#but i also think its important to remember that what people post is not necessarily everything about a work that they notice

[sepublic]

            I also wanted to discuss this as its own post because it’s the only question from the Gallery Nucleus Q&A I can find an actual video source on, but in regards to whether there would’ve been a Wittebane flashback in the show, had there been no shortening? None whatsoever, according to Dana herself; On account of A) Not wanting the audience to think Belos is in any way sympathetic, and B) Wanting to preserve the mystery of what exactly happened, because she thinks it plays into the horror vibes better. There definitely would’ve been more than what we got in canon, but not a full backstory.

            Can I say, what a relief to have actual confirmation, in one way or the other? With that in mind, I get Dana; That’s a pretty fair takeaway! Considering who Belos represents, it’s fine to not want viewers trying to think of him as understandable in any way, when we have sycophants in the media playing devil’s advocate for the current men in office; Sometimes ya gotta be firm, and if this is the writers’ way of conveying their point, so be it!

            Dana obviously didn’t want to portray Belos as evil since birth just from the memory portraits, and the overall themes of the story; But she didn’t want viewers to think Belos is sympathetic just because he wasn’t born evil, which is what you can say about every person in history, good and bad. And while I do consider that the writers made a mistake by including Hunter in the show at all, it seems Dana was at least wary about fans bending over backwards for those other white guys Belos and Caleb, which I’m really grateful for in hindsight.

            To go on a tangent, the second reason also makes me think of how the Star Wars films, which stand on their own, never really explained why Palpatine was like that, and they didn’t need to when the mechanics of the world and reality provided enough; And with Belos, we know a lot more about his background, AND he’s more humanized! The Tragedy of Darth Plagueis the Wise was all the story needed, and the mystery does add a layer of horror.

            Of course, certain people are freaking out over this revelation, so let me bring up this one popular Tumblr post going around, about how it’s important to humanize villains so the viewer can reflect on the capacity for evil of anyone, including themselves; With a very popular addition to that post being that humanizing a villain isn’t necessarily the same as sympathizing with them. The former is all Dana and the writers did, and frankly it’s all they needed to do.

            We’ve seen Luz and Lilith’s ability to fall for a cult under the promise of belonging, King feeling tough from destroying his enemies, the Collector’s possessive love. There’s plenty of good faith examples of hurting people because characters thought it was for the better, and Belos provides an example of bad faith, in addition to the show emphasizing character beats exclusive to him; The colonial white supremacist. The so-called critics aren’t really asking for what they say they are, because really, the complaints boil down not to the fact that Belos wasn’t humanized, it’s that the narrative didn’t sympathize with… a genocidal white supremacist?????

            I remember seeing Belos fans claim that the crew wrote him “differently” in S3, that they made him less sympathetic, which is silly to me not just because S3 Belos is the same guy as S2, but mask-off and in the midst of his villainous breakdown.

            But S3 was where the writers established that he was an orphan, that he wears his brother’s coat, that contrary to S2’s presentation, he DOES somehow feel guilt over the brother and Grimwalkers he murdered, and it’s an interesting contrast to his apparent apathy at the end of Hollow Mind!

            But it’s also not mutually exclusive from his prior-established enjoyment of hurting the Grimwalkers, because abusers can have mixed feelings about their abuse but still do it anyway because they ultimately still thrive on it. It doesn’t make Belos a good or tragic person, it just makes him human. The show doesn’t invite you to find him sympathetic for this, just condemn him more because of how pathetic it all is, it’s a realistic reaction based on how anyone would react to him IRL. There’s nothing different about Belos in the finale, it’s just a reminder of who he still is at his core, and being human doesn’t retroactively make committing genocide ‘complex’ because we’re all human, why does he get special credit for that?

            Again, I’ve seen some salty Belos stans claim that giving him a flashback was necessary to show how people can fall down that path, but again the show already did that. And amidst the discussion of good faith, the point with Belos specifically is that some people are just acting out of bad faith, and it’s why you can’t fix everyone, and that’s why we had the Collector’s hug fail. Because if you orchestrate genocide, then you’ve given up any claims of acting in good faith. Everyone has the capacity for evil, but realistically, it comes to some people a lot more easily than others; Even so, Boscha was a bully with no reason for it, but she still matured! And I see nothing wrong in this day and age of showing that a PoC has every right to kill a white supremacist who’d already murdered her. I swear it feels like people think belittling or hating on victims makes them subversive and not just stupid.

[beclight]

im known for being THE bec light fan of the fandom, so i feel like im in the right place to say this: YOU DO NOT OWN FANDOM CHARACTERS AND CANNOT PREVENT OTHER PEOPLE FROM LIKING THEM JUST AS MUCH AS YOU DO, and if that makes you uncomfortable (which is fine, and for any reason), THE THING TO DO IS BLOCK NOT HARASS THEM!!!!!!! ive seen too many ppl in this fandom disrespect others over DARING to say, even as a joke, that they're the number one fan of X character. If someone having the same favorite group of pixels as you genuinely angers you, to the point of feeling the need to insult them and having concerning thoughts about them, then maybe it is time to log off

[kaurwreck]

Dead Apple is immensely confusing until you're able to collect enough information about singularities for context (such as by reading Fifteen & Stormbringer, both released years after Dead Apple).

Dead Apple was Kafka Asagiri's first time writing a movie; it's okay for it to be a rough cut gem.

i love dead apple so much it's such a blatant showcase of how the skk brainfog grips so many in bsd nation by the throat. only ever talking about dead apple in context of that specific scene meanwhile the most insane atsushi lore drops happen in this fucking movie. there are FAR more interesting things than a blowjob in here

[utilitycaster]

So I saw a post that asked the question why the Gau Drashari didn't just intervene when Avalir started shorting the tithe, and it made me realize a certain mentality present in a lot of fandom discussions as of late, so I'll answer that and then move into the more general case.

The answer is of course we don't know specifically why, but the implications of that response are, to be blunt, pretty wild. The Gau Drashari did have an insurance against this; that is the Pact of Crown and Throne. The shorted tithe was a fairly recent development. This also does not consider the responsibilities and numbers of the Gau Drashari, and in general removes all responsibility from the wizards of Avalir.

This does not, to be clear, mean the Gau Drashari hold no responsibility; but the idea of "why don't the Good People Who Knows What's Right Stop The Bad Thing From Happening" relies on a few assumptions that, if left unchecked, become dangerous. The first, and one I won't go into as much depth in this post, is of course that when we're talking about fiction, the bad thing often does need to happen for plot reasons. If your standard is "why has anyone in this story ever let anything bad happen" (and to be clear, I do not think that was the intent of the specific post that sparked this, but it certainly is an argument some people make) then you are absolutely incapable of having a conversation about narrative. The more serious one is one of agency, responsibility, and stewardship, and I'll define those below but in short, is the person who bears responsibility for an ill consequence the person who directly caused it? Or the person who failed to stop them? Can responsibility be shared? And if it is shared, who must act? Is authoritarianism right so long as the Good People are doing it? [it's not, but that is the logical endpoint of this mentality.]

Now, I started writing this prior to the wrap-up, but the idea that the Ring of Brass shared responsibility was explicitly stated; the idea was to have PCs who made it clear this was a “cascading disaster”, not just Vespin Chloras as history’s lone greatest villain. This is explicitly discussed in the text as well by Vespin in his moment of clarity; he knows how he will be remembered, whether or not it is entirely true, and hopes the Ring of Brass will have the mercy of being forgotten, rather than remembered as complicit. Between Patia’s orb and Cerrit, they may have a third option: to be remembered as both complicit and also those who gave their lives in sacrifice to save as many as they could.

The Ring of Brass, indeed, is an excellent opportunity to describe agency, responsibility, and stewardship. Agency in this context is the ability to act - the ability to make choices and act upon them. The Ring of Brass, as important but in many cases less public figures (or public figures with room for a private life, at least). The Ring of Brass make many decisions and are largely free to make them. Responsibility is not just about the outcome of those decisions - responsibility means what you are supposed to be doing - your commitments, your contracts, your promises - but also what you have done - what outcomes were the results of your actions. Laerryn is responsible for maintaining the arcane devices of the Meridian Labyrinth; she is also the one responsible for diverting arcane energy from the Arboreal Calix to power the Astral Leywright. She is responsible, at least in part, for the destruction of the Tree of Names, and the loss of its protection. She is also responsible for the mitigation of the worst case scenario of Calamity by using the Leywright to divert the titans under Cathmoira.

Stewardship is a special type of responsibility. Stewardship is not about the consequences of your own actions, necessarily; a steward takes on responsibility for something that might not be their creation or a mess that might not be their fault. It is an assumption of a mantle of responsibility for something one did not necessarily cause; it’s freed from the two-way street of “responsibility.” Indeed, this comes up specifically at the end of EXU Divergence, which serves as a bookend to both Calamity and to the start of Critical Role; The Platinum Dragon tells the All-Hammer that “it is time we entrust our children to be stewards of this world you created.” Or as was said in the wrap-up about the nature of society after the Divergence, “every single person shares an equal slice of responsibility for building.” This is a responsibility for a destruction many of them did not participate in; indeed, the three mortal PCs and many of the NPCs spent most of their time focusing on survival in the cataclysmic world they were born into. They are not responsible for the destruction or these circumstances; but they are responsible for - stewards of - rebuilding when it ends. It is a task to which they admirably rise.

One needs agency to be responsible, either in the space where responsibility overlaps with stewardship - in performing necessary duties or actions - or in the space where responsibility means that an outcome is the result of one’s choices. If you truly have no space to act and no choices to make, you cannot in any way affect the world, for good or ill; you cannot be held responsible. Similarly, having agency grants some measure of responsibility. It may be a small measure; but it is a measure nonetheless. Now, I think true non-agency is vanishingly rare; but I think there is an unfortunate faction on the internet that wishes it upon their favorite characters and upon themselves as an escape from the possibility of being tasked with responsibility and therefore criticism - how can one be criticized if one is never responsible?

Unfortunately for them, I find few things more loathsome than a shirking or denial of one’s responsibility. To sacrifice agency as self-protection is ultimately a losing game in real life - you will, inevitably, wish for that agency when the protection runs out, and the initial sacrifice is still a choice for which you are responsible - but again, I think true non-agency is rare and most cases are merely a case shirking or evading - passing the buck, as one might say. Saying “well why didn’t someone stop me from doing the bad thing - I didn’t know” is a particularly loathsome specific case of this loathsome practice. Returning to that first example, Laerryn undeniably does have agency (and to her credit, she never claims she doesn’t); if she does not know the purpose for the tithe that is information she could have tried to obtain, and likely had the resources to do so given the power to which she had access. She chose not to; choosing not to do something is still a choice.

On the other side of the coin, the prisoners of Rybad-Kol do have harshly restricted agency but they are not without it, and they consistently choose to exercise it in service of resistance, whether it is Nia trying to push the limits of her scrap of power as a medic to save as many people as possible, or Fiedra developing a plan to rescue Crokas, or Garen introducing structural flaws in the oubliettes. It is very little, but at no point do they collapse to the ground and declare themselves powerless victims of circumstance, however wretched and unfair to them the circumstances may be.

To round out the Calamity-era trilogy I must cover Downfall, which is, I think, the most thorough exploration of what it means to be responsible, in all senses of the word. I think an unstated theme is that the Prime Deities must constantly ask themselves “should I have stopped mortals from doing the bad thing” and balancing that granting of agency and stewardship to mortals with their own responsibility. As with Calamity it too is a cascading disaster of multiple people’s flawed choices; and as with Calamity, the group of PCs ultimately decide to take on this responsibility and mitigate it, knowing it is not enough, that many will die, and that better choices could have been made earlier, but again not collapsing to the ground in despair. The Divine Gate is a creation born from this sense of responsibility - that the best choice they can make is to leave, knowing it too is imperfect and harmful.

Campaigns 1 and 2 are also explorations thereof, and many of the characters are defined by taking on responsibilities for things that are the result of actions over which they had limited control - at least a partial loss of agency. Percy’s creation of the gun was in part due to external influence, and its spread across Exandria the result of Ripley, in a very direct case of him failing to stop her; he sees it as his fault and endeavors to be a better person as a result. Vax intended his promise to be a simple trade of his own life, but accepted, instead, a divine duty. Keyleth rose to leadership despite her insecurities and despite it being a responsibility she had little opportunity to abandon, and in doing so also accepted that she might need to live with imperfect action. Caleb, Fjord, Yasha, and Veth were all put into situations of external influence, and all set out with the intention of learning more or making things right; the parties as whole accepted responsibility for situations that were in no way their doing or for which they truly had no way of knowing the outcome.

One may be able to see where this is going, which is, of course, the ascension of responsibility-shirking and agency denial in Campaign 3. I think the first sign of this mentality among the fandom rearing its head is, of course, the gnarlrock fight. In it, Laudna (as controlled by Delilah) destroys the gnarlrock. Imogen gave it to her and asked her not to do anything to it, and after this, it was broken. Now, was it Laudna’s intent to break it? No. Is it still her responsibility because it resulted from her actions? Yes, in the way that if you accidentally knocked over someone’s expensive sculpture and broke it, they would likely find you responsible even though that was not your intent. This is not a difficult concept, and yet it recurred endlessly (and especially but not exclusively with Imogen and Laudna; discussed here and more recently here.) Indeed, in the specific case of the gnarlrock it raised a question of “are you taking responsibility for the fact that Delilah can overtake your body and cause you to do harm”, which I would say she did not. The idea that it was Orym’s responsibility to stop Laudna, and not Laudna’s responsibility to stop herself, was a similar case. And overall, this attitude became the calling card of many of Bells Hells’ defenders: how dare you ask the party to consider other people’s feelings? How dare you expect them to put themselves at risk? How dare you expect them to understand that they now wield power?

This attitude, as discussed above, has the opposite effect on me; saying “well they had trauma harm they do isn’t their fault” is a condemnation of a character, not a defense, and makes me think even less of them. The idea that abstention from a choice recuses one from responsibility is itself a form of shirking and therefore is, as said before, loathsome and repulsive. Not knowing or even not intending is relevant in discussions of someone’s character, but they are still responsible for the outcomes of actions in ignorance.

I would be remiss to not briefly address this as a mentality outside of fandom, or within fan-to-fan interactions. I’ve more than once received, in response to me asking someone not to spoil something within my tags, the response “How was I supposed to know.” Firstly, it’s in my pinned post and you could ask, but secondly, this is not a defense that will enamor you to me. You didn’t know. You know now. You are still responsible for this action. Correct it. And more generally I think the combination of self-diagnosed non-agency and “why didn’t the good people stop the bad people?” is all too common in a lot of political discussions. If your interpretation of “no ethical consumption under capitalism” is not “do your best but don’t berate yourself for imperfect action” but rather “you can do whatever”, are you someone who is prepared - and indeed, willing to work for - the fall of capitalism? Or are you secretly glad to have an excuse to shirk one’s ethical responsibility? Are you secretly glad to be able to blame the “good” people for not stopping the bad people because the responsibility of fighting the bad people is a much greater one, even though in doing so you separate yourself from the good people and, simultaneously, do absolutely nothing?

This idea again of the good people being responsible for stopping the bad ones is also I think at the core of the dislike of the gods that Bells Hells and some of their defenders hold. If everything is the fault of the gods not stepping in, then no one else has agency and no one else can be responsible for anything and you can never blame anyone else. This of course leads to the incoherence demonstrated here; are the gods an ultimate good then, to be granted this responsibility, or an ultimate evil to not use it to override all mortal actions? If everything is the gods’ fault and responsibility, then nothing can be Bells Hells’ fault. This, of course, however, brings up the question: so why am I watching some people who apparently can’t do anything when I could be watching the far more interesting entities with freedom to act? Is it not more compelling to follow the story of the gods, faced with no choice that will ever absolve them, still try to make choices that help as many people as they can, than to follow some people tediously avoid making a decision until a god tells them they can’t put it off any longer?

The fall of Avalir is designed to be a failure on many separate points, for which many are responsible. The Ring of Brass are among them; they become heroic through taking on the responsibility of mitigation. To defend a party’s failure to rise to their responsibilities or assume stewardship, and to blame some other power for failing to intercede is to forfeit their heroic and indeed, protagonist status.

[gin-juice-tonic]

So, while it's certainly not my intention to talk about pages of the bill book basically every day, it seems every time I write one post I end up thinking about something else. Here's the next something else.

This time it's these two pages. There are several things that are odd to me here. Not necessarily on their own, but when compared with the journal.

First and foremost, I want to use something that struck me here for a quick bit of doyalist analysis. (I know, I know.) Several people have said to me they didn't believe Alex had gone back and read through journal 3 again, and this could be a reason why things are so different and contradictory. But the thing is, these pages hold lines that are strikingly similar.

That top image is small, so I'm going to zoom in on what I mean. These are lines from that first book of bill page:

Here is a line from the "hiding places" page of journal 3:

and here is another line, from the page after this one:

You could argue that the thing about the caves is a plot point, and something Alex might've remembered. But part of Ford's motivation to get going to the caves so soon being the snowfall? Well, I certainly didn't remember that anyway. It's pretty a minute detail. Could its inclusion mean nothing? Maybe. But maybe not.

And if you read past my carefully placed initial highlighting, you'll also notice that lines inclusion is slightly different in the two versions.

Like I said, in journal 3, the pushing factor in getting Ford to make his trip with haste is worrying about the soon to be inclement weather.

But in the Book of Bill he mentions "little time". Why? Because of what's been written down on the previous page:

Im not going to paste the whole thing in here, because it's very heavy. But Ford has been given an express time limit by Bill.

Why then, is the snow even worth bringing up in the first place? I'm having a hard time getting the words together. But I just find it all very odd.

But the similarities between these pages and the ending of the first act of journal 3 aren't all I want to talk about. There's more differences than just the specifics of the snow line.

So, Differences:

This first one is small, but notable to me at least. On the matter of Fiddleford, here's what the Book of Bill had to say:

And here's what Journal 3 had to say:

Fiddleford being "gone" is a lot different from Fiddleford "refusing to speak" to Stanford. The former implying Ford couldn't reach out even if he wanted, the later implying he's made attempts that have failed.

And it's important to remember that the narrative is the Book of Bill pages were ripped out. Ford has written Fiddleford is missing, rips out the page, and decides upon next re-write that Fiddleford just isn't talking to him?

.

The next thing is a really big difference, and requires the addition of two more original Journal 3 pages. It also requires a new question to be asked: "Where do the two Bill pages I've shown fit within the journal?"

Here are the new pages that will be submitted into evidence added into this post:

Though I want to mainly focus on this second one,

The page where Ford's plan all starts to come together. It's worth noting this page comes before the "Hiding places" page I've shown before.

The order of events as laid out by Journal 3 are:

Ford goes to and escapes the truck stop and notices the twin motel sign, realizing he can contact Stan -> Ford lays out where he's going to hide the journals and that he's going to make the trek up to Bill's cave -> Ford fully discloses his plan to hand journal 1 off to Stan.

The Bill Book pages I've been discussing are directly after the page of Bill tormenting Ford within his mind. (Again, not going to post that page due to the subject matter). But we see that the top of the first page says "I awoke from the hallucination" so chronologically it's safe to assume there were also no non-missing pages in between them.

which means the order of events as laid out by the Book of Bill are:

Bill torments Ford within his mind -> Ford futilely searches for clues to Fiddlefords whereabouts -> Ford announces he must make his trip to the caves -> Ford realizes he must contact Stan.

The Bill book is stating "Ford came up with his plan first, and realized he needed to add Stan second."

The journal is stating "Ford was able to come up with his plan upon realizing Stan can help him."

These are very different ideas. And while it's framed in a bit of a cheesy way, I think that Journal 3's idea is very important. Despite everything stacked up against him at this point, Ford was able to keep going and come up with his plan upon realizing that he's not all alone. And specifically, working together with Stan has been the key to defeating Bill since the beginning.

If we are to take the Book of Bill's idea as truth, what of the trip to the truck stop diner and the twin motel sign? When is this supposed to have happened? Is it trying to claim it didn't at all? It's a bit silly, but I don't find it to be fake personally. Nor do I think Ford would have any reason to waste time and pages concocting a fake narrative at this point in his story. In both narratives, Bill is tormenting him every time he loses consciousness, he is exhausted from both the abuse and his general lack of sleep. He does not have time to spare.

But that's not the end.

This book of Bill page:

And this Journal page:

Are sort of paired off again, aren't they?

Supposedly, the "Should I contact S?" Bill page takes place before this journal page with the perpetual motion machine, as this page says Ford has already "Sent word to him".

Ford includes his own mini pros and cons list here, with notably more pros

There are also less cons. The idea Bill might get to Stan, or the idea Stan might destroy the portal no longer seem to be concerns.

Do the pages contradict? Well, not really aside from the order of events I've laid out. But that's sorta the thing, right?

Ultimately the two pages I've been discussing stand out to me because they're re-writes of things already in J3. Very similar except for the big hole of cutting out Ford's motel story.

Ford's supposedly on a mad 72 hour time-limit dash to make all his final arrangements to best Bill. He is at the end of his rope from the nonstop torment he's been subjected to. Does he really have both the time and the energy to be re-writing journal pages just because he didn't like them, let alone adding in entire new false narratives? And even if he does, why would he change it so that remembering Stan becomes the catalyst for his plan to outwit Bill?

[elspethdekarios]

Gale as an archmage

I've been thinking about this for a while. If you select Gale as an origin character in the character creator and play his intro, he introduces himself as Gale of Waterdeep™ he immediately follows with "please - no need to be intimidated."

Now I think we initially brush this statement off as Gale being full of himself, but the first time you talk to him and ask him to tell you about himself, there's an option to say something like "Come on, you must have stories from your time as archmage."

And I've always wondered - how would tav know this? Gale hasn't mentioned it. Which leads me to my research question:

Is Gale famous?

Not Elminster-famous, of course, but is he THE archmage of Waterdeep, known throughout the Realms? Is Gale of Waterdeep a legitimate title, not just one he decided to use because it sounds important?

Maybe all of this is common knowledge in DnD lore, but it's a fairly new world to me. Here's what I found about archmages:

From the Forgotten Realms fandom wiki (https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Archmage):

Archmages were among the most powerful arcane spellcasters found throughout all of Faerûn. These practitioners of the Art were experts at manipulating and altering their spells, often in strange ways. Many cities across Faerûn had a single archmage who dedicated themselves to serve that settlement and its people. Some notable cities included Lyrabar in Impiltur, and the great western metropolis of Waterdeep. The term "archmage" was often used to refer to spellcasters who took on leadership roles among similarly-inclined practitioners of The Art. In the drow city of Menzoberranzan, the head of the arcane academy known as Sorcere was granted the title, Archmage of Menzoberranzan.

So, to summarize, archmages are super powerful, big cities often have a singular, dedicated archmage, and they take on leadership roles in the city, sometimes (or at least once) being deemed THE archmage of the city.

I've already seen posts about the insane amount of power held by archmages, so I'm not really going to go into that. I'm just interested in how well-known Gale would be in the Realms. One issue I'm running into while researching is that many people seem to approach the archmage in terms of DnD stats (spell levels, player levels, etc) rather than from a storytelling perspective.

I can't find much else specifically on how widely known archmages would be. There is a list of archmages on the Forgotten Realms wiki, but Gale isn't included on it. I'm assuming maybe BG3 lore is considered an off-shoot of FR lore and therefore not necessarily canon? Let me know if I'm wrong about this.

So that leaves me with message board responses. Here are some notable ones:

An old candlekeep.com forum on the differences between the titles used by magic users. Several users seem to agree with this person.

From the same thread as above.

Interestingly, DnD beyond has archmage categorized as a monster. I'm not sure if this applies only to evil-aligned mages or not, so anyone with more familiarity, feel free to chime in. Anyway, here's what DnD beyond says:

"Archmages are powerful (and usually quite old) spellcasters dedicated to the study of the arcane arts. Benevolent ones counsel kings and queens, while evil ones rule as tyrants and pursue lichdom. Those who are neither good nor evil sequester themselves in remote towers to practice their magic without interruption. An archmage typically has one or more apprentice mages, and an archmage's abode has numerous magical wards and guardians to discourage interlopers."

Gale does mention having students/apprentices at some point (he says something about being impatient with them if I remember correctly, but I can't remember when he actually says it), and, if he's Professor Gale in the epilogue, you're told that an apprentice delivered the invite to the party.

I also find it interesting that archmages typically have wards around their home to keep out intruders, implying that they're well-known enough to have people regularly trying to break into their home?? Or at least has happened enough times to warrant protection.

I also appreciate this reddit comment on a thread asking about the rarity of archmages:

This lead me to a super interesting reddit post which I really suggest you check out if you're interested. The OP breaks down the percentages of each class and level and translates that to city populations. I'm bad at math so that may be a horrible explanation. Anyway, here's a chart that they made:

I have been trying my hardest to put the alt text on the images for accessibility but I have no idea how that would work with this chart. I did include the text at the bottom for screen readers just in case. I'm sorry!

Sooooo someone in the comments asked specifically about Waterdeep and here's what someone who is good at math figured out! (They are correcting a previous comment with incorrect math, hence the first part of the comment):

Since a wizard is considered an archmage at level 18, it's safe to say that Gale would definitely be one of only a few wizards in Waterdeep with such a title. And if the above commenter's assumption about the Blackstaff being one of the only archmages in the city, Gale being of a similar level is HUGE, right? The Blackstaff is a big deal. From the Forgotten Realms wiki:

Blackstaff was the title and name given to the master of the eponymous staff and Blackstaff Tower, including Blackstaff Academy, as well as the Archmage of Waterdeep.

So if the Blackstaff is THE Archmage of Waterdeep, Gale, obviously, is not. But!!! If we can trust the math of the reddit users above, and we assume Gale was at least a level 19 wizard pre-orb/tadpole/whatever ... he would be one of two archmages in Waterdeep, second only to the Blackstaff themself.

I personally think that's enough renown to be a somewhat familiar name throughout Faerûn. So yes, Gale is a bit arrogant and, in his own words, pompous about being Gale of Waterdeep™ but perhaps it's warranted.

This has been a deep dive fueled by procrastination about writing the research papers I should actually be writing right now. Thank you for your time

[mumms-the-word]

Since you're the gale enthusiast does his orb in the ending where you let the crown be lost to the river/sea still light up when he and tav engage in sex? :3

Hello!! What a fun question!

Although I wouldn’t say I’m THE Gale enthusiast (because oh boy have you seen some of the amazing creatives on this site?? have you seen the headcanons and imagines and fics of people like @dekariosclan and @senualothbrok and @an-excellent-choice?? run don't walk over to their blogs haha) BUT...I do think a proportionally high amount about Gale’s condition and orb lol

and also I still have parts 2 and 3 of my long essay discussing the orb-as-disability/chronic condition still in my drafts so um...oops haha

Anyway here’s what I think! Under the cut for length, and note, we'll be tossing together some lore and headcanons here!

I think you can have it either way! The orb itself seems to react to magic and neglect in the game and he can also trigger the glow at will. In other words, we see it when it flares up after being neglected (i.e., when it pains him), when he absorbs a magic item to feed it, and occasionally when himself triggers the orb (to show you its hunger, or in a darker turn, to trigger the explosion).

It’s a fandom addition that the orb glows during periods of high emotion/stress/desire, but it’s a good headcanon! It makes sense logically in the game. If the orb's glow is triggered by hunger, desperation, etc, why not other emotions?

(And, side note, it’s been a minute since I’ve played BG3 so I could be neglecting to remember a scene where emotion does trigger the glow, and if so that’s my bad!)

Anyway, one of the things that triggers the glow is hunger. Hunger for magic and power, usually. But desire is a kind of hunger too, especially carnal desire. So does the orb glow during sex? Probably! Other people have explored this at length and there are some very fun headcanons about it floating around.

Does the orb glow during sex after Gale has tossed the Crown of Karsus aside and learned to manage his hunger/desires? That’s a more interesting question.

Again, it could go either way. In certain dialogue at the docks scene, Gale says he’ll have to keep feeding the orb eventually. He treats it like it’ll be a lifelong chronic condition. So if the orb lit up before during sex, it certainly will continue to light up post-Netherbrain!

Gale: Perhaps that’s the best place for it. Away from the meddling of mortals and Mystra alike. It’s not exactly the outcome Elminster hoped I would achieve, but it’s the best I could do with the time his charm bought for me. I feel the faintest prickling of hunger from the orb already. It will not remain under the sway of his spell forever.

But when you get to his little post-docks bedroom scene, the one where he proposes, he says the orb has changed. It seems to have calmed, though he isn’t totally sure of the effects or limitations yet. Mind you, this is romance-only, so does a romance help quell the orb's hunger better than friendships or Gale going about on his own? Possibly!

Tav: You seem very relaxed. The orb isn’t on the verge of exploding yet then? Gale: It’s strange. I woke up this morning and realised the orb feels different. No clamour, no desperation, no hunger. I hesitate to say if, but I think it’s…satisfied. I’ll need to keep a careful study of it, make sure it’s not suddenly destabilized by proximity to a rogue pair of Netherese sandals, mind you, but I think it’s dormant. That’s a worry I can leave behind me, at least. Tav: was it Mystra’s doing? Gale: It could be. Or perhaps the orb’s hunger was fueled by my own, and my contentment influences it in much the same way.

It sounds like the orb is dormant, which would suggest no glow. But it's not settled, necessarily, either since Gale suspects it could still flare up. The more important thing is that it's not volatile.

He also says in the epilogue, if you toss the Crown, that Mystra reassures him that the orb won't bother him again. This is if you're friends with Gale, rather than romancing him:

Gale: I have to say, I'm quite grateful just to be 'Gale' for the evening. I fear my students find me somewhat intimidating, due to my erm, explosive former reputation. I seem to put the fear of the gods into them. Or the fear of Mystra, to be more specific. She sought me out, not long after we went our separate ways, and assured me neither she nor the orb should pose me any threat in the future. Of course, it's still in there. A constant reminder of my former hubris, and a surprisingly effective means of keeping my more disobedient students in line. Perhaps a tad too effective.

So, after all that…does it still glow?

It’s up to you to decide! I think it’s fun imagining Gale intentionally lighting up his orb when his students get too rowdy just to watch the sudden hush it puts over the classroom. I think it’s fun imagining that the orb still glows when he gets excited, angry, horny, or even (sadly) stressed. I think that falls in line with details in the game.

And even though it’s dormant, that doesn’t mean the glow has to stop. One, you can headcanon whatever you want haha but if you feel like the lore should support it, just think of it this way: the orb is no longer volatile and in search of arcane power and magic. But it’s still lodged right there over his heart, it’s still very in tune with his emotions (probably). And he says it’s possible to be orb was fueled by his own hunger, and that his current contentment is what keeps it calm as well.

So if, say, he were to experience another type of hunger (for example, “oh my Mystra if I don’t take my lover over this desk right now I will combust” types of hunger) then I’m sure the orb does glow!

Therefore, yes, if he still has the orb in his chest I think it very much still glows during sex.

Hope that answers your question! Thanks for the ask 🥰

[alltheboysandgirlsiloved]

I'm sure that many people are going to disagree with me but personally I think that post-Chaos Theory season 2 events Kenji and Brooklynn shouldn't get back together (and it's probably been a long time coming event).

And I have an explanation.

Before any of you bring out your pitch forks - yes, I admit, I was never a big fan of brookenji BUT I understand how they could have developed feelings for each other. Spending so much time together, relying on each other every day, sharing semi-similar experiences prior-Isla Nublar, not to mention simple attraction - those are all valid reasons as to why they could have fallen in love. And, hear me out, I think that their relationship worked well for as long as they tangibly experienced the aftermaths of Isla Nublar/Mantah Corp Island on the Main Land.

What do I mean by that? When you are going through an experience with someone, especially a traumatic experience, you may still kind of feel rooted in that experience even once it ends. It doesn't necessarily mean stagnation - during that time you can develop as a person, and gather new experiences, but a part of you is still living as if it expects to go back to the old ways. That means that you still follow a similar routine, cultivate the same habits, or keep up the same mindset.

However, as time progresses, you naturally move on. Kenji and Brooklynn could still have experienced some side-effects of living on dino-infected island but their minds moved on and started "settling" on the Main Land. Now that on its own - is not a problem. The problem (well, part of it) is that their threads of development started to stray apart. And I want to emphasize here - it is no one's fault, it is a natural occurrence.

By the end of jwcc S5 and in the first season of jwct, we can clearly notice how it is important for Kenji to have something (and someone) to anchor in. That is not surprising at all - he was a mostly neglected child, who saw a hero in his father but who found a real family in his friends. Perhaps that was his first real experience of a family. Naturally, because of that, "family" suddenly (compared to pre-jwcc Kenji) has a whole different value for him, he starts to associate family with new things like safety, mental comfort, stability, and proximity. We see it not only in how he treats Darius in the finale of jwcc S5 but in how, despite it all, he stays in close proximity to Daniel Kon in jwct S1 - because yes, he (probably subconsciously) extended some of these new aspects of a newly discovered "family" even to Daniel. This explains even better his very emotional reaction to Daniel's death - losing a member of a family is almost like a taboo in Kenji's concept of "family". Staying alive was the top priority on Isla Nublar, being alive together was what made the Nublar 6 family real and safe.

I think, to some extent, a member of a family dying itself Kenji almost treats like an act of betrayal (remember that his mother also died when he was a child).

And now we have Brooklynn who not just dies but fakes dying. And Kenji hates deceit - especially after he was lied to by his own father - a member of his "original" family. And here we have Brooklynn - a member of the found family doing the same thing but even worse. She had her reasons, and her reasons are justified, but the justification of something isn't enough to rebuild a shattered core value / core belief for someone else. Listen, Brooklynn can be forgiven but it doesn't mean that Kenji will be able to restore what they had. Like physically and mentally it may actually be impossible for him.

Now it's time for Brooklynn's side.

Brooklynn is a very interesting character on her own because there's one thing that is unchangeable about her and it's the fact that she likes being independent. She was basically a solo internet superstar who was used to doing things on her own throughout her whole life. Now, it doesn't mean that she doesn't need friends or that she can accomplish everything on her own - no, and throughout jwcc (and I predict that jwct is going to make a point out of it too) she learns how to reach out for help and how to help others. She's a good friend - even her motivations in jwct are deeply rooted in the fact that she is just a really incredible friend. But! That is not the only catalyst for her motivations. She is also ambitious and, like I said earlier, very independent. Both of these are very strong, often dominant traits that heavily define her actions. And listen - those are also traits that for a very long time granted her success and, what's more important, self-satisfaction. To put it plainly: it makes her happy when she can solve mysteries, track suspicious leads, uncover secrets - it has always been her thing! And it obviously makes her happy to this day - maybe it's not as carefree happiness but I believe that it's just a more adult version of the same "emotional high". And not only does it make her happy - she's also incredibly good at it.

It doesn't mean that for Brooklynn the Sense of Adventure is more important than family and friends, it just means that stability is not the value she has as much space for as Kenji does. Because for Kenji, whose whole life centers around creating a solid concept of family and home, a sense of safety and stability is a key value, Brooklynn on the other side is always ready to be on the move, she anticipates dynamism from the world. And that's why Kenji, who's slower and more anxious (even if he doesn't voice it out openly!) to accept changes, doesn't quite keep up with her lifestyle.

Post leaving Isla Nublar, the campers (including Kenji and Brooklynn) started developing in new ways - they picked up new traits, gained new experiences, and started figuring out what works best for them. In my opinion, Kenji's life led him to the point where he had to quite physically sculpt his life on his own for the first time and this process takes years. It doesn't mean that he's boring or, god forbid, lazy - it means that as a person in so many ways shaped by a changing concept of family, he needs to build a house for himself - mostly metaphorically. Only recently he started rock-climbing, and found out that he loved it - that's amazing but he needed time and a proper state of mind to figure it out. We can only guess how the rest of his life unfolds but I tentatively predict that some kind of stability - being able to turn around and see the person you love always there and will always reassure you - will be a core value for him. Brooklynn, with a different personality type, clearly picked up some parts of her life that she had before Isla Nublar. She didn't have to build everything from scratch and, ergo, doesn't value the "building" itself as much as Kenji. None of them are wrong in their mindset, in what they value. But having a different mindset makes it much much harder to reach a common ground in a relationship.

And I'm temporarily putting aside that Brooklynn betrayed Kenji on so many levels and basically broke his heart - in a way, I would argue that (though I feel like she was too harsh when she was talking about it with Darius) Brooklynn could also feel as if Kenji hurt her by not giving her enough credit and space which probably was uncomfortable for her because she is, as we established, very independent. So both of them hurt each other in different aspects for sure (this post doesn't aim to put blame on any of them), but the thing is that I think they just grew up to be different people with different needs.

And that's okay.

(I'm sure some of you are going to be mad either way but I just wanted to share my point of view)

[luli-lads]

World Underneath — Fractal Library Q&A: Breakdown and Theories

This story raised so many questions for me... I felt the need to do an analysis. So, let's go! (Long post ahead)

Preface

It's important to note that when Infold released this update, it came with a corresponding social media post, of which I will just show the part relating to this story:

As you can see, it's stated that this story is related to Zayne. It's important to keep this in mind as he himself isn't mentioned by name in it.

Although, we still could've known it was about him by a few things, it's good to have certain confirmation.

Also, it's helpful to have read The Foreseer's myth, Master of Fate's myth and Dawnbreaker's anecdote before continuing, because although I will give reminders about key elements, the full picture is lost if you don't know what I'm talking about.

What is the Fractal Library?

It's not actually a library in the strict sense, because it doesn't necessarily have books. Let's explore this.

I think the concept of 'fractal' wasn't explained neatly enough in the story, so let me provide more on that. Taking this definition from google:

A fractal is a shape that when you take the shape apart into pieces, the pieces are the same or similar to the whole.

You know a good example of a fractal? A snowflake. (Yeah... Yeah.) Snowflakes have this shape -> ❄️. And guess what it looks like when you put it under a microscope. You get many tiny ❄️ put together. A meta-shape.

Now, back to the library itself. It's not clear what the things in the library are, because they're almost Schrodinger's books in the sense that sometimes they are books, and sometimes they're not. As the administrator tells a kid,

"A lot of the things here aren't what you'd call books, but let's call them 'books' for the sake of convenience. [...] When you want to read them, they'll take on a form that's easy for you to understand. Books are the ideal medium. But if you prefer cartoons, that works too."

Sorry, admin, but I don't think 'books' is the best term for them. They're more like windows. Windows to a different universe, a parallel universe, that can appear as books.

So, what's fractal about these 'books'? As they explain, every book is an entire universe. Except, all the books are the same universe, with slight changes. If you put every book together, you'd get every single possibility that could occur in the universe; what if you took the train? what if you went by foot? what if you didn't go at all? Each its own universe. Stories growing upon themselves with each little decision, like fractals, stories inside stories.

Do you recall any other books in the game that let you experience a parallel universe in a non-book-restricted way? That's right, the books in the Tower of Thorns. They teleported MC inside them and let her experience the contents for herself.

And this is just the beginning of the connections with The Foreseer.

I can't imagine how big the Library must be, to contain all of that (except I can, and we have pictures).

Read the image's alt text <3

Who is the Library's administrator?

That is, the person telling us all of the information about it in the story. I have a wild theory about this one.

First, we can deduce that this person might be on the older side (older, not meaning 'old') since they've gone through more than 6 jobs "over the years" before settling as the administrator. They also used to travel a lot.

Much like Zayne, they also like sweets. This could be a mere coincidence, but it's strange that they pointed that out. I think it was done as a way to further emphasize their connection to Zayne. However, their personality is much more cheerful and open.

I would have to get feedback from people who can read this in other languages, but there is no mention to their gender.

Right. So, putting all of this together, who do I think it is?

Jas. Or, at least, the version of Jas in the current timeline.

If you remember, in the Foreseer's myth there's a sentient ice cluster named Jas, who mainly stays in the library to help her and Zayne reach the higher rows of books by lifting them in ice platforms.

When MC asks about its origin, Zayne confirms that he didn't create it. Jas simply exists.

So Jas is its own entity that simply looks after the library inside the Tower of Thorns (among other things). And the administrator is their own person that simply looks after the Fractal Library.

This one is more speculation than anything, but it would be nice to see Jas again, wouldn't it?

Who is the person on the other side of the telephone?

Some of you are going to get stupidly giddy about my theory here.

We have to note a few things:

— They have impeccable timing, calling every day at 10 AM, and as described by the admin,

"No one manages time as precisely as that caller."

— They're not the owner of the place, but they gave the administrator their position and they seem to look after it.

— They write books. Let's assume the ones in the library.

— They're the one who gave the administrator the order to wait for a specific man to walk in, who would be the owner.

— They have strange powers(?) (I don't know what else to call them), because first of all, how did they know to ring the Library at the right time when the administrator walked in if it was abandoned? And the admin said,

"I approached the counter and answered the phone as if beckoned by an unseen force."

Not only that, but the fact that they can write these 'books' at all??

— They're trying to create a specific 'book'. At the end of the story we hear the admin say into the phone,

"...By the way, how did that new book of yours turn out? When can I read it? Oh... It failed again?"

What does 'it failed' mean? Can't you just write whatever you want if it's your 'book'? Admin also stated earlier,

"If these stories are someone's reality, if their worlds truly exist or once did... Could they have been just experimental playgrounds for some god's whim? Bits and pieces thrown together without a second thought, proportions guided by mood, one failure after another."

We can also guess with this that the admin doesn't know the true nature of the person on the other side of the phone, even if they know they write books.

— They're impatient for the owner to arrive, we can tell by the constant checking in on the matter despite the fact that it will apparently happen on a specific date.

So, putting all these pieces together.

A creator of worlds. A god. Not an all-powerful god, since their worlds keep failing. They're waiting for the owner of the Library, that is, the owner of these books. The owner of these universes. The protagonist in these universes. Zayne (why it's him, further down).

Oh golly gee, what kind of god could have an interest in Zayne, we all put our hands to our heads in unison as realization dawns, that's right baby, Astra.

Listen, take this with a BIG grain of salt, okay? Plus, in this story, if that were Astra, he seems... Nice? It could be a different god altogether! Maybe Astra's opposite, even.

I'll leave this idea here, and we can move on to the next question.

Who's the true owner of the library?

As I said before, it's clearly Zayne, but I'll explain why.

Before anything, let me say that I don't think Zayne knows he is the owner. It's a Matrix situation, Neo isn't the chosen one until Trinity falls in love with him, Zayne isn't the owner of the Library until he steps through its doors. He isn't aware of its existence BUT he might know the admin because they said:

"When the moment arrives, I'm sure he'll come looking for me. [...] And if he doesn't show up, well, we know exactly where to find him, right?"

It's unclear.

Also that last line might be a reference to the fact that they're acutely aware that the stories are about him, so they know where the most probable place to find him is, based on all the existing universes.

So, onto why it's him.

The admin says,

I know an atheist will step through these doors one day. That person is the library's true owner.

God is a reoccurring theme in Zayne's lore. Starting with The Foreseer, who is directly affected by Astra (we could also mention Dawnbreaker here, since he's connected directly by the jasmine flower), Master of Fate, who is a God himself though doesn't really act like one, and finally main!timeline Zayne, where the theming is a bit more subtle.

— The Foreseer: He's not an atheist because he doesn't have a choice (💀) however, let me go a little deeper into his relationship with Astra. He's very vague about his feelings towards the God, but every word is measured as to not offend Him. Although, it also seems like, since he already has the God's favor, he doesn't need to praise him or regard him in a positive light necessarily. A kind of learned helplessness. There is one instance of explicit emotion towards Him...

"Astra's will has presented itself, and the Foreseer's indifferent facade reveals a hint of indignation as he too is imprisoned by the prophecy."

— Master of Fate: As a God himself, he also doesn't have much of a choice in his beliefs XD. However, he doesn't really care about his godhood (in the sense that, he just acts like a normal person and treats humans as equals).

— Dawnbreaker: I couldn't find any mentions of any god in his anecdote. (If I missed any, feel free to correct me). Still, since he's one of the characters in the stories mentioned by the admin, we can count him out.

— Dr. Zayne: If my memory doesn't fail me, quite a few people around Zayne have brought up the existence of a God. Yet he himself hasn't really shown an opinion. Carter asks him directly if he believes in God, and he ignores the question and instead calls Carter crazy.

Now, with Zayne's logical and methodical approach to anything, I don't think he even questions the existence of a god altogether because for him, it's always just been people. People helping and people harming. Things around him, tangible things. He might let himself play around with concepts like fate just because he's in love with MC, but at the end of the day, he's a man who blames things on people (positively and negatively speaking). And that stems from the fact that he carries every mistake he's ever made with him, as things that are his fault. No one else's. So from his point of view, it must be true for everyone else as well. No higher power. People die, people live, that's on him, that's his job.

Dr. Zayne is the only one who they could be referring to as 'an atheist'. But not only that! Since I already established the connection between the Library and The Foreseer's library, I believe there's a narrative order: Zayne enters the library and is designated its owner -> The person behind the phone makes themselves known -> ??? -> Zayne gains Astra's favor and becomes his emissary (gaining immortality) -> Time passes, Earth becomes Philos, the Library turns into the Tower of Thorns -> The Foreseer's myth.

Thus Dr. Zayne ends up as The Foreseer, memories of his past long forgotten by centuries of ice, loneliness, torture, and Astra's meddling.

It would also explain why Astra can't be a character in one of the 'books', and is interfering directly with Zayne in The Foreseer's myth — He got tired of trying to write a successful universe and instead attempted to force a narrative himself, punishing Zayne if he walked out of the path He wanted. Fate.

What are the books about?

Like I said earlier, they're universes. But let's look into them.

The administrator says one thing about them: They're all science fiction. So, the events in them aren't what's happening in the current world. But we know it's the present time since the admin says they're in Linkon City.

The admin also recounts a story they read in those books. It's strange, because they seem like two separate stories, but they say it's only one. I don't know how to interpret this incongruence entirely. A summary:

A world where they look into your genetics at birth and determine your whole life based on them, on what's most efficient. But a man bioengineered a baby with 'perfect' genes, who did whatever he wanted because he could, even if it was wrong. This caused an imbalance in society and a rebellion against the system, the rebels on the losing side. The story ends there, weirdly abruptly?

A dying world. It's better if I paraphrase the beginning:

Everyone but "him" had fallen victim to a virus that stripped away the human form and humanity. It turned people into an energy that would perish along with the planet.

"He" spent his life killing these infected individuals, until there were none left. He was the only living person remaining. Only when the world died, so did he.

I wonder why the admin put these two stories together as one. Obviously the second one is reminiscent of Dawnbreaker's anecdote. Perhaps his end. But the first one...? I hesitate to say it could be one of Zayne's future myths, but is it that far-fetched? After all, these stories seem to be all about Zayne (the "owner"), so why not? It's a failed attempt, there's no real reason why Zayne couldn't have ended up being the bad guy of the story.

Then again... What would be the successful attempt? Maybe it's not even a 'happy ending'. We don't know what the 'writer' is trying to achieve.

I'm gonna be honest here, I was really surprised when the admin let a child come in to read them, considering they're all 'failed attempts', I can't imagine a happy kids book in there 😭

Don't get me wrong, there's the possibility that not all the books are about Zayne. I'm only saying that since Infold made it clear that this World Underneath chapter was about him, and since he's the owner of these worlds, it would make sense if all the stories had to do with him. It seems like we'll get more lore about this place in the future, seeing as the last part is titled 'To Be Continued' so we'll have to wait and see.

Remaining questions...

This weird line:

"I'm in Linkon City now, so I have to stick to the schedule here."

Made me think,

— Is the admin normally somewhere else?

— Is the Library... a moving thing? A travelling library, going from place to place?

— Is the admin used to a different passage of time?

If Astra isn't the 'writer' of those books, and is, in fact, a character in them, who is the writer? A higher level god? They wrote Zayne as a God in Master of Fate, which means they have the power to create gods.

And why the fixation on Zayne? Can Zayne do something for this writer that they can't do themselves? Because, as we've stated, they aren't all-powerful.

It also raises the question, why are they so certain that there's a 'successful version'? How do they know the others are 'failed'? Simply because they're unhappy endings? Maybe I'm thinking too much about this. But if they know they can 'write' a successful world, are they simply a Laplace's Demon entertaining themselves?

There's also the fact that it was highlighted that they're very timely. In the admin's words,

"No one manages time as precisely as that caller."

Could it be a time god instead of a fate god? Just, who are they?

Another thing that's nagging me is that every chapter except the last is supposed to be a Q&A in the Library's guestbook. So, as a text that's supposed to be read by anyone, it would be normal for the admin to lie or hide some things. We can only truly judge their character in the last part. There's a part that further reinforces my belief of unreliable narrating:

P.S. Dear readers, I hope you'll spare some time in this ever-changing world to read, explore times and places beyond your experience, and discover all that lies hidden within the pages.

It might be a reach on my part, but it almost seems like a nudge? A wink?

The whole conversation at the start of the final chapter was odd.

"We'll know the truth soon enough." -> About what? About whether Zayne will arrive on that specific date?

[Talking about books.] "The one I'm working on now is long, so there's still hope." -> Is the admin a writer as well? Or do they simply review the writer's work in search of that 'successful attempt'?

At the end of the story, the admin talks to us directly. This specific line stood out to me:

"I might not meet all your expectations, [...]"

Does that mean we should have expectations? Should we know something about the admin already? If they're not Jas, are they not a new character?

To conclude

They didn't say this in the guestbook Q&A. This was a direct fourth wall break. Why say this to us?

Edit: Added some theories about the kid that walks into the library here.

Okay. Whew. I think that's all I wanted to say.

Excuse my ramblings, I've read this story a lot of times for this analysis and I keep coming up with borderline nonsensical theories. Feel absolutely free to ignore these or make your own.

I've probably read TOO much into it. I just got excited!!! I'm not sure what exactly about this story pulled me so strongly, but damn, I can't wait to know more!

Thank you for reading, and let me know what you think, if you want! <3

But that's just a theory, a hampter theory ;)

[jeonscatalyst]

Sometimes I get a little sad about the fact that I, a gay person, have been loving and supporting bts with Jimin and Jungkook as my biases for almost 7 years and never felt comfortable enough to show love for them as anything more than a friend duo. I’ve even been a quite vocal shipping-anti, don’t agree with the way shippers often behave, certainly don’t agree with companies gay4pay’ing while openly lgbtq artists are discriminated against and harassed. Not to mention having your sexuality and relationships speculated on can be incredibly traumatic. None of it sat right with me, no matter how normalized it is.

But with time I’ve come to realize the lines are blurry sometimes. Jikook is one of those times. For example now seeing that gcf post, Jungkook editing with those lyrics when jimin is on screen, the Tokyo one too with the Troye Sivan song, I am once again conflicted. What if all I’ve been doing for all these years is miss the opportunity to support real representation, to validate queer idols? What if they wanted to be seen? I’ve been actively dismissing so much about them just to be respectful, but what if the more respectful thing would have been to embrace them? I know I would have felt incredibly frustrated if people kept brushing aside all my efforts to show love for my partner and this part of my identity. So which one is worse? I honestly don’t know anymore and that’s why I just stay quiet on them altogether.

Hi anon,

I don’t think you’re wrong for intentionally avoiding putting a label on whatever Jikook might have, because the truth is, they’ve never explicitly told us what they are to each other. As a shipper who spends time on social media discussing Jikook and the nature of their relationship extensively, I am fully aware that I’m being invasive. This feels invasive because, while I believe they might have a need to be seen for who they truly are, I don’t think they’re actively trying to reveal that to the world…at least not yet.

I have a great deal of respect for those who choose to honor their privacy by not digging too deeply into their personal lives. Some of us are far too curious, and while we may feel a strong need to openly support what we believe they are, that doesn’t necessarily justify how much we probe.

It’s also important to remember that at the end of the day, everything we discuss is speculation. None of us know for a fact what Jimin and Jungkook truly are to each other. I wouldn’t fault anyone for their perspective, no matter what they choose to do. I don’t mind people who are anti-shipping because they see it as invasive….it is invasive, after all. My issue is with those who use anti-shipping as a cover to invalidate or disrespect Jikook’s bond. Likewise, I can’t stand those whose homophobia blinds them to the simple truth that love is love, even between bandmates who have lived together for years.

It’s perfectly okay to respect their privacy by not delving too deeply into analyzing their lives while still supporting them in a healthy, respectful way for whatever they are.

I also don’t think Jimin and Jungkook would only appreciate support for the idea of them as lovers. I believe they would be happy knowing people support their bond…whether it’s romantic, platonic, or brotherly. As long as you actively support and acknowledge the love they have for each other(which they constantly show us) regardless of its nature, you really can’t go wrong.

[uyuforu]

How do you suggest we should interpret retrograde positions in charts (natal or persona charts or even SRC/LRC , etc) ? Love the new HeHe persona charts posts btw✨❤️💓

Hi!

Retrograde in general can tell us where, depending on the planet, we struggle more. For example, a Venus Retrograde person will struggle more in their love life and will probably learn more lessons when it comes to relationships.

It can manifest differently depending on what chart it is.

⋆˙⟡ Natal Charts/ Persona Charts: Natal Chart Retrogrades def applies to yourself, and despite some are generational, they all apply and means a lot about you, how you function, etc. So I would say that this is very important to check what is in Retrograde. In Persona Charts, this can also be considered important because Persona Charts are based on placements on your Natal Chart, it's like a "Zoom in". So, if you have Retrogrades there, of course it means something.

⋆˙⟡ Solar Returns: The retrogrades in SRC can be considered rather important to check, but in my opinion, not as much as in Natal Chart. You can still check what it means, mostly Mercury, Venus or Mars. But the energy of the retrograde here will be for a year, while on NC it has a stronger impact.

⋆˙⟡ Lunar Returns: Perhaps an unpopular opinion, but I don't think it matters much to check Retrogrades there. WHY? Well, Lunar Returns are based on the current transits. EVERYONE will have the same planets (except Moon) in the current transit. If one planet is retrograde, even if it's Mercury, mostly everyone will have it in Retrograde in their LRC. In this case, you can still check about it, but don't necessarily apply it to yourself as a specific case. You are no different, everyone has the same, because currently the planet is in Retrograde.

⌞You will then wonder what is personal in a LRC?⌝ ⭑.ᐟ Your Rising sign + its degree ⭑.ᐟ Moon Sign + degree is the same as Natal Chart (Lunar= Moon Return) ⭑.ᐟ Signs over the houses and its degrees (based on your Rising) ⭑.ᐟ Planets in the Houses ⭑.ᐟ Planets' degrees (depending on which, and it depends on when is your Lunar Return, not everyone will have it at the same time).

˗ˏˋ A little recap about Retrogrades ˎˊ˗

⊹ ࣪ ˖ Sun and Moon can't retrograde, NEVER. ⊹ ࣪ ˖ Mercury, Venus & Mars are the most personal retrograde Planets. ⊹ ࣪ ˖ Jupiter to Pluto are generational retrogrades, meaning you can still apply it to yourself though you need to remember it as a "part of a group of people who have it in retrograde" kind of thing.

Hope it helped ⟢

꒰ঌ uyu ໒꒱

email adress: tarotjunoboda@gmail.com

Soft To You presentation and Q&A ᡣ𐭩 rules ᡣ𐭩 private readings reviews

astrology menu ᡣ𐭩 tarot menu ᡣ𐭩 special astrology & tarot reading

Tip Jar: paypal ⟡ buy me a coffee

[autumnmobile12]

My Hero Academia: The one thing I actually liked about the ending.

I've already made my post breaking down why I thought the finale wasn't good. I've seen other posts breaking down the flaws and I expect I'll see more points of view explored.

But in the interest of promoting positivity because I think it's important to remember the positives, even if they're few, I do want to bring up one thing I did like about the end.

I like where Spinner ends up. Here's why:

This is an edited excerpt from the above link.

Spinner might be the only one of the LoV whose fate fit the crime. His reasons were an echo of Stain, but advocating for change to a flawed government system is a worthy cause. Where he went wrong is it wasn't a cause worth killing for. The Commission and hero society would have to be much worse canonically for that to happen. Like blatantly totalitarian policies.

But we didn't really see that happen in canon.

The PLF was put down because they were enacting a violent uprising, not necessarily because of their views.

Destro's book wasn't a banned text and people were free to read it. When Hawks gave it to Endeavor, he wasn't scolded for carrying a banned book around. If the government placed those kinds of restrictions (imprisoning anyone who published it, owned a copy, quoted its teachings, etc.), that would be the worrying signs of censorship.

News stations throughout the series freely criticize hero society to the point of brutal and cutting remarks. In a true fascist government, that wouldn't happen.

The video of Stain's last stand being deleted over and over could be considered censorship, but one could also argue it was deleted in the interest of not causing a panic rather than blocking his message from reaching the public.

Now I'm not ignoring Nagant's story where corrupt heroes were being quietly dealt with because that is some shady cover-up bs, but it's also a brief blip in the series and not explored all that much, which really more so highlights Horikoshi's inconsistencies in just how corrupt the Commission actually was. (I mean, maybe they really were chewing their nails nervously when they found out what Hawks was doing with the Destro books. "We can't kill him! You have any idea how expensive training another one would be?")

So no, while Spinner's cause was right, the way he tried to achieve it within the environment presented by the series wasn't the answer. All the headcanons and fanworks worldbuilding aside, nothing of what the Commission was canonically doing was worth the level of violence reached. If Spinner was writing articles that outed problematic heroes and flaws in the system and then was shut down/imprisoned for that, then we can revisit the violent uprising because if you can't solve a solution with words because those words are being forcefully silenced, then you have no choice but to either accept it or resort to other methods.

And Spinner lives in the end. He's probably in prison for the rest of his life, but he lives and his closing message to the series is, "We lost our war, but I will tell our story. We won't be forgotten."

Notice I said at the beginning of his how his 'fate' fit the crime. Imprisoned, he can no longer fight his war with violence. But he can still fight his war, and possibly still win, with words. Since we can see it available for purchase, his book is not a banned text even though he is a convicted criminal.

...

Even though Spinner lost pretty much everything--his friends, his freedom, possibly his health with his Quirk being tampered with by AFO--he also defies the mold of 'history is written by the victors,' and I think that is something to appreciate in its own way.

Do I think this solves all the problems about the finale? No, absolutely not. If you want my full thoughts, follow the link above, but the short version is I think the ending of MHA is actually pretty sad and the final line 'that's how we became the world's greatest heroes' is a tacky closing against that sadness. Yeah...you all became the world's greatest heroes after a harrowing fight in which you ultimately upheld the status quo in a system that created the villains you faced, and by preserving that status quo, you've basically ensured this is gonna happen again.

But I don't think we should let the greater flaws completely overshadow what Spinner represents. In their strategy meeting, the heroes didn't consider him much of a threat, but ironically as he writes his book, he potentially becomes the greatest threat in the LoV. Does it suck this is where the story ends and we don't get to see where it goes? Sure. Do I love the implication of where it could go?

Yes.

Don't forget Spinner.

[weirdstrangeandawful]

What is whump?

I get asked this question a lot so I figured I'd just make a post about it! I doubt a lot of people will see this since I'm a small whump blog but at least a few people will have a quick reference.

The short answer is that whump is a fictional genre of media. Like any genre, it's difficult for one person to entirely characterise but I'll do my best.

Whump is a fictional genre focused on the experience of pain. This can be physical pain or emotional pain. The pain could be acute or chronic. The focus could be on the recovery from the pain or on the pain itself. It's a super versatile genre!

Some frequently asked questions:

Okay, but how is this different from hurt/comfort?

This is a complicated question (hard to entirely characterise an entire genre, eh?) and it really depends on the writer. For me, hurt/comfort is a subset of whump where the comfort is required whilst whump is the larger, overarching genre where comfort is not an absolute necessity, but many others have different opinions!

What is a whumpee?

You'll often hear writers (especially prompt writers) in the whump community refer to characters as 'whumpee', 'whumper', and 'caretaker'. These are placeholder names like your good old A, B, and C. 'Whumpee' refers to the character experiencing the pain (literally 'the one being whumped'); 'whumper' is the (optional) character causing or contributing to the pain; and 'caretaker' is the (also optional) character helping care for the whumpee and alleviating the pain.

Why would I support someone who thinks people should experience pain?

Pain and adversity are facts of life. In fact, many of us as whump writers and readers engage with the genre to cope with pain and adversity in our real lives. It's important to remember that whump is a fictional genre and someone's interest in the fictional themes portrayed really aren't a reflection of what goes on in their real life. The name 'whump' may be contemporary but this is definitely not a contemporary genre (Shakespearean tragedies anyone?) so there is no use criticising its existence. If you don't like it, that's okay! Scroll on by and block the #whump tag if you need to. Like many artists, we're an accepting community and won't judge. In fact, we probably understand better than most that there is too much pain in the world and not everyone wants to read about more of it.

What's the difference between whump and BSDM/kink?

This is a complicated and very individualised answer. The oversimplified answer is that BDSM and kink are explicitly sexual/sensual whilst whump is not necessarily related to sex. But that is extremely oversimplified and doesn't cover all or even most people's experiences with either whump or BDSM/kink. The most generalised answer I can give is that whump is an overarching genre whilst BDSM and kink are individualised cultural practices and activites. But even that needs nuance and context to understand and apply. For me personally, I don't like combining the two because I experience them in very different ways, but that's just my experience!

Edit: I realise that I was not clear in the above answer. BDSM and kink are absolutely not inherently sexual at all. In my personal experience, I've found there to be a lot more overlap between BDSM/kink and sexual experiences than with whump but this is not true for many and maybe most people. No one person is qualified to answer this question.

[sha-brytols]

im afraid to open a can of worms, haha, but can i ask you what do you like about solas and his romance? coming from a genuine place of curiosity because i never romanced him

i liked him decently on my first playthrough where i befriended him, but when i tried to romance him on another try, my lavellan and him clashed so much, arguing constantly and gaining disapproval like crazy 😭 so i didn't continue it

maybe it's on me for choosing to play as an older keeper and grandmamancing him (romancing him as a grandma), i thought it'd be a fun dynamic but grandma lavellan's freak was left unmatched...

what solas and elnora's dynamic is like? what drives them to romance? what makes them click? i rly want to know

i can't remember if this was sent before or after i wailed about how much i miss blackwall's romance but if its the latter this is really funny. anyway i'm flattered you're asking me of all people since i feel like i'm probably on a solavellan blacklist somewhere LOL

this post ended up longer than expected so um. woe readmore be upon ye

my enjoyment of his romance is like almost purely from a meta perspective so take my opinions with several grains of salt because i am like the furthest you can get from a standard solavellan fan; like on an actual emotional level i just physically cannot fucking stomach imagining myself in a relationship with him even in a self indulgent "sexy older man with Issues" fantasy. which might be the root of your problem too idk what your personal preferences are but full disclosure this is NOT my usual taste LOL

but um. i think for me the biggest part of solas' romance that i enjoy is being able to play off of his character and his flaws and motivations etc. elnora was like my 50th inquisitor so i kind of had the privilege of meta knowledge allowing me to write her relationship to him from a more informed place than someone would be if they were going in blind (which is what i think contributed to me enjoying the game just in general so much, having the ability to go into certain situations already knowing how things will play out and making sure my character complimented the themes and plot structure accordingly).

like for elnora specifically, i gave her a more unorthodox take on her faith (she believes in the maker as well as the creators and tries to follow the wisdom of both andraste And mythal from a place of open-minded curiosity), which meant it was easier to talk to solas and gain some common ground without the constant feeling that you're just being talked down to, which in turn i think made him as a character a lot more digestible to me because i think when you approach his dialogue from a position of genuine interest—even from just a roleplay perspective and not necessarily your own interest in the material—it makes the whole thing a lot more enjoyable because it feels less like an argument and more like a character study (if that makes sense.?) like for me i HAD to detach myself from my character's beliefs to get the most out of it. this isn't even to say you have to make a character that constantly agrees with him because elnora SURE DIDNT LOL but i think it's just about having a character that values his wisdom i would say, because it really shifts your perspective of him and makes it easier to appreciate him as a character

also. yeah. sorry i think the grandma part might have contributed LOL solas' romance does seem like its geared more towards like. mid-30 year old lavellans Max. or at least people who dont have the same amount of life experience that he posits to have. again i think understanding that a lot of the condescension is completely unintentional is important because from solas' perspective he really is just trying to set the record straight for someone who he believes is genuinely just uneducated in a subject matter he is well versed in (you know, it's that thin line between pride and wisdom). so yeah it's probably going to be extra irritating to have a character that DOES actually know what she's talking about and is having to listen to him mansplain elfy shit to her LOL. the power imbalance is a big part of the romance, so it's kind of something you have to accept or at least find a way to navigate that works for your personal comfort level

my favorite part about elnora and solas' relationship i think is that they're pretty much the same person but at two different stages of their journey. elnora is the free-spirited skeptic who just wants to understand as much of the world as possible and carve out her place in it. solas is the bitter old sage who's learned the hard way the cost of his ambitions and is looking back on his own journey with a heavy dose of regret. neither of their outlooks are inherently right or wrong, so there's always this kind of push-and-pull where they're learning from each other but also trying to change each other's minds and they both eventually reach a line where they can't cross over. i think that's why it made so much sense to me for them specifically to have a relationship rooted more in the emotional intimacy as opposed to the sexual and this is only partly because the mental image of solas being sexual in any way makes me feel violently ill.

my FAVORITE part about the romance though that i think is what ultimately sealed it as one of my favorite dynamics is the fact that lavellan can be Angry with him. i love when he shatters her entire world and then immediately decides to dump her on the spot in the most clinical and detached way possible and she can say "are you FUCKING kidding me?!" and storms off. i love that she can confront him later and Not Allow him to play it off like it was nothing. i love that you can shout "YOU LIED TO ME" when you finally meet him again in trespasser and when he tries to brush it off ("only by omission") she just gets angrier and then they literally square off like this.

but like the reason why i like that is because the game never once tries to strongarm what you should do with that anger. lavellan can be angry and also still love him. the ability to adopt that "fuck you you can't push me away i'm bringing you home even if it's kicking and screaming the whole way" mentality is soooo delicious to me. i love how much agency she has in how she can react to him after he essentially betrays her (multiple times) and how that reaction does not necessarily misalign with what she wants to do in terms of his fate. its such an interesting dynamic that really allows you to explore the character from angles that you don't really get to see very often because video game romances tend to be VERY binary in terms of your characterization (and as much as i adore da2 i do fully believe even the rivalmance/friendmance paths fall victim to this). idk i just think it's super cool

also uhhhh i like drama. yeah thats the post

[dontforgetukraine]

#if a fucking propaganda movie is allowed in a film festival it just proves the west doesn't care

I wouldn't necessarily say that people in the West don't care. This is a failure occurring at multiple levels.

-First is the recognition that RT (and its current and former employees) is an arm of the Kremlin and is used for psyops. The Dept of Justice in America is finally showing some awareness about that, but this needs to happen at the government, business, and civilian level everywhere. -Second is how this film got sponsors and taxpayer money to be made in the first place. What oversight is currently there and how can it be made sure this doesn't happen again? -Third is what oversight is there at these cultural and art events? -Fourth is making sure people are educated and are able to recognize any form of propaganda.

Generally speaking, it's more likely people in the West, especially America, don't know how to recognize Russian propaganda.

I'll speak from an American perspective since that's where I am. We're uninformed due to it not being covered in our education system and media landscape. In addition, our leaders have been too slow to act on psyops. While Russian psyops flood the information space of news and social media, and some of us can recognize it, the propaganda about Ukraine we encounter is different from what's in "Russians at War" with some exceptions (ex. "Whataboutism"). A person that is only vaguely aware of the war and doesn't closely follow what's happening won't necessarily recognize the context and content. That's not an excuse. That's just reality. This is something I have to keep reminding myself, that the people around me don't know how to recognize it unless they are deliberately following the war and looking to educate themselves by listening to Ukrainians and other Eastern Europeans.

There needs to be more education on forms of propaganda and media literacy, and how to build up cognitive resilience. Propaganda doesn't always look like propaganda. I'll refer to a quote I posted from Dietmar Pichler. We typically think of propaganda coming from social media and talk shows, although now in this age its a lot of podcasts and YouTube videos. These are easy to overlook, including film at a cultural and arts festival.

I'll also refer to this quote from Pekka Kallioniemi.

Transparency should be our key weapon against individuals on the fringes who promote Kremlin propaganda… Highlighting and discussing these issues openly can help. Raising awareness about individuals spreading Kremlin propaganda, especially those in positions of power, is vital… Most countries, even those strongly opposed to the Kremlin, will have one or two such pro-Kremlin voices. It’s important to acknowledge that in a democracy, everyone has a voice, even if it’s frustrating to hear Kremlin propaganda. This underscores the importance of education. If people are equipped with cognitive resilience against such misinformation, it loses its impact on society as a whole. Building cognitive resilience through education is crucial. It’s a long-term investment, but it’s an essential competence also for our children’s future, well-being, and security.

So, please, don't automatically assume the West doesn't care. There's a long road in this fight for the information space and to educate that needs to happen on multiple fronts. It's going to take all the resources and people we can get against an enemy that is very good at what it does and has been doing it for a long time. I know it's frustrating and it sucks, but there are those of us here that care and I want to reassure people about that. Remember, the enemy wants you to despair.

[mabelskins]

How to: Accessibility [EN]

Part 01 - Visual design

It’s been a while since my last how to and felt like putting something together! First of all, HAPPY PRIDE MONTH! To everyone out there! Being in the queer community, i know the struggles we go through everyday and am wishing a very proud month to all of us <3

Moving on to the actual topic here: accessibility. It’s been shown here and there when discussing coding and skinning but WHAT DOES IT ACTUALLY MEAN! 

Let’s go back a bit. For years people have been trying to achieve the impossible: an universal design. A design that is universal and usable for ALL people a one-size-fits-all design that will be usable and perfect for everyone. Now, there’s only one ‘little’ problem with this: people are different. I’ve always been overweight and whenever I’ve seen clothes that say ‘one size fit all’, I look at it very suspiciously. Bottom line is: every person is different, pain points and needs will also be different. 

So what do we do? One different design for every person who is using our product? 

Well, let’s make it equitable, let’s provide flexibility to cater for a broader audience, and let this audience choose what’s best for them. But! That’s doesn't take the responsibility from us, the designers (and coders) to make sure that we are making what we can to enable this flexibility. 

------------- I've started a list which I then realised would be way bigger than expected, so decided to make each item into its own post. We'll start with VISUAL DESIGN!

Part 01 - Visual design

Colour

I’ve mentioned before about the importance of contrast and contrast ratio briefly. If you want to go into more details, you may have a look at W3 Guidelines. In short: 

Don't rely on colour alone to convey meaning, information and actions;

Make sure there's enough contrast between foreground and background

Provide an option for light/dark mode

Light/Dark Modes

There’s a myth that dark mode is good for accessibility, because it improves text readability. (Personally, I’m a big fan of dark mode, as white/bright screens may trigger migraines). However, as everything in ux, the answer to ‘is it black or white’ is that it depends. As mentioned before, a good rule of thumb is not to generalise and provide flexibility. 

When using light and dark mode, make sure the colour contrast ratio passes on both modes. Here’s a few tips for designing for dark mode (according to atmos article attached at the end of this): 

Use tints (less saturated colours). Saturated colours can cause eye strain and will be hard to pass accessibility standards.

Image from Atmos website

Avoid pure black. Please. Pure black and pure white when used together might be the default instinct, but the contrast when used together is so strong it becomes hard to look at. Choose dark greys and off-whites/light grey when possible. 

Be patient with your colour palette, inverting colours won’t make it necessarily good. Take your time to build a palette that will be suitable for both.

Target Sizes

First, what is this? This refers to the dimensions of interactive elements such as links, buttons, icons or touch targets. Basically, anything you can interact/click.

WCAG 2.2 established a minimum for pointer inputs to be 24x24. This is the space that should be provided for a clickable area.

Image from W3 website

There's a number of exceptions and guidelines which I won't get into too much detail. It's important to think about the area which people are clicking into these elements. Also remember that this may be quite useful for users that are using the forum in their mobiles - so this is quite important (don't you hate when you can't click somewhere because you haven't clicked the EXACT area needed?)

In short:

Make sure target sizes are at least 24px

Make sure buttons look like buttons, anything that is clickable and interactive LOOKS like they are interactive

Make sure links are underlined (again, as an extra visual sign that they are clickable)

THAT'S IT!!

For part 01 at least. This is just the tip of the iceberg though. If you'd like to dive deeper into this, I highly recommend Stephanie Walter's content, as well as the Extra Bold book read. I'm attaching a few more articles and resources here too! If you've read all of this, you are a champ, I know this is longer than usual. Please like and share this content, let's get it out there!

Articles:

Designers Guide to Documenting Accessibility

Dark mode ui best practices

Dark mode best practices

Accessibility annotation examples

Colour accessibility tools

Inclusive components design

Accessible design in 60s

Target size minimum

Resources

Accessible colours

Accessible colour palette builder