#connected by the same god

[starfayy]

Behold my christian fantasy multiverse trilogy

Eden Fables, big one, book, big book, Tolkien-esque fantasy, not writing it alone haha, best thing i ever wrote ever, its a BEEG series, big stronk

Reliquary of the Stars, amazing, beautiful, yes yes my most silly one, i love it, funky worldbuilding....tbf friend's helping brainstorm this one too

And Darthrima, PIRATES, OCEAN, MONSTERS, ANCIENT CIVILIZATIONS, MAGIC SO MANY MAGIC WOOOOOO i have close to nothing abt it yet

[blorbologist]

Y'know, I think I figured out why the Hells still feel like a new low-level party to me, even though they're level 13 and almost 100 episodes in.

I don't quite think it's the lack of conversations, or the fact half the party's plot hooks are big ties to past campaigns - though that definitely plays a part.

... Bell's Hells still primarily rely on quest givers.

Most of their goals are given to them and do not feel organic to the party, and constantly remind us that the Hells are pretty much never the most powerful people in the room. Which is usually something you see with a low-level party.

NPCs offering jobs is not a bad thing; it's a very common plot hook. Matt has been extremely skilled with using NPC quest givers in those two campaigns. Not only do they provide an obvious plot thread, but they can put the party in the path of others (say, the Nein running into the Iron Shepherds while doing a job for the Gentleman and everything that came of that). And the Hells had a solid start with it too - Eshteross was an excellent quest giver!

The problem is that Bell's Hells have never really not had a quest giver.

Maybe it's a byproduct of the more plot-heavy structure of this campaign? But while prior parties have felt like they decided on their course of action and what they prioritized, Bell's Hells feels less like level 13 (13! Level 13!) experienced adventurers and more like an MMO group clicking on the exclamation point over an NPC's head. Where does the plot demand we go next? Who do we report back to?

They're level 13.

At level 13, Vox Machina had just defeated a necromantic city-state to clear their name and Percy's conscience. And, you know, the Conclave just destroyed Emon. No one was explicitly telling the group to gather Vestiges and save the world (though Matt guided them there), and they were usually among the most powerful people in the room. They chose which Vestiges to prioritize, which dragons to tackle when, even if the over-all plot was pretty clear.

At level 13, the Mighty Nein were celebrating Traveler Con (another PC goal, I'll note) after brokering peace between two nations, accidentally becoming pirates and heroes of the Dynasty. The Nein regularly chose what to do based on personal goals, not grand ones. Though definitely smaller fish than Vox Machina at this level, they were very independent and gaining solid political clout.

While we're at it: level 13 is one level lower than the Ring of Brass, who had a huge amount of sway over Avalir. They ended the world, and also saved it, while in the grand scheme of things being only a smidge more powerful than Bell's Hells are now.

Can you really see the Hells wielding that amount of influence, when they're constantly being told what to do next?

The god-eater might be unleashed, so Bell's Hells have no time to do anything but what is asked of them. No time for therapy unless stolen from Feywild time, no travel on foot and late-night watches. They haven't even had time to grieve FCG. Percy was grieved in the middle of the Conclave arc. Molly was grieved when half the party was still in irons.

Matt is in the very unfortunate spot of not being able to give the Hells the same agency as the other two parties. Not only because of the world-ending plot introduced so early on; they are surrounded by characters they know (and the cast knows) are stronger and wiser than them - the familiarity of the past PCs and NPCs is to their disadvantage.

Why would the party reasonably ignore Keyleth's task that will help save the world and go off on a romp? Why would the cast when they know well Keyleth has to be sensible and with the best intentions in mind? The stakes are just too high.

It means that the Hells still feel like they're running errands instead of pursuing their own destiny. Their accomplishments are diminished as just being parts of a to-do list, and any stakes feel padded by several level 20 PCs/NPCs standing 5 steps away ready to catch them.

This isn't Bell's Hell's fault, nor is it Matt's. It could be amended, I think, if the Hells are really left to their own devices for a long period of time without support and shortcuts (like during the party split)... which would be really tricky to pull off at this point in the campaign.

They're level 13. They're big fish, but they're stuck in a pond full of friendly sharks, so they don't feel big at all.

[vancalox]

i genuinely love love love the iconoclast path in rogue trader SO MUCH. its one of the things that ultimately enamors me to the warhammer franchise as a whole despite empathy being so antithetical to its world and genre. its not just because iconoclast is the Nice Person route or because it subverts the foundational principle that In The Grim Dark Universe There Is Only War............ but mostly i love it because its the best way to actually engage w the morality system presented in 40k and explore it the way it deserves to be explored. its so unique parsing through the choices of the game and navigating how one might actually ACHIEVE goodness through - or more accurately without - the lens of liberal modern morality. because adhering to what we presently would call morality is arguably crueler than some of the dogmatic choices - or at least the game wants you to reflect on that and decide if that kind of morality still has value or not. and i like that they give you the opportunity to do that. youre rarely rewarded for kindness in this game and in fact your oftentimes actively punished for it (void shadows was a TRIAL for my iconoclast rt) which presents another question: are you being good because of a reward you believe you'lll be entitled to, or are you being good for the sake of goodness itself??? in saying that i do LOVE how there IS payoff in the iconoclast route eventually - when youve bleed and suffered for it enough. but theres a quality to it thats so..... so BITTERSWEET, because yippee you Empathed your way to the top - but also what IS the top?? congratulations, you are the kindest autocrat in the most bloodthirsty fascist regime in human history, sitting on your throne on a voidship run by all your slaves and serfs who die by the hundreds every time you make a warpjump for some dumbass sidequest. what the fuck. can you actually call that goodness ????? is whatever goodness-adjacent thing youve achieved worth it even if you cant change the system in the ways that matter ??? lastly - the iconoclast ending is both so wildly universe-altering to the point of feeling like a heretical ending - but also kind of. not mattering really lol. because even though its hopeful, the "good" ending still feels soooo tentative with the likelihood that its very likely not going to last. but that in itself is my favorite take away from playing this game as The Last Good Guy in the Galaxy: because the love DIDNT change anything. and it DOESNT save anyone. but ohhhhhhhhh my fucking god does it absolutely matter that it was there.

[i-dreamed-i-had-a-son]

I love how Epic is a story about how sometimes, you change in ways you can't undo. Sometimes it's a choice, and sometimes it's something that happens to you; often, it's both. And in some ways, you may be made worse. You may make mistakes. You may become someone you don't recognize, and you may not like who you now see in the mirror. You might lose your old self in the process of surviving.

But when you do, the people who love you will still be there. Not because of who you used to be, or how you might heal or become better, or out of ignorance of who you now are. Just because they love you, and you do not need to be perfect to be loved. You just need to be there.

And they'll be waiting for you.

[waitineedaname]

I so desperately wanna know what lee sookyung and persephone's relationship is like. they share a son, I have GOT to know how lsk feels about that. is there grief that her son allowed himself to be adopted by another set of parents, when he struggles to connect with her? is she relieved that he has someone at all? does she try to tell persephone stories about his childhood, only to find there's only a small pool of stories she can tell, the rest of them colored by suffering and her absence? did they mourn him together?

[raticalshoez]

i'm having hyperfixation drought so i did what i did best and created a crossover episode

[greatgoddyke]

time to make your choice only you can be the one

[gingermintpepper]

I think a lot about the depictions of Troilus' death that feature Achilles trying to prise him with a gift of doves instead of the immediate promise of death.

I've alluded to it before, but I tend to look at Achilles and Apollo as comparison cases - maybe not explicitly foils because I'm petty and that would imply that Achilles is narratively equal to Apollo and I don't want to give him that kind of honour even in a bit of casual analysis - but certainly as characters who gain a great deal of complexity when their actions are contextualised in context of each other's. The ambush of Troilus is just one of those funny little things that gets my mind a-whirring.

Because to me, Apollo's 'Troilus' so to speak is Kassandra. Kassandra, who Apollo coveted and wished to court. Kassandra, who was offered a great gift that would have undoubtedly forever marked her as one of Apollo's if she had accepted. Kassandra, who takes the gift but rejects the god and is cursed for her deception. Kassandra, whose curse makes her experience a thousand deaths over and over with no way of communicating such disaster to those around her.

The Achilles who falls in love with Troilus upon seeing his beauty and wishes to make a conquest of him is much the same to me. The biggest difference between Troilus and Kassandra though is that Troilus' rejection is much more physical. Those doves are nothing more than a symbol of the type of sacrifice Troilus would be; if he accepted them, he would die a docile death, sweet and quiet, a necessary casualty to turn the winds like Iphigenia. Except Achilles' love is nothing like Agamemnon's and it is nothing like Apollo's.

In the face of rejection, Achilles' instinct is to maim, it is to destroy. He was always going to kill Troilus - for the sake of the campaign, the boy had to die - but there was no dove's death, no quick and easy knife through the heart, no spit into an open mouth. Troilus' death is a brutal, drawn-out thing, a chase through the sand, a dragging that bruises his skin, a ripping of his hair, a violation of his flesh, a maiming of his corpse. As far as sacrifices go, it's an apalling one. None would dare to treat an animal set to be sacrificed before a god with that kind of brutality, sacrifices were meant to be blemishless and beautiful, something the gods would find appealing. Iphigenia was given away in her wedding finery, Kassandra was dressed as though to seduce a god. Troilus was a dove with his wings broken and his feathers pulled, whose death cries must've been like the terrible hollering of all birds when they try to alert their kind to a predator.

And as fucked as that is, I love it. It sets Achilles' love as this stormy, squallish thing that bleeds into his rage, it establishes that for him, love and wrath are but two sides of the same blade. Troilus was a necessary sacrifice, but he is in no way given even a modicum of the same dignity his contemporaries are and a part of me is just continually intrigued by this.

[soath]

It is genuinely not surprising that Ashton has such a strong The Gods Are Going To Kill Us take on the situation, given what they specifically have seen and what they have to relate to. They're about two weeks out from 1.) getting done violence onto them by an angel and then 2.) being told they have a bit of a dead thing that the gods tried to kill inside them. Then they go and put a lot of effort into getting that dead scrap to wake up (with disastrous consequences illustrating how incredibly volatile its power is). Then they have their only religious friend blow up in front of them. Then they watch a movie trilogy where the only non-god main character is another earth genasi broken-walking-timebomb whose main purpose on the mission is to explode when the gods need him to. They don't see the Lawbearer weep for her son, they only see the Emissary, a child, crying because he's afraid to die. Then they go to Vasselheim, the city of the gods, and see the corpse of a Titan, the dead thing the gods killed, yanked out of the earth and puppeted by one wannabe god and now desecrated in death by the overconfident followers of all the others. They're making something beautiful out of it, they're living on it, and normally he'd be in favor of that but they don't even know its name. They're building new temples on the corpse of the old world, hollowing it out and starting fresh, and Ashton is a part of that old world. They cannot stop being connected to a power the gods seem to, at best, be willing to weaponize. That would make anyone paranoid; given their background it's impressive that he's not more combative, tbh.

[skywalkr-nberrie]

One of the biggest arguments I’ve seen used by the Ob*d*l*s against Anidala, is that scene in the ROTS novel where Padmé says she could trust OW with the secret of the rebellion and was hesitant to tell Anakin and I just wanna say:

Padmé wasn't an idiot. She was an extremely intelligent and competent woman, perfectly able to understand that loving Anakin and thinking that he could be trusted with a certain politic-related matter were two very different things and reducing her choice regarding who to trust with an important political matter only on the basis of her feelings of romantic love diminishes her professionalism, and this is why I say y'all could never understand her.

Padmé didn’t have to "love" OW or even like him at all to know he was the perfect Jedi to ask for help in a secret political matter.

That's the point being made in the novel, she’s hit with the realization that Anakin in this particular moment could not be told this piece of info because of his relationship with Palpatine, and Padmé specifically mentions in the Junior ROTS novel that she didn't want to make Anakin “keep a secret” if he didn’t agree with their stance because it’d be “unfair.�� So this also played a part in why Padmé didn’t think it best to inform Anakin about the Rebellion. It honestly had little to do with her actually lacking trust in him, and more to do with the circumstances she was in not allowing her to be open with her husband and her not wanting to make him choose between his wife and his “father figure.”

However, Padmé knows OW’s political ideas aren't tied to ONE particular person but to a philosophy, one which is closer to her own, at that point. None of this was ever meant to be hinted as “romantic” or even remotely insinuated as romantic. It’s strictly professional and even the tone of the scene makes that so abundantly clear.

All I’m saying is that, some of these proshippers are doing the most out here to try and prove their ship, like my loves? You forgot a very important thing called ✨ context ✨ and regardless of her rational thinking, Padmé still went out of her way to try and talk out all of this Rebellion secrecy stuff with Anakin when she confronted him in the scene where she asks if he ever thought they were “fighting on the wrong side.” Padmé didn’t trust OW in the same way she trusted Anakin (with her entire self and being) she had the level of trust and love for Anakin that was only meant for him.

Mixing up her unwavering faith in Anakin as her husband with her trust in OW’s devotion to duty as her comrade/ally is purposely deluding yourself, because the two aren’t the same and therefore can’t be compared. An example of this is: Padmé constantly putting more value to Anakin’s words over OW’s in the end of ROTS when he came to tell her of Anakin’s “crimes”. She completely disregarded what OW had claimed about her husband and instead made her way to where Anakin was herself, to ask him directly. Despite what the truth was, this is proof of her trusting Anakin unconditionally, and I didn’t even think I had to spell that out because it’s as clear as day.

In conclusion, Padmé didn’t trust OW more than Anakin, she just knew the circumstances she was in didn’t exactly make it easy for her to openly talk with her husband about these matters and that’s part of what played into the issues they had in ROTS, it’s exactly what Sidious wanted. This scene in the novel doesn’t exist to imply some hidden romantic undertone that George was intending all along. No, far from that. George was always an “open, , clear and easy to understand” type of storyteller, so if the former was the case, this scene wouldn’t be any different if there was some hidden message or subtext the reader should be made aware of, George would make it obvious. Fact of the matter is, the one and only reason for this scene in the novel to exist is only to show to us as the “reader” that the narrative is tearing apart the Star-Crossed-lovers (Anakin and Padmé.) and visibly putting the two of them on different sides in the story because the consequences of this narrative choice is what will foreshadow and play into the inevitable and great fall of the couple and character in the future. Even the novel makes a very purposeful and clear distinction between “love and trust” in this chapter where all this occurs. Padmé loves Anakin, but knew she had to trust OW with the situation at hand. And if you want to talk “narratively” Padmé needed a reason to keep the Rebellion a secret from Anakin, thus leading to Palpatine to sense “betrayal” in Padmé later on, and using that to his advantage to manipulate Anakin even more into getting him to “suspect” her. It’s all spelt out for us and it’s not hard to miss. All it takes is a little media literacy and understanding context.

(Mind you, hypothetically, if this scene existed for literally any other reason, it would’ve been brought up again, but it wasn’t. It’s only mentioned once and exists for only one moment which was meant to serve a certain narrative and then it was done. There’s not much to make of it since the context of the scene is so clear.)

[bagadew]

I hate you loss of the headphone jack. I hate you loss of the home screen button. I hate you headphones I have to remember to charge. I hate you thin flimsy screens. I hate you phone that no longer fits in my hand. I hate you laptop too thin for a usb port. I hate you laptop without a disk drive. I hate you increasing array of dongles I need to keep using what I need. I hate you planned obsolescence. I hate you inescapable barrage of ‘improvements’ that brings more work and gives less joy. I guess it’s just easier this way.

[arttsuka]

I TAPPED YOUR ASK BUTTON AND AN O'REILLY AD STARTED PLAYING EVERY THO I HAD NOTHING ON????

Okay anyways sorry for being such a frequent asker on the Jedtavius front but do you think Octavius and Jedediah swap folklore/mythology stories?

Like Octavius telling Jed about Apollo and Hyacinthus or Achilles's battle and Jed rambles on about jackalopes?

Cause I do

What a nice idea actually (also don't apologize, it's fine I don't mind)

My attempt at jackalopes and Hyacinthus and Apollo

I couldn't find a way to fit these all together as one big drawing so I took separate photos

[deiaiko]

#21 - Wall

Masterlist

Previous

Next

Let me know your thoughts in the reblogs <3

☕ Buy me coffee ☕

[party2000]

you know what else came out in 2015? carly rae jepsen's smash hit album emotion

[puhpandas]

I love ggy so much how did they accidentally make the most intriguing hypothetical gay romance ever

[triglycercule]

what if because dust and horror wouldn't wanna be called anything aside from sans in a multiverse context and they were both good buddies they both just start calling eachother sans. i'm sans (dust) and i'm sans (horror) ahh duo

becaaause horror in his eye(s) still sees himself as sans!! he's sans!! who else is he SUPPOSED to be god 😒😒 stop attatching this stupid fake name onto him that just points out all his shortcomings in his au and also just dehumanizes him (because i get that aus are named after a key trait of something but COME ON the guy's name is HORROR it's like naming a poor person "brokie" or something,,,). horror is PROUDLY sans smh

and dust ALSO sees himself as sans!!! like,,, granted he's definitely not a better sans than he was before considering everything he did (but he still doesn't like his past self's inaction) but he's STILL SANS. nothing about him changed (really?) enough to warrant the whole identity shift. like dude dont discredit him DONT DENY HIS WHOLE LIFE!!! he IS sans no matter what,,, dust doesnt wanna think about what he became if he's not sans now anyways lul :3

now could they fight over the right to the identity of sans??? possibly,,, but also consider this: there are literally infinite numbers of sanses in the multiverse. at some point the shiny title of Sans would be something horror and dust are used to around the multiverse!!! so why fight over the name (that so many others share already so its not exactly exclusive) when they can just decide to make each other feel better!!! be delusional TOGETHER 🤞