon. fucking poetry chefs kiss

Takumi + Aotsuki = Crashing Waves + Pale Moon. actually kinda poetic since the ocean's tide is effected by the push and pull of the moon. its as strong or as weak depending. this is their dynamic of most part of the story. also the ocean also reflects the moon or whatever.

doomed toxic yaoiful poetry. its very neat.

[wheelie-sick]

I wanted to ask if I could get your personal opinion on cochlear implants as a deaf person? I'm writing an essay for my ASL class and it's really hard to find opinions about them from the deaf community. I'm very sorry if asking this is rude, you have every right to decline responding to this. Thank you for your time

okay finally getting to this ask

I have a really complicated opinion because on one hand I think the technology is really freeing for a lot of deaf people but on the other they are killing the deaf community.

cochlear implants in and of themselves are neutral technology. in a perfect world there would be no controversy because they would truly be neutral. unfortunately that is not this world. cochlear implants are used to rip deaf people (and in particular, deaf children) away from their community.

all deaf people have a right to the Deaf community, by being deaf they belong to our world.

when a baby is born deaf the first thing an audiologist will suggest is a cochlear implant. they give the suggestion in a way that implies, and sometimes outright states, that a cochlear implant will give the baby a "normal" childhood. they focus on how easy it will be for the people around that baby. no one will have to learn a sign language, no one will have to adapt their life to fit this deaf baby inside of it. the first problem comes in when cochlear implants are not magic devices that allows a person to be just like a hearing person. with a cochlear implant someone will still need a deaf life because cochlear implants are imperfect.

no one with a cochlear implant will ever live the exact same life as a hearing person. when a child grows up with parents who act like a cochlear implant is a perfect fix that child grows up traumatized by a world of people they cannot keep up with. that child grows up feeling like they are the problem for not having the same experience of hearing as everyone around them.

cochlear implant surgeries are serious surgeries which carry risks like meningitis. cochlear implants cannot be given to toddlers with consent. a toddler can't decide whether they want to risk the extensive number of complications because they are 9 months old (the age at which cochlear implants can be given to a child) parents are rarely informed of these risks and when they are they are told over and over again that this will give their child a "normal" life, an "easy" life. I have less of an issue with cochlear implants when it is a teenager or adult making the decision for themself. cochlear implant surgeries are optional, they are not medically necessary. why are we doing risky surgeries on unconsenting toddlers without a medical reason?

with all that said, cultural genocide is the true heart of the issue. audiologists push cochlear implants instead of sign language and connection to the Deaf community. they encourage parents not to raise their child in the community. they discourage Deaf school, they discourage connection with other deaf children, audiologists want an end to the Deaf community and Deaf culture. these children are not being raised bilingual-bicultural they are being denied their rightful place within the Deaf community. they are being damned to a life of isolation, a life of constantly falling behind, a life where they will never truly be accepted because society hates a deaf person with a cochlear implant just as much as they hate a deaf person without.

if that child ever decides later in life that they want connection with the Deaf community? they are behind. they once again cannot quite keep up. oralist childhoods created isolated deaf people, deaf people who have no home in either world.

the Deaf community may welcome second language signers but it is not the same as being a native signer. it is not the same as having the deep rooted connections with the community that are created by growing up within it.

I still respect the decision of deaf teens and adults to get cochlear implants. they are capable of making a choice for themself. deaf teens and adults often already have the social safety net of the Deaf community. I believe bi-bi upbringings for children can be beneficial though I have my own issues with giving any toddler a cochlear implant. I think that bi-bi childhoods are a good compromise and give deaf children access to both worlds. I don't have a problem with deaf children living in both worlds because they still have access to the Deaf community. I wish cochlear implants existed in a world that valued Deaf culture. I wish cochlear implants existed in a world where they were not a tool of cultural genocide. cochlear implants are not the problem, society is.

[signanothername]

Would dust and geno get along because of their mutual care for their scarves, or would they absolutely despise each other?

I like to think it’s both

Like, Geno is so family focused, to know Murder killed his own brother when he watched helplessly from the save screen as his own brother went through genocide runs? Yeah I don’t think he’d appreciate Murder’s choice (kinda hypocritical when you think of Geno’s decision to erase his timeline completely and trying to convince After! Sans to help him with his plans)

Murder on the other hand, never sees it as his own choice, he’s genuinely a well meaning guy who, just like Geno, was pushed into doing the extreme in genuine hope to finally end the genocide runs, not realizing how it evolved to him now making his own loop of them, except the difference between Geno and Murder, is the fact one actually ended up doing such extreme work (Murder), while the other never got his plan come to fruition and instead, found a better life (Geno)

So I like to think Geno would be extremely judgmental towards Murder, not necessarily despising him, but definitely not getting along at first, even thinking that Murder’s scarf (unlike his own) is worn in pride rather than genuine connection, pain and love

Murder on the other hand, is generally a cold shoulder towards Geno, he’s generally not very trusting at first, and seeing Geno’s scarf might reinforce his ideals of having to save his AU from the human, but I can see him opening up towards Geno a bit cause of it too

I think if Geno actually spent some time with Murder, he’d definitely become less judgmental and in fact, see Murder in himself, someone who got desperate and who went to extreme measures (just like he almost did) just to save the ones he loves most, getting lost somewhere on the road, he’d see Murder talk to Papyrus when no one’s truly there and understand how Murder’s deeply affected and isn’t simply someone who thought it’d be funny to kill his brother

Murder would see what he could’ve been in Geno, someone who has his family on the surface, happy and safe, and wonder if he even deserves the same after everything he’s done, it’ll distress him and only serve to make him feel his guilt even more

And I think Geno’s observant enough to recognize guilt when he sees it

For Murder to see Geno understand him after all would probably open a road for an unlikely friendship :)

[zvtara-was-never-canon]

“Aang fans have to reach hard to find any sort of “development” in his story, and to justify why it’s acceptable for him to put the lives of millions of people at risk to maintain feelings of purity despite other Avatars (including an Air Nomad) telling him his decision is selfish”

Thoughts on this take? I found it on “longing for rain” blog.

1 - Zuko had THE perfect opportunity to end the war by killing Ozai during the day of the eclipse, but he didn't do so because "It's Aang's fate" and Zuko has a very rigid idea of what "fate" means and how it should affect one's behavior. Iroh also refused to even try to HELP in the battle because it'd make him be seen as a power-hungry kinslayer (even though he had zero intention of becoming Fire Lord). Both of these things can be seen as selfish, especially since they're all about how it'll affect their OWN image, yet only Aang gets labeled selfish. If everyone is throwing the burden on his shoulders, they can shut the fuck up about how he handles said burden.

2 - One of Aang's reasons to not want to kill Ozai is because HE'S TWELVE AND DOESN'T WANNA MURDER SOMEONE, even someone who deserves it. He never asked for this responsibility. He cannot be blamed for Sozin and every Fire Lord after him being a monster, or for Roku's inability to do anything despite being an adult. He's a child. This is not his mess to fix, and yet...

3 - He's not simply going "Sorry, guys, I don't feel like killing Ozai, guess you're all gonna die." He's trying to find alternative solutions - and when he can't find one, he ACCEPTS killing Ozai (and even almost does it AFTER being taught about energybending), despite...

4 - Him being a pacifist and wanting to stay true to his beliefs. He's not trying to be "pure", as in "I'm better than all of you 'cause I don't want to kill", but as in "I don't wanna be a hypocrite that preaches one thing but does the opposite" - thought I suppose I can understand how someone how tries to get praised by trying to pass off AI bullshit as actual art made by them would have a problem with a main character that vallues being an honest person.

Aang's development is not the same as Zuko's of "I need to completely alter my way of thinking" because AANG WAS NOT THE ONE SUPPORTING GENOCIDE. This doesn't make Zuko a better written, more realistic, or "more developed" character, it means he used to be a monster and now he isn't one anymore.

Aang's entire struggle is constantly having the world trying to beat his innocence and humanity out of him so he is nothing BUT the Avatar, just a super soldier/weapon that lives to sacrifice everything for everyone else's sake, while getting nothing in return because "it's his duty." His character arc is about realizing these "necessary evils" aren't actually necessary at all, and that he CAN save the world without destroying his spirit and identity in the process. He doesn't have to see the "error of his ways" because he was not the one in the wrong for saying "Fuck you, I'm a PERSON, not your sacrificial lamb."

And idiots like this particular dumbass would realize it (or rather, admit it) if they only they didn't have a giant stick up their pretencious ass and could get over the fact that their fanon ship "lost the ship war" TWENTY FUCKING YEARS AGO!

[cosmicjoke]

The alliance betrayed Eren. The whole world wanted Paradis killed and all Eren did was fight back. What else should he have done? It was genocide vs genocide. His friends are hypocrites and horrible characters that wanted to play moral police. Hanji and Levi were horrible mentors. Open your eyes.

If you genuinely believe any of the garbage that you just spewed, then you need mental help.

I shouldn't even take the time to point out to you what's wrong with your "argument", because honestly, anyone this stupid and lacking in self-awareness isn't worth mine or anybody's time.

But I'll just lay out a few, basic facts for your edification.

Eren betrayed his comrades, over and over, starting with his literal incitement of war in Liberio, through his purposeful elimination of any other course of action that Paradis could have taken to secure their future. War only came to Paradis in the first place, you total clown, because Eren and Zeke orchestrated it themselves. I don't know how many times this has to be pointed out to people like you before it gets through that sediment-thick rock you call a skull and into the mush you call a brain. Go read the manga again, or watch the anime, and maybe try paying attention this time past the masturbation session you engage in every time Eren comes on screen.

The Survey Corps' entire mission statement was to dedicate themselves to the salvation of humanity. Not "Paradis", humanity. And Eren betrayed that mission in the most fundamental way possible by committing mass genocide on a global scale. He literally spit on the legacy and sacrifices of every single one of his comrades, including those who had given their lives to protect his, because they believed he was essential to humanity's survival. Instead of honoring that sacrifice by doing everything in his power to save humanity, he did the exact opposite by deciding to wipe humanity out of existence because he was disappointed the world didn't look like the pictures in Armin's books. That's how shallow, pathetic, selfish and childish Eren is.

You call Levi and Hange "terrible mentors", when Eren literally did exactly the opposite of what they both tried to teach him. Levi specifically told Eren to make the choice he could live with, the one he wouldn't regret, and yet, in the end, we see Eren filled with nothing but regret, drowning in self-loathing, because he knows he made the choice which went against what he knew in his heart was right. He spurned Levi's guidance entirely. Eren knew what he did was wrong and not justifiable on any level. What Eren did didn't sit right in any way, shape or form with his own, moral understanding of the world. Nobody made Eren into what he was. Nobody made Eren do what he did. It was a situation entirely of his own making and choosing.

You call the other members of the alliance "horrible characters" because they couldn't and wouldn't stand by and allow literally billions of innocent people to be murdered in cold blood. Remind me to pray to God that no important decisions are ever left to you. The lack of self-awareness in your statement is shocking in its depth. You don't see how, if this is what you truly believe and support, that it's you who's the truly terrible and horrible person here. Frankly, you're a disgusting example of a human being.

By stopping Eren, Levi, Hange and the rest of the alliance were upholding everything the Survey Corps originally stood and fought for. You calling them traitors and hypocrites is repulsive in its stupidity.

And that's all I'll say on the matter. You can now go back to waiting in line with Floch to swallow Eren's cock, since that's clearly what you really want to spend your time doing. Try not to choke.

[smileposting]

what are your feelings on inspekta being both a sympathetic character and a (now former) fascist?

WELL. first of all, i think it's Probably worth noting that even while GGG's representation of the conditions that can give rise to fascism are Uncannily accurate at times (as outlined in this very excellent post by elkian) it is Also a story in which the central message is "maybe talk to your friends instead of conspiracy-posting when you start to feel bad about yourself, dipshit," and therefore its representation of fascism/fascist thought As A Whole is very... how do i say this without sounding disparaging. "saturday morning cartoon"-esque. i think this is pretty apparent in how the worst that the bizzyboys' reign of terror ever gets is banning The Concept Of Art and not, like. genocide. the only Actual fatal threat (the rift) is saved for the very end, and inspekta/hector is talked down before it can actually cause any fatalities -- otherwise, inspekta and the bizzyboys would be very different antagonists that would require the narrative to treat them much more harshly, and this would result in a very different game overall (although not one i would be opposed to playing.)

second of all, i wanna talk more about the idea of GGG being less of a game about taking down a single power-hungry fascist and more an examination of the conditions that can eventually lead to fascism if left unchecked. for just one example, we can see that even before inspekta came into power (or at least, before he started his corruption arc) and even in a world where every god is genuinely kind and just and deserving of their position, it was generally The Norm to not really call them out To Their Face - any displeasure a character voices with a god's (apparent) decision is directed to each other and the godpoke, not to the god themselves, even when that god is perfectly open to visitors and/or feedback. and this is bad because despite the gods no longer being Physically human, they are still just as fallible - they have a tendency to jump to conclusions, they let their devotion to their interests or one another cloud their judgement, they struggle with showing vulnerability (which, ironically, makes them more vulnerable than they would be otherwise.) not only does the grove benefit from regular contact with the gods to make sure that their needs are being met -- it benefits the gods, too, by way of keeping them from getting lost in their own heads and losing touch with their own humanity.

i think it's also worth noting that the bizzyboys are not the only characters we see buying into fascist rhetoric, or at least stuff that benefits fascism in the long run. you could argue that anyone who bought into inspekta's framing of king in the first place also counts, given that to do so would probably Also require one to believe that the gods are infallible. it's also worth noting that a Lot of the more notable supporting characters who fall into this are also doing so out of a profound sense of alienation; saul can't remember the last time he talked to any of his friends and he thinks nobody takes him seriously, pollina's students don't sound like they're being taught much of anything about milldread's history and therefore they have very little to actually connect them to milldread, nobody likes rick brick and he has no interiority to speak of By Design, etc etc. all of these characters, however, are also treated with a fair amount of empathy - ol' bloom turns out to be Correct in believing that saul doesn't have what it takes to kill him and once the issue of the harvest is solved, he's welcomed back with open arms, pollina's students are like 8, and even rick brick's story ends with him beginning to realize that maybe it's okay if a story only appeals to its author and nobody else.

tl;dr: if ggg was even Slightly less cartoony than it actually is, this aspect of inspekta would come across as pretty jarring, but given the aspects of fascism that GGG chooses to focus on and how it treats smaller antagonists, i can't really imagine inspekta's story ending any other way. if i Did have any actual concerns, i'd say maybe it's that the bizzyboys being from the drain + the drain having such a negative connotation can get kinda dicey? something about the idea of fascism being an Evil Foreign Entity and not something that can just as easily start at home doesn’t sit quite right with me. but ofc a lot of emphasis is placed on the bizzyboys' humanity and potential to do good if not for inspekta's own Complexes getting the better of him (and even inspekta's own genuine capacity for leadership before that happened) so that's probably more of a potential bone to pick with fanwork, given how little exploration drain actually Gets in canon.

also i hope this doesn't Need to be said but just to be clear: i'm not trying to like, call out limbolane or Inspekta Himself, just examining what this aspect of his character was trying to Accomplish + how it relates to the game's themes and such. with that said i am very much still a novice when it comes to political analysis of media so if anybody more well-read than me wants to chime in, Please feel free to do so lol.

[caligvlasaqvarivm]

I’m always curious about Kankri being redeemed in any way (maybe because he can become the sufferer). Obviously to do so would be simply punting him to reality and force him to live it, no help from his shoddily-made support structure. But I’m curious how you would go about doing it

Given their role thematically in the story, I'm actually usually not on the train of "fully redeem the dancestors", but I do like giving them some catharsis and reckoning, a place in the fight against LE. One last chance to do something good with their lives/afterlives before the end, and a(n implied) new start as wigglers born into the new universe.

So to that end, in my head, the "turnaround point" for Kankri - the inciting incident that makes him have a mental breakdown that results in him finally taking some accountability for his shitty actions - is having a conversation with Eridan.

In my head, the Dancestor reckoning happens gradually, alongside a series of retcons where the dead trolls are brought back one or two at a time, and deal with their emotional issues a little more with every cast member added back into the party.

The TL;DR series of events is: Terezi asks to bring back Vriska, Vriska asks John to punch out Tavros before she can kill him, Tavros's influence makes Gamzee ask for Equius and Nepeta to be brought back, Equius asks for a redux of Aradiabot, Aradiabot grabs John by the arm and gets him to undo her death and Sollux's fall into depression, Sollux asks for Feferi to be brought back, and then Karkat asks for Eridan.

We know from (Vriska) that the Game Over/Alpha Timeline characters still exist post-Retcon, so those characters would also be continuing their character arcs, just in the afterlife prepping for the LE fight. For example, I think Meenah's reckoning should be delivered by (Karkat) - after having had so long to reflect on his own failures as a leader, he would be perfectly poised to scream at her for hers, which would also serve to make this confrontation a final thesis for Karkat as a whole - what leadership means (caring about your team) - and a conclusion to the Meenah/Karkat dynamic.

So when I say that Kankri needs to talk to Eridan, I mean Eridan and not (Eridan). Full character development, all his teammates are alive, taken full accountability and responsibility for his actions, team good guy Eridan. And as I noted in this essay, Eridan with full character development is actually more annoying than regular Eridan, because he's also the "Devastating: Worst Guy You Know Made An Excellent Point" guy. In bulleted form:

He's still an advocate for murder. Murder is literally what kept his friends alive long enough to play the game, and playing the game itself involves genocide, so he would be the Token Evil Teammate who reminds the team that, hey, murder is an option - and enemies will be considering it. Even at his very best, he's going to struggle with empathy and have an extremely blase view of violence and murder - those were literally just facts of his life through his most formative years.

This also makes him a TOTAL downer, as he's the tempering voice that reminds them that decisions have consequences, and utopia requires sacrifices, and nothing is ever worth fighting for that won't eventually need to be fought for. Like I said, worst guy you know, excellent points. In fact, he's out here volunteering to do the murdering when the situation calls, if nobody else wants to get their fins dirty. He's really good at it.

He's still an idiot who doesn't listen to people. He's perfectly fine at taking orders, but having a conversation with him is still really difficult. I feel like if you make Eridan too smart, mentally flexible, and socially aware, you lose a lot of his Eridan-ness, and I think these characters, fully realized, are more of themselves, not less. I also don't know how you could reasonably expect to fix these traits. He's just Like That.

He drops his fake pro-Empire stuff, because that was basically all just empty posturing in the first place, but...

Now he's a pretentious-ass hipster who judges you for liking Trollor Swift and Troll Marvel. Given that Jake's indiscriminate taste is actually linked to his deficit of Hope (he has little conviction, he's wishy-washy), Eridan coming into full Prince of Hope regalia involves getting even more annoying about his taste in media (shittons of conviction, refusal to budge).

He is also a wizard. He will not shut up about this.

And finally, I think he'd still be out here using slurs. First of all, because it'd be really funny, because he's literally not casteist, but second, because there's two types of "it's equality" - the kind where nobody ever says anything offensive, and the kind where "offensive" stops being a relevant concept because true equality has been achieved. Think of the discourse surrounding the reclamation of slurs IRL, or how the "it's equality" meme gets used - this idea that words can be stripped of power by changing the context of who's saying them, or that objectification/discrimination stop being problems if they're applied evenly across the board, instead of limited to specific groups. I think that this is the exact type of nuanced idea that Homestuck would tackle and its fandom would get incensed about, which is why I think it should stay.

Eridan's role, thus, becomes a sort of "unpleasant truths" kind of character. Violence, both physical and verbal, is unpleasant as hell, and the natural instinct is to avoid it. The problem is, in any true discussion of what society should look like, they're topics that can't be avoided, and are even sometimes necessary not just to recognize, but to utilize (no revolution is bloodless, etc.). Eridan - an extreme personality - is going to represent the uncomfortable extreme of the debate. And by that I mean he's going to be saying slurs and talking about murders and is still going to be unquestionably a force for good.

The reason I'm going so in-depth into this is because Kankri very much represents the opposite: using "polite" language and couching it in the language of courtesy, activism, and liberal ideology, Kankri hides - and worse, spreads - his classist, ableist, misogynistic, puritan beliefs. He enforces the class divide and actively works against his teammates' best interests.

He whines that the lower blood castes should stop complaining about oppression, because others have it worse. He tells the team feminist that misogyny isn't real, then slut shames her. He tells the guy with brain damage that he's making other neurodivergent/TBI people look bad, exacerbates Latula's shame around her inability to smell, and actively guilt trips Cronus into ignoring his epiphany and self-reflection. Kankri is only an activist in that he actively makes everybody worse.

But why does he act like this? Well, it's due to the fact that he was probably culled, and on-sight at that, like Karkat would've been if anyone found out about his mutant blood. Kankri doesn't seem to have a symbol or lusus, either, two thinks Karkat only had because the Signless's followers prepped them for him, so the chances are very high that Kankri was culled since he was hatched. Given the way he discusses culling with Latula, and viciously despises being mothered by Porrim, it's clear he has some really complicated feelings regarding having his agency dismissed. Thus, his work to hamper his team - at least some of which is wilful on his part, as he'll outright cast aspersions on Horuss or Cronus's beliefs for being "imaginary" even as he encourages them to commit to them - is motivated by something quite simple: power, attention, entitlement, and control.

When he goes on his grand lectures, he frequently slips and reveals that he sees himself as a great, unquestionable spiritual leader, often trying to place other characters in subordinate positions to himself - Karkat is his "pupil," and his monologues, I mean, sermons, I mean, diatribes, are spoken as if from a position of authority. He outright tells Meenah that this is what he believes himself to be.

It's a very Seer sort of problem - both that of hubris and that of willful blindness. If you chart out the actual "end goal" of his beliefs, it appears to be a world in which Kankri himself is both the biggest victim and most important voice in the room. He regularly disparages those with actual disadvantages (Damara, Porrim, Mituna) while playing up the false problems of those who don't actually have them (Horuss, Cronus). Those with disadvantages should have their voices amplified - except lowbloods should stop whining and misogyny isn't real. And those with real power should check their privilege - but won't somebody think of the poor highbloods who have ~emotional problems~? Kankri will, and all the highbloods need to do is bend the knee and treat Kankri as their specialest boy.

In short, he's using his intellect, rhetoric, and forceful personality for selfish, emotionally-driven pursuits. The actual substance of his arguments is ephemeral and contradictory because that's the trick - the point is NOT to further equality, but to verbally browbeat his conversation partner into submission. In other words, you can't beat Kankri in a regular debate, because the moment you start trying to actually engage in a debate with him, he wins. The moment you start lunging at his arguments, he's got you in his red-texted labyrinth. The moment you start treating his points like they merit genuine discussion, you're in the pews of Kankri's church, and he's up at the pulpit.

And Eridan is the destroyer of faith. He's also an idiot who doesn't listen to people.

I don't really know exactly how it would play out, but I know in my heart. In the pit of my soul. That Eridan would call Kankri several slurs, (correctly) point out that Kankri's celibacy is stupid because it's clear he has feelings for Cronus and Latula, (correctly) point out that his pro-equality stuff is stupid because he calls violets "Royal-V"s, (incorrectly) accuse Kankri of hitting on him, (correctly) point out that the entire point of a slur is that it hurts and insults the person it's used on, (correctly) call Kankri several more slurs, (correctly) point out that Kankri just wants attention, especially from highbloods, (???) go on an unhinged rant (maybe more) about being a wizard, being a murderer, and being a murderer wizard, (???) insult Kankri's taste in music, and finish it up by (correctly) revealing that Eridan and Karkat are moirails who make out sometimes.

I think Kankri would start crying.

[queen-morgana91]

The fact that certain people dislike Aang because

"He's a pacifist" - he's a monk, guys. Horrifying. Also being a pacifist is a crime it seems. Killing people and starting wars is more cool

"He's childish" - he's 12 🤦‍♂️ he matured a lot during the series and he was forced to grow up quickly like the rest of the gaang. Let alone that most of the time is copyng mechanism, he's dealing with his trauma is his own way

"He didn't kill ozai" - ah yes, still missing the point of the series in 2024. He’s the LAST airbender of a genocided culture. The way this fandom don’t value culture is insane. Which character in this series was ever asked to fore sake their culture? yeah, no one. Aang isn’t wrong for preserving his, stfu

"He had it easy" - the GENOCIDE SURVIVOR had it easy, ok. The lion turtle didn’t give Aang an easy way out. It gave him a choice, after that Aang, the AVATAR aka half spirit, prayed for it. He said he would have killed Ozai if he had no other option and he almost killed him in their fight, but he decided to stay true to himself and to preserve his culture. Aang almost died to take away Ozai's bending, easy my ass. You wanted him to be a cold blooded murderer? watch another series

"He has no development/growth" - sigh. Did we watch the same series? some of you think that you have development if you change personality/beliefs 🤦‍♂️ Aang has a GREAT character development. He makes choices that push him in a way that allows him to move beyond what people, his past lives included, expect of him. He became far more mature and he accepted his role as the Avatar and his responsabilities for the sake of the world. The reason his beliefs never changed is because many characters pressure him to give up his core values which come from a genocided culture. The air nomads, who raised him. If the only way you know of character development/growth is them being forced to change their fundamental beliefs, you don't know what character development means. Aang is the Avatar the world needed and he put an end to the cycles of hatred

"Aang values his culture above other cultures" - lol no he doesn't. Not only Aang is extremely respectful of other cultures (if you talk about the sea prunes again, i swear) but he values his culture because.....again, it was genocided. He never hold it above other cultures, but uses his own to make his own decisions, which is different. Mind you, other characters in the series hold their beliefs above his and dismiss his (Zuko was one of them btw). The adults, like general Fong, literally forced Aang to use violence and the Avatar state. But sure let's ignore it

"He's too perfect/he makes many mistakes" - make up your mind. Not even his haters know wtf they're talking about

"He has a crush on Katara" - how inconceivable. Damn, i'm still traumatized. Also Katara has the audacity to love him back. Horrifying

And then the shipping reasons....yeah i'm not gonna bother here, braindead takes from delusional people

All opinions that i will never ever take seriously, sorry

Free Aang

[emblemxeno]

The thing that irks me the most about 3H fans and Edelstans talking about how "morally grey" their game is ends up being how they bash Fates and act mad the characters aren't 100%-rational automatons who make decisions that aren't rational. I saw Faerghast's essay on Xander, and it was insulting he insinuated it would've been more "logical" if Xander betrayed his only family to work with Corrin. Logical on what? Corrin in that route sided with the defenders and is working to your home's destruction, on top of carving a path through the Nohrians and seeing thousands of casualties in the process! He'd be right to oppose that, if on grounds to defending his own home and loved ones!

In fact, I'm going to make a take that's scathingly hot in Reddit FE or Serenes Forest, but ice cold in this blog: Fates is more morally complicated than 3H.

The core moral dilemma of Fates is legitimately complicated; maybe not 'morally grey' like people want it to be, but it's legit complex if you don't buy into the superficial black-and-white morality the game merely appears as. Hoshido and Nohr are two kingdoms full of good people worth fighting for and both of its protagonists are sympathetic; Hoshido is willfully oblivious to Nohr's starvation but is the victim in an imperialistic invasion, and Nohr suffered from a total civil war and its leader is a possessed revenant that is psychologically abusing his surviving spawn and following the whims of a mad god. From that, Corrin is thrust into a sadistic choice: abandon the only family they knew for most of their life to side with the defenders of an invasion and turn their blade on the only family that they remembered most of your childhood from, or stay with the only family that they knew of to try and save them from an abusive tyrant of a father and exert their privilege of being a royal in that kingdom to at least try and reform things internally. A genuinely complicated moral dilemma where both sides are valid, given that’s simply not an easy choice somebody can make, especially if there’s good people on both sides of the conflict. Moreover, the game actually shows you the devastation your choice causes, even in the neutral route, as no matter what path you pick, good people will be hurt and there's nothing you can really do about it.

3H, though? It not only tries to give an out for the player feeling any kind of moral culpability or having to feel bad that they may have picked the "wrong" choice, even the core moral dilemma falls flat when you cut through the obfuscation; for all of Dimitri, Claude and Rhea's many flaws, they aren't causing an imperialistic invasion to conquer the rest of the continent, kill the entirety of a race of dragons and side with the very people facilitating the conflict. And I don't want to hear from the Edelstans that "it's not that simple", because fuck you all, it is. Adrestia is invading other nations in a war that will kill thousands, see a genocide be completed and works with a bunch of scheming molemen fascists for control, and we're supposed to believe that has a moral leg to stand on? Conquest never tries to impress you that this is the morally correct choice; doing the realpolitik you had to do in Fates was the logically correct decision when it became clear you attempts at reform weren't working, but it still had a human price to such a decision and the entire point of Conquest's climax was taking responsibility for that and actually acknowledging fault for it. Something Edelgard doesn't do nor does the game allow the player to do, because it wants you to think it's so sad that Edelgard's having to "kill her fwiends :( " for a war she purposefully fucking started and will happily see thousands die if it means destroying the system that tormented her outright. I'm sorry for what Edelgard suffered but her actions will ruin the lives of thousands more and engaging in fucking imperialism will help jack shit.

For Fates, there is actually humanity in both the invader and defender, and the game makes clear that no matter what you choose, good people will die. 3H straight up thinks that's a necessity to "prove one's ideals," even when there is a fucking sense of justice, and it's not the ones engaging in imperialism. And it really just illustrates how hollow the FE fandom's idea of "grey morality"; they don't want a story where they could ever be the bad guys and the people they're fighting are possibly the good guys, they want to have an ideological standpoint that the game tells them they've made the right choice while the enemy they fight is completely in the wrong but has a sob story that makes you feel bad for fighting them, so it's A-OK, right? It's predictable as daylights if you look at how the most popular villains in the series are Berkut, the Black Knight and Lyon, people who were twisted and forced into evil and were largely sympathetic but were to be put down in the game of your ideals or some shit. Which really goes to show how childish these people are; they lost their shit over a route of a game where you weren't explicitly the good guys doing hard decisions made by hard men and actually chewed you out on the senseless loss of life and that there wasn't anything glorious to celebrate over this, even if you have objectively valid reasons to choose Conquest and moreso with the realpolitik it engaged in. Hell, many of which decried the entire route, one that hoped that it's audience would be smart enough to decipher what it says and cross-reference with what it implies to get it's core point, as the worst-written route in the series because to them it was "so stupid it hurts" despite it having a perfectly sensible explanation in context and subtext if you actually bother to pay the fuck attention and constantly critically think whether or not what the game tells you holds up or not. Which just proves a long-running cynicism of mine that people don't want the truth, they just whatever comforts their sensibilities as a player of these games, regardless of who suffers for it. If these people couldn't handle Conquest, I fucking shudder to think of what they would think of Spec Ops: The Line, the entire game about deconstructing the power fantasy of the player wanting to play the hero in a war that takes lives.

God, I hate this fandom.

I agree entirely!

I think many in the fandom have this weird twist on emotion, sentimentality and logic.

Actions performed and words said on a personal, connective level by characters in these games are given SO much shit by SO many people. Eirika trusting "Lyon" with the sacred stone, Alear bumrushing into danger, Celica being self sacrificing, etc. They tend to not be given grace by people analyzing stories, and are regarded as idiotic decisions that are poor marks on their writing.

When it comes to mass consequence though? When it comes to 3H at least, people are fucking cracked. Mass suffering in a war, with starvation, economic strangling, imperialism and human experimentation is "complicated" with "no true good side". "Everyone is a war criminal guys, stop fighting!" And when the objective sufferers of these things have their problems platformed? You get genocide deniers, you get ableist vicitm blamers, you get defenses of countries being taken hostage, you get defenses of trampling on religious freedoms, etc.

Is that moral? Is that what being a "complex epic of layered ethics" means to people?

Yet, Xander, a guy defending his kingdom from being defeated in a deadly war with his family in the crossfire is idiotic and cowardly? Because despite being an abuse victims with the greatest memory of his father being a good man and drilled with responsibilities of being a crown prince, he's still just irredeemable?

Like, is it not crazy that we give an objectively more horrible country and emperor like Adrestia and Edelgard so much more fucking grace for so many worse crimes, justifying it with trying to "change a power structure" and "correct a bloody history" that she's proven to be fucking wrong about, than we do Xander, an abuse victim with personal stakes forced into a position that he's been groomed to believe he can't run away from?

[sepublic]

            Anyhow Belos’ whole Caleb Betrayed Me schtick is fundamentally unserious because in addition to Luz pointing out he was the one who betrayed Caleb, it’s like.

Caleb: Has a basically-perfect world and new friends that he puts off for years because he wanted to grow up with his brother and so he went back for him. Caleb hoped his brother making an exception for him meant he wasn’t brainwashed, that this could be the starting point to question everything else. He didn’t even drag Philip through the portal kicking and screaming because he respected his autonomy! They both knew that the other knew, so Caleb must’ve brought it up. But after years of failure he moved out like many people do when he knew Philip was old enough to take care of himself, and even good at charming others… Yet Caleb was so happy to think his brother changed his mind for him after all, his first response to a cursed Philip was to lovingly embrace him. He wanted Philip to be there with him, so badly.

Philip:

            And that’s not even getting into how his witch and demon companions were helpful to Philip and he still got them killed, and still insisted on genocide. And when he faced actual consequences for his cruelty, he saw people having sane and reasonable reactions to this as proof they were evil. I think people focus way too much on Caleb when it comes to Philip’s interactions because with the witches and demons he’s shown to have no problem getting people to give him a chance, so it really is his fault when he ruins every relationship he gets. He’s like Hal from Megamind where you could sorta feel sorry for him and understand how his thought process had this takeaway from his situation, but realistically he’s too much of a dick.

            There’s something disgustingly hypocritical about Philip knowing Caleb hung out with a witch before returning to Gravesfield to grow up with him (as the age of his statue confirms), and choosing not to tattle on his brother as they become adults… While still idolizing witch hunting and how his community murdered women and girls who were accused of fraternizing with witchcraft. When so many protagonists in this show are hypocrites in a “It’s okay for you to do/be X, but not for me” way, it only makes sense the antagonist who is the antithesis would feel the opposite.

            It’s the exact same vibes as someone who loves their child deeply but then guns down other people’s children without any remorse. Or the Republican who bans abortion but lets his wife have one. You know what you’re inflicting on others and you still did it because it’s different and yours is different. Because those were women and he’s a guy.

            Caleb was aware that his brother knew, that he saw. He just believed he could work with that to convince Philip to let those harmful ideas go, and I bet he brought it up in private plenty. I guess it never occurred to him that his brother wouldn’t actually be consistent, until they were adults; At that point, Caleb must’ve given up and moved out, since they were both old enough to take care of themselves and make decisions.

            In the end Caleb’s mistake was that Philip would be consistent in his logic, but he wasn’t, not even in the other direction because despite murdering Caleb in the name of witch hunting he still engaged in Grimwalker magic. It’s really as simple as gay republicans: They just naturally, arrogantly, see themselves as the justified exception. Hence Belos triumphantly showing off to Luz how consuming Palismen helps him kill magical beings. The only thing that pissed him off was Luz pointing out it made him non-human, because that’s the part of his hypocrisy he didn’t want.

[comikas-fandom-dump]

sasuke was going to genuinely plan out a genocide and it wasn't something he said in a fit of rage, right?

Was Sasuke Uchiha genocidal?

(2k words of analysis, manga screenshots, and other resources)

To refresh everybody's memory, Sasuke's plan was to destroy Konoha and everybody in it. Not that he actually did but those were his own words.

Now we can interpret this in two ways

Sasuke is blinded by rage and would, in a hypothetical scenario, act on his words (Sasuke is genocidal)

Sasuke is being dramatic and/or would get cold feet when confronted with the scenario (Sasuke is not genocidal)

In my opinion, the first scenario is far more likely to occur and the second lacks sufficient evidence to reasonably rule out that Sasuke is genocidal.

>>Analysis under the cut<<

Let's establish a few things before we begin. But feel free to skip to the next headline.

First, I will judge attempted crime as harshly as committed crime. Since this is not real life, there is no need to reward incompetence or luck. Either way, the focus of this discussion is Sasuke's intent and resolve.

Second, fictional characters don't exist in flesh and blood but as part of a narrative. This means that a character's decisions and psychology heavily depend on the author's intent.

Third, I love Sasuke's character. Do not misunderstand this as hate. This is an analysis of Sasuke's psychology and actions. He has been wronged in horrific ways and deserved better, but that won't make me sanitize his character.

Fourth, the red links are context links, linking back to my own posts. I highly recommend reading them.

The Sincerity of Sasuke's Death Threats

As per the two options I provided in the beginning, Sasuke's declaration of "destroying Konoha" must have either been sincere or not - the latter implying that Sasuke is being dramatic and/or hasn't considered the weight of his words yet, making him want to take them back. But in my opinion, that does not align with Sasuke's character.

Sasuke rarely (if at all) jokes around or speaks from a place of uncertainty or dramatics. He says he'll kill Danzo? You bet he does. He says he'll kill Itachi? He does. He says he'll kill Naruto? He tries that as well. Granted, two of these deserved to die (from Sasuke's POV) but what matters here is that Sasuke's threats are meant to be interpreted as sincerity rather than hyperbole. At the moment that Sasuke speaks them, he also means them. He is neither a liar nor a performer.

But Sasuke does go back on his words, doesn't he? During the ending, for example (although it is arguably a character inconsistency). Or during numerous other instances. Why wouldn't it be the same this time as well?

Let's take a look at a few.

One of the few other times that Sasuke takes back a threat is when he threatens to kill everybody Kakashi ever loved (chapter 177). But it is not exactly a threat - it is a hypothetical or an implied threat at best with no actual motivation or desire to drive it. Back then, Sasuke ends up reconsidering his words - though does he really?

Chapter 416 seems to be paralleling this scene. 3-4 years have passed for Sasuke to take a deep look inside himself and judge whether or not he meant those words back then and whether he means them now. And yet, he returns to the exact same logic: I will rob you of your loved ones as punishment for disapproving of my bloodlust.

After he had so much time to reconsider and reflect, Sasuke's readiness to induce harm to innocents does not appear to be spontaneous or ill-considered.

Noticeably, while Sasuke very often actually ends up executing his threats, he generally also hesitates every now and then. Like when he ends up sparing Naruto after knocking him unconscious. Or sparing Dosu because Sakura begs Sasuke to stop. How can we explain this? Perhaps Sasuke is not as committed to his words after all.

The problem is that those moments occurred at an entirely different point in Sasuke's character arc at which he is still rapidly bouncing back and forth between cruelty and mercy. While yes, Sasuke is known for hesitating on his path, this hesitance slowly but surely disappears from his decision-making later on. The cause of this change is the decay of Sasuke's morals and ensures that pre-truth reveal Sasuke and post-truth reveal Sasuke are two different people.

The Decline of Sasuke's Morals

Sasuke acts entirely differently after the truth reveal. His morals have visibly changed for the worse. Perhaps it becomes the most apparent when comparing chapter 8 to chapter 481. Whereas Genin Sasuke would once help and support his teammates if they could not keep up on their own, a teenage Sasuke disposes of them.

This kind of development first occurs as early on as chapter 56 when Sasuke decides that growing stronger (ends) justifies carrying a curse mark (means). He is on a steady moral decline afterward, first willing to sacrifice his loyalties (Orochimaru), then uninvolved bystanders (Killer B, the other Kage, other shinobi, and samurai), and finally, a friend (Karin) all in pursuit of his goals. It is utilitarian in nature.

Also, please let's not discuss the validity of killing soldiers. We have already dealt with this question during Waves Arc and later when Itachi died. From Sasuke's and other characters' POV (and as evidenced by chapter 343), dehumanizing and discarding a person just for being a soldier on the wrong side is wrong. Understood? Good.

What happened to Sasuke over time is, of course, a character arc. A corruption arc, to be specific. Let's take a quick look at some writing mechanics.

A character arc is always initiated by some sort of trigger event. If said event lies between a version A and B of a character, chances are that their sympathy, competence, or proactivity have become incomparable to each other. This is why a 13-year-old version of Sasuke (pre-truth reveal, which is his trigger event for this specific arc) does not inform us about the workings of a 17-year-old version.

Before this triggering event, Sasuke is also in the midst of a turning point in his arc, hence the indecisiveness about killing Naruto. You can view this in parallel to the Hero's Journey's "Refusal of the Call" during which Sasuke is still hesitant about the road he is taking until the triggering event makes the decision for him.

Now, back to Sasuke's morals. Personally, I believe what stands at the helm of Sasuke's corruption arc is a decrease in self-awareness and a growing lack of empathy.

There's a certain hypocrisy to Sasuke's decision-making. Sasuke is grieving a brother but then attacks somebody else's brother. He is enraged about Konoha discarding Itachi as a tool but will then proceed to abandon his own comrades (Team Taka). He condemns the genocide committed against the Uchiha but then plans a genocide of his own. Injustice is only injustice if inflicted on Sasuke but not if inflicted by Sasuke.

This does not compare to a younger Sasuke, who uses his own trauma to understand and connect with others and to discern right from wrong. Sasuke is capable of empathizing with Naruto because he is lonely (like himself) and Sasuke finds Orochimaru "disgusting" for viewing humans as mere tools (like a genocidal Itachi). But, over the course of his arc (and after a lot of bouncing back and forth), his trauma instead turns into a weapon to distance himself from others.

The in-universe reason for this change is likely that Sasuke's mind is fully occupied with his own grief and rage. He is blinded by it, so much so that he no longer has the mental space to accommodate other people's pain and suffering.

There is also a narrative device to this, usually applied in the "darkest hour", such as "Batman Grabs a Gun". The purpose is to draw attention to the severity of the situation while also providing more depth to a character by giving them an underlying layer (their emotions/struggles/etc.) beneath their facade (their morals/reputation/etc.).

In Sasuke's case, this is used to highlight his grief for Itachi which is greater than any moral principle Sasuke has. Whatever allows or aids Sasuke in expressing his grief is fair game.

Intensity and Duration

So, Sasuke is definitely blinded by his rage. But is it a "fit"? I suppose that this is a matter of definition.

Sasuke's hatred for Konoha appears to be a constant. It doesn't change. It doesn't lessen. Not after a couple of hours and not after a couple of days.

To me personally, due to its duration, this is no longer a fit of rage but a mindset - one that Sasuke seems to wholeheartedly believe in.

Regardless of this, we have no indication that Sasuke's rage would lessen anytime soon. On the contrary, actually. Sasuke claims that his hatred has only grown since then.

The question we now have to ask is whether or not Sasuke would be able to rein in his rage in time to spare innocent lives. Alternatively, and combined with Sasuke's willingness to kill his own teammates, it is entirely possible that Sasuke's rage would power through, as it did for approximately 300 chapters in canon already.

The Attempts

Now, the most damning argument I have to offer is that Sasuke was already intending to make his genocide plans a reality (or take steps to do so) on three occasions. Twice during the Summit Arc and once during the War Arc.

On all three occasions, the reason why his plans don't come to fruition is because Sasuke gets sidetracked or stopped outright.

In addition, there are three other problems slowing him down. Right in chapter 416, Kisame explains that Sasuke is not strong enough to fight the entire village - even with Taka's help but even more so without them. This conflicts with Sasuke's belief that Taka likely won't approve of his genocide plans or should not be involved for other reasons (which is why Sasuke pretends in front of them). He both needs Taka and has to get rid of them.

Later on, Naruto declares that he will always be there to defend Konoha against Sasuke. My interpretation of this is that Sasuke not only honors his bond with Naruto but also recognizes that fighting Konoha and Naruto simultaneously is not strategically wise - hence, for all intents and purposes, he needs to defeat Naruto beforehand.

First Attempt

Sasuke takes Team Taka with him, believing them to be necessary backup. Then Obito intervenes who both threatens Sasuke and gives him the wrong impression that Konoha is "no more" - either fully eradicated or too weak to defend itself.

This might erase the need for Taka as Konoha is weakened significantly and Danzo can be targeted separately from the village.

Second Attempt

In the meantime, Sasuke kills Danzo. As explained by Kisame, a greater conflict with the entirety of Konoha is inevitable if you aim at major political leaders.

On his second attempt, he has coincidentally already managed to abandon the entirety of Team Taka, just as planned in chapter 416. But this time, before he can go to Konoha, his eyes suffer extensive damage and he instead encounters Team 7. As explained previously, Sasuke soon realizes that he cannot/doesn't want to destroy Konoha before killing Naruto. And before that, he needs to get his eyes fixed. This results in Sasuke's withdrawal from the fight.

Third Attempt

On his third try, the one in which he decides to target Naruto first, he instead gets sidetracked by the appearance of Itachi on the battlefield.

"Sidetracked" doesn't mean "giving up" or "displaying disinterest" in a different goal. Otherwise, Sasuke's training under Orochimaru for 3 years would be proof of his disinterest in killing Itachi. Sasuke is simply prioritizing urgent matters and acting strategically.

Now, all of this "getting sidetracked" might sound a little convenient. But the question is "convenient for who?"

It is of course possible that Sasuke is openly searching for excuses because he doesn't truly want to eradicate Konoha, making him a harmless villain. The other explanation is that Kishimoto was the one looking for excuses.

In a conversation, @theheirofthesharingan pointed out that Sasuke is being "saved by the narrative" ie. plot armor. Though not in the sense that he is being protected from harm but rather that he is being protected from inflicting harm, probably as an extension of Konoha's own plot armor. This also ensures that Sasuke remains "redeemable" and likable to the audience so that Naruto can fulfill his goal of bringing him back to Konoha.

Conclusion

As I said in the beginning, there is a huge mountain of evidence suggesting that Sasuke not only fantasized but would've acted on his revenge plans against Konoha. This is because

We know Sasuke to be a non-dramatic character who doesn't easily back away from his own words.

Sasuke is on a corruption arc, his morals declining far enough to kill a friend. It seems unlikely that he'd draw the line at a stranger.

From a writing point of view, continuing Sasuke's corruption arc makes more logical sense unless he experiences another trigger event. It also further highlights Sasuke's pain.

Sasuke has repeated his goal multiple times over, leading me to believe that his mood wouldn't change soon enough for Sasuke to second-guess himself.

Sasuke has taken steps towards the fulfillment of his goal. It is entirely possible that, if Konoha didn't have plot armor, Sasuke would've found the right time to destroy the village eventually.

Of course, Sasuke's morals are not entirely gone, as we can see when he refuses to join Kabuto (though potentially just because Kabuto antagonizes Itachi). It is still entirely possible that Sasuke would've gotten cold feet when physically confronted with the task of killing innocent civilians. But this possibility is hardly entertained by any of the characters and Sasuke himself doesn't seem conflicted about his plans. It seems like Kishimoto intended for Sasuke to be genocidal, most evidence pointing toward this reading of his character.

I certainly have my opinions on this matter but, like always, this is a matter of interpretation.

Debating me is fine. I like to discuss my favorite characters. But screenshotting, blocking me, and then attacking me behind my back (and without having ever interacted with me) in a new post is a no-go for obvious reasons.