#even when canon directly contradicts them

[aroeddiediaz]

.

[vaugarde]

starfall bit that i cant really imagine seeing a way to organically put in since it's part of a time skip, but sometimes i like to make myself sad and imagine atlas holding asha's egg for the first time and the first thing he notes is how small it is in his arms, thinking back to when he had to take care of quinn and when he got her egg, it was like half his size and it just hits him really hard in that moment how unfair it was that he had to raise a child when he was one himself....

[gehayi]

I have to add the tags of @meowmeowmage​

#writers really went 'gotta make the elves look bad and the templars look good/like saviours' and came up with this bullshit

#bc 'chantry good actually' and everyone who aren't following the chantry are 'bad'

#nvm that even if elves leave their mage kids when there are too many mages

#they still do it bc there would be a higher chance to draw the attention of the templars

#so at the end of the day the chantry is to blame once again but yeah let's have a dalish elf praise the circle

#i was trying to replay DAI but got to that moment and just couldn't go on anymore I'm tired

#now that i think about it minaeave was young when that happened

#so it's totally possible that the chantry and the templars lied to her

minaeave: my clan found out I was a mage and left me in the woods and the templars saved me

lavellan: what fucking clan was this. no seriously what clan bc if they're out here treating their mages like this it needs to be brought up at the next arlathven bc that is NOT acceptable. what clan

minaeve: I -

lavellan: even if you just remember a couple names? your Keeper, the clan craftsman? it's important. I'll do the research

[hyperfixatinator]

Where is the line?

In the comics, Tim Drake's moral code is an enigma to me, particularly his stance on the Batclan's no-kill rule. For all the fans who say he's always one step away from full blown villainy, there are even more saying he's a strict goody two-shoes who could never stoop that low.

Then there's the different takes on where Tim draws the line between these two extremes. Personally, I find that line hard to pinpoint. Digging for canon demonstrations of his morals has lead me to more questions than answers. My biggest question right now is:

What counts as breaking the no-kill rule in Tim's eyes?

Luckily, the Robins 2021 comics shed some light on this. In issue #3, "Tim", or rather an imposter of him, said that choosing not to save someone isn't the same as killing them, and that letting a villain die can be a way to get justice. Normally, this point would be moot since it's not Tim himself who said it. However, at the end of issue #6, the real Tim clarified that what the imposter said WAS his real opinion on the matter.

Not only that, but Tim has shown this belief through his thoughts and actions before. Twice.

The first time goes all the way back to Robin 1991 #5. During the fight against King Snake, Tim kicked him through a nearby window, fifty stories above the ground. As King Snake's life hung in the balance, Shiva appeared and commanded Tim to kill him.

Tim refused. He walked away, leaving King Snake entirely at Shiva's mercy.

What gets me is that Tim made no move to save King Snake from falling. And he made no effort to stop Shiva from committing the murder, either. His only thought as he heard the man's scream was "Fifty stories is a long way to fall."

The second time was in Red Robin 2009 #26. Tim orchestrated a whole plan to manipulate Captain Boomerang into getting killed by Mr. Freeze. The whole time, Tim blamed Captain Boomerang for making all those bad choices, despite Tim being the one raising the chances of them being made. Tim believed he was innocent because he wasn't directly participating.

Tim then stopped that plan, but not for any noble reason. He decided that he couldn't let anyone else kill Captain Boomerang but himself.

Tim couldn't bring himself to do that, either. So he had to spare his father's killer in the end.

This seems pretty cut and dry so far, right? Tim believing that letting villains die is alright as long he doesn't do the deed himself? I'd think so too, if there weren't other moments contradicting this.

In Robin #35, Steph insisted on leaving an enemy who got buried under the snow to die. Tim chastised her for it.

Neither of them were responsible for the snow, or for the enemy getting trapped in it. Plus, that guy tried to kill them with a chainsaw moments prior, so he's not exactly an innocent damsel in distress.

Maybe it was because this enemy wasn't a big enough fish to fry. We didn't really get confirmation that this guy has actually killed before, and he's around goon status at best.

But then in Robin #46, Tim chose to save another enemy who got himself into a deadly situation. That enemy was a murderer known as Young El. This time, Tim wasn't telling anyone else why they should save a murderer's life out loud. These were his private thoughts.

Notice how Tim's inner monologue sounded kind of on-the-fence. He contemplated justice finally catching up with Young El as the floorboards gave way, bringing a support beam down on him in the process.

However, Tim immediately switched gears to rescue Young El from under that beam before the water rose too high.

But Tim, as he told Young El the reasons he's saving him, asked himself "Do I even believe what I'm saying?" He could be asking this about two different things he said here. A) "Maybe it's not too late for you to learn something, Young El.", or B) "Death's easier for you when it's the other guy. Death's never been easy for me."

For Tim to doubt his belief in either of these statements is very interesting. He could be questioning if Young El is already too far gone for redemption, or he could be questioning if seeing someone die has never been easy for himself. For all we know, it could be both.

Unfortunately, Tim never got to see if his choice to save him would pay off. Tim wasn't strong enough to lift that beam, and Young El drowned.

There's a question on my mind as I read these pages. What makes this murderer's death different from when Tim let King Snake fall to his "death"? Sure, King Snake didn't actually die, but Tim didn't know that until later when the man came looking for revenge in Gotham.

Tim was once able to simply walk away from what he was certain would be a killer's demise. But then he's consumed by guilt over not being able to prevent a different killer's death down the line, to the point of hallucinating.

On top of that, what changed Tim's mind later? Red Robin #26 and Robins 2021 #3-6 still happened in the future. The only significant difference I can tell is that these two comics involved the killer's of Tim's parents, making it personal. But if the Imposter from Robins 2021 got his beliefs from his profile before his mother's killer got involved, then does that still hold up?

Maybe we should put a pin on it for now. There are other things Tim's done that brings the details of his no-kill rule into question.

Such as that one time Tim actually killed someone with his bare hands.

In Robin issues #51-52, Tim accidentally killed Lady Shiva while drugged on amarilla, a plant that enhances the user's speed beyond human limitations.

It may be argued if the amarilla altered Tim's mind enough to excuse him of fault or not. However, I want to focus on what happened after Shiva was revived. Here's another question to go with the first one:

Does Tim believe the kill still counts if the victim was revived afterwards?

From what I've gathered, yes and no. It's kind of complicated.

After Tim killed Shiva, he was understandably distressed about it, about how he can never take it back.

But after Shiva came back to life? Nothing. He didn't dwell on the fact he broke the vow to never kill. For something that devastating to happen in his life, it's odd that Tim didn't bring it up ever again, privately or otherwise. Especially considering what happened later in Robin #123, when Tim thought he killed Johnny Warlock.

Tim was utterly inconsolable. He lost all faith in his abilities as Robin, and in himself as a whole. It also contributed to his decision to quit being Robin after his dad found out. In general, he seriously dwelled on that "kill" for a much longer time than he had after killing Shiva. The difference being that he knew Shiva was resuscitated immediately afterwards, while Tim didn't know Johnny survived until issue #141.

But there's the fact that Shiva really did die. Her heart and breathing both stopped. So are we to believe Tim moved on from that so easily because she's alive now? What happened to never getting that back?

Come to think of it, not long after Tim killed and revived Shiva, there was someone else who landed in that same boat. Dick.

In Joker: The Last Laugh #6, Dick brutally attacked the Joker after believing he killed Tim. Dick ended up accidentally killing Joker instead, before the clown was resuscitated.

Here's the thing. While Tim was trying to comfort Dick, saying that it's ok because Joker's alive now, Dick didn't believe so. He was still distraught that he killed someone. The fact Joker came back to life afterwards didn't matter to him. To Dick, it still counted. So what does that say about Tim?

Before we move on, there's another person Tim knows who also died and came back from the grave. Jason.

Tim openly acknowledged Jason was killed before coming back, too. Multiple times. For example, when they met up in Red Hood and the Outlaws 2011 #8.

Tim hadn't shown any signs that he thinks Jason's murder doesn't count anywhere, except for maybe once.

In Knight Terrors: Robin #2, Tim and Jason had a heart-to-heart, and Tim said something strange.

"You survived."

Except Jason didn't survive. He died. To say Jason survived that night would've meant he never died to begin with. Him being alive now doesn't change that. Was this Tim telling a white lie to make Jason feel better? Or does Tim see being revived after death as "surviving"?

Ok, now we can move onto the next question. Or rather, bear with me as we go back to the first question. It's a broad topic with plenty more to talk about.

What does Tim count as breaking the no-kill rule?

We already asked how Tim feels about bringing villains back from the dead after killing them. And we asked how Tim feels about leaving a villain to die without getting directly involved. However, we still don't know how much involvement Tim needs to have in an enemy's death before he'll take responsibility for it.

We can confirm he won't mercy kill in Red Robin #21, even if it means giving someone a fate worse than death. No exceptions.

Tim also doesn't allow anyone he's actively teaming up with to kill, especially if he's the one in command. He's been amicable with known killers before (Huntress and Pru, for example), but only when they remain non-lethal while working alongside him.

Apart from that, though, it becomes less clear. However, I think this is a good place to expand on when Tim blew up a lot of League of Assassins bases in Red Robin #8.

I'm not going into whether or not those explosions actually killed anyone. I've seen evidence supporting both sides of this debate, so I'm just going to say it's up to interpretation. What I AM talking about is whether or not Tim would've felt responsible if they had killed someone.

Before overloading every generator in the LOA database, Tim gave a warning to the Wanderer. He told her that he couldn't be held responsible for what would happen to her if she didn't leave.

After initiating the explosions, Tim warned the White Ghost that they had fifteen seconds to leave before it was too late.

Fifteen seconds. That explanation on the mistake of letting him in might've taken roughly another fifteen to twenty seconds. Did the other bases even get a full minute head start? The way some of the people were already running away could imply they at least got a warning, but it's possible they might not have.

Even if everyone in every base received a warning, would that be enough for Tim to avoid holding himself accountable if they didn't make it out in time? Tim's the one who rigged the bases to explode, but I guess giving someone a warning means it's now their fault for not heeding it?

We can't be sure he even considered the possibility of those explosions killing anyone. Tim knew they were dangerous enough to bring the whole Cradle down, and the other ones we saw looked pretty powerful (except the ones in Ra's hideout). But Tim also called Ra's a murderer right after that happened, which would've been very hypocritical if Tim himself thought he committed murder.

So, my guess is either A) Tim relied on sheer luck for those explosions not causing any casualties and chose to believe they hadn't, or B) Tim didn't believe the deaths of anyone caught in them would be his fault.

Again, this isn't about whether or not blowing up the LOA bases killed anyone. It's about how willing Tim was to take that risk, and if he would've blamed himself for anyone getting killed from it.

Either way, it's canon that Tim had no guilt for the explosions he caused, or for anything he did before Red Robin #22. Just ask the Sword of Sin.

This is an exerpt I got from the Fandom DC Database on the Sword of Sin:

"The Sword of Sin can be ignited with the mind of the wielder, if the person is powerful enough. The sword has the ability to conjure in the mind its victims all of the sins for which they are guilty or have not atoned for."

When Tim was stabbed with this sword, he was immune. The Sword of Sin decided he was innocent. Although, I have to ask how reliable this sword was in making that judgement. If the sword is judging others based on its own set principles, then something's not right here.

The Sword of Sin was also used on Dick, and he wasn't immune. It dug into Dicks subconscious and unearthed memories he'd long since repressed. Memories of himself watching a boy get beaten to near death, and then doing nothing. He just walked away.

Now, tell me why the sword brought this to light, but not the time Tim left King Snake to die!

It wasn't an accident. Tim deliberately chose to leave instead of trying to save this man from the murderous Lady Shiva. Sure, Tim was no match for Shiva and he might've not been able to stop her, but the same could be said for an eight year old Dick not stopping a group of much older kids. Neither of them tried to stop the attackers.

Tim didn't atone for it, either. When King Snake returned in Batman #469, Bruce told King Snake that it wasn't Tim who left him to die. We know that's a lie, but Tim never corrected this. He let Shiva take all the blame.

We have two instances of a boy choosing not to prevent someone from having a near death experience. One guilty, and one innocent.

Did the Sword of Sin think Tim was justified because King Snake was corrupt? That doesn't sound holy to me.

Was it because Tim didn't feel any guilt over it, while Dick did? Can the sword's judgement be thrown off by the victim not feeling any shred of guilt over their actions, even subconsciously?

That could make sense given what we know Tim did in the past: King Snake falling, the vandalism (explosions), and ALL the lying over the years (Tim reviving Shiva might count as atonement, so I'm not including that). If the sword based its judgement on God's will alone, then odds are high it would've picked up on one of these.

Even so, I'm not going to sit here and say this is definitely the case. I'm not familiar enough with how the sword effects other characters to make that call.

If this is indeed false, then did the DC universe's version of God decide to pardon Tim of his sins when he prayed earlier that same issue, despite him not believing he had any? I mean, who knows, right?

You can probably see why there's more questions than answers. The point is Tim didn't have any guilt for the things he did before Red Robin #22. Tim was canonically convinced he had nothing to atone for.

So then why did he say the opposite later in Knight Terrors: Robin #2?!

In the heart-to-heart between Tim and Jason, Tim tells him this:

"You have a lot to atone for...We all do..."

Tim knows that the words "we all" include him, right? By saying this, Tim admitted to also having things he needs to atone for, right?

Is this another white lie to make Jason feel better? Is it one of those slight changes the New 52 made to the canon? If not, then why did he change his mind? Did his no-kill rule change and make him feel guilty for some past actions? Is it not the no-kill rule, but something else?

What changed?!

Where does Tim draw the line?

I don't know. We've narrowed it down to a general area, but it's kinda hard to see a line when it's so blurred it could be a gradient.

Tim baffles me. He acts as a steady moral compass for others when he can't even seem to stay consistent with his own. You're free to call it poor writing (and honestly, fair), but I find his hypocrisy fascinating.

That's what it is, isn't it? Tim's a hypocrite who's completely oblivious to being one. And it's not like this was never mentioned in the comics before. Damian called him out on it!

In Batman & Robin 2011 #10, Damian confronted Tim about his near-murderous reaction when Fist Point killed Artemis (Teen Titans Vol 4 annual #1). Damian then accused Tim of constantly rejecting him because they have more in common than Tim's willing to admit.

It's debatable how accurate that accusation was, but Tim had a pretty volatile reaction to it.

"I believe in every choice I make!"

Does he? I don't think someone who's so sure of what he believes in would contradict himself to this extent. Especially if he wasn't doing it on purpose.

He wouldn't vehemently push Bruce's no-kill rule onto others and berate them for bending that rule, only to go and bend that same rule himself when the Batclan isn't around. He also wouldn't exploit what he thinks are loopholes, decide later that those loopholes broke the no-kill rule, and then earnestly claim he never broke it.

Why is he like this?! He's had arguably the most normal childhood out of the whole Batclan before becoming Robin! What could've made him so fickle about this?!

Where does he draw the line? And how will he know when he's crossed it?

[qiu-yan]

canon jiang cheng

making my own post instead of reblogging someone else's with my hater commentary. praise my three atoms of emotional maturity.

salt below the cut. the post is long so i can concentrate all my salt into one location.

i just saw a post complaining about jc stans trying to take over the "canon jiang cheng" tag. personally, i do think us stans should just let the haters have that one, since picking fights is just going to cause more trouble for everyone. but also.

there is exactly one reason why this is happening, and it isn't just that jc stans are annoying.

in all honesty, the jiang cheng frequently discussed in the "canon jiang cheng" tag is as much of a fandom invention as the jiang cheng conjured by the most ardent of jc stannies. i have seen the level of analysis typical of the "canon jiang cheng tag," and - to speak frankly - the frequenters of this tag are every bit as prone to wild invention and free flights of fancy as the rest of the fandom. when posts claiming that jiang cheng sold an unwilling jiang yanli to the jins, or that jiang cheng regularly whips jin ling, or that jiang cheng directly killed wei wuxian, are all tagged with "canon jiang cheng," it is safe for anyone with a brain to say that we have in fact moved quite a distance away from canon.

so when these people casually declare their equally fanonical interpretation of a character to be the one and only "canon," from the perspective of the rest of us, all we see is condescension and an entirely undeserved arrogance.

is it any wonder the jc stans are annoyed?

actually, let's take a closer look at what's going on here. even if the "canon jiang cheng" tag was intended at any point in its conception to actually be used for discussion of jiang cheng's canon traits - this is no longer the case. in practice, the "canon jiang cheng" tag is used for jiang cheng bashing. if i went into the "canon jiang cheng" tag today, do you think i'd find posts about jiang cheng's canon height or canon love of dogs, or even screenshots of the mdzs text wherein jiang cheng is mentioned? no. every post i found would be about how jiang cheng sucks - and with wildly varying levels of fidelity to canon, to boot.

if every post in your tag is about how a character sucks, and adherence to canon in said posts is optional, then what you have is not a canon analysis tag. what you have is a character bashing tag.

and yet. if you ask these people why they're tagging their character-bashing as "canon," all you get is wide-eyed innocence. this isn't character bashing, they insist, this is just analysis of his canon traits. this is even when the post in question contradicts canon directly. and when posts that are canonically accurate but not jiang-cheng-negative appear in the "canon jiang cheng" tag? these users so kindly move to correct this behavior: don't you know, they politely inform the offender, that this tag is for canon behavior only? your post about how jiang cheng might have had a shred of love in his heart at one point in his life is not canon.

they want at once the exclusivity and full-agreement nature of a character-bashing tag, and also the veneer of superiority lent by the label "canon." and by claiming the label of "canon" for themselves only, they aim not just to lend credibility to their own opinions, but also to automatically discredit everyone that disagrees with them. they want sole ownership over "canon" - and to declare every other jiang cheng analysis out there, so long as it isn't sufficiently jiang-cheng-negative, as mere fandom invention.

guys. come on. what is this? you do realize that if you tell someone that they can't tag their analysis with "canon," then you're basically telling them that you think they're wrong, don't you? every time you say "oh this post is about canon jiang cheng," you do realize that what you're actually saying is "my analysis is based in canon, while yours is fandom invention" - that what you're actually saying is "i'm right and you're wrong," don't you? if so, own up to it! if you're going to disagree with someone, disagree with them openly! none of this simpering "uwu canon jiang cheng actually" bullshit - say with your full chest that you think that everyone else's takes are shit, and why!

if you're going to be a hater, just own up to it and call yourself a hater! don't be a coward. don't be so condescending and disingenuous with your cowardice, either. why are you emulating the cardboard bullshit version of jin guangyao peddled only by the most deluded of jiggy antis? 

and - for once - recognize that if it is acceptable for you behave in a certain way towards others, then it is also acceptable for others to behave in the same way towards you. if you're going to tag your blatantly canon-violating bullshit with "canon jiang cheng," then you do not have the right to get mad when jc stannies tag their equally canon-violating bullshit with "canon jiang cheng" as well.

[hehe-hoho-ohno]

Submas canon vs fanon

The entire time I have been in the Submas fandom I have seen a lot of confusion about what is canonical and what is a wide-spread fanon. Both in the sense of people thinking things were canon when they were not, and (more rarely) people thinking things were fanon when they were not. So I thought it might be useful to put together a little guide.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with using fanon. I use most of these headcannons in my own fics because I like them and canon is dumb anyway. (Note: pokemon is a huge sprawling mass and tends to contradict itself, and there have been changes across the various games/manga/anime)

All quotations are taken from bulbapidia.

Nimbasa Trio - FANON

Elesa has no connection to Ingo and Emmet besides living in the same place. There is one interaction between them in Pokemon Masters, and while they are on friendly terms they don't appear to be particularly close. Similarly, the idea that Ingo likes bad puns/Emmet does not stemmed from their fanon friendship with her.

Uncle Drayden - FANON

The only confirmed family Ingo and Emmet have are each other.

Cilan is a huge fan - CANON

Cilan is a fanboy of both of them in the anime.

Ingo is the older twin - CANON

In the original Japanese Emmet calls Ingo "nii-san" which means older brother.

"Do you have any siblings? I have an older brother, Ingo."

- Emmet, pokemon masters

Emmet's joltik hoard - FANON

Emmet's galvantula knows the move cross poison. This is an "egg move" which can only be learnt through pokemon breeding. Since it would take several tries to get this move it probably would have left Emmet with a lot of Joltik. In theory. We don't see Emmet with joltiks in canon.

Ingo's kitty smile - CANON

He smiles like that in the manga. (Admittedly, it's not as exaggerated as the full on :3 people sometimes draw him with.) He also briefly smiles in PLA, but less cat-like.

Ingo's perpetual frown is unintentional - CANON

"<player>! Someone just told me something that troubled me deeply! They said that compared to Emmet, I'm too stiff! But that's just a misunderstanding! I know I smile when I'm having fun! I'd even say that I'm quite proud of how expressive I am when I speak! What? You say you've never seen me smile? I-is that so..."

- Ingo, Pokemon Masters

They are both autistic - FANON

They are related to the twin heros - FANON

They share similar themes and motifs to the twin heros/Zekrom/Reshiram but that's it. They have no canon relationship.

Both of them are heavily coded as autistic. However, it's never been directly stated in the games that they are autistic and (to my knowledge) nobody at Game Freak/Nintendo has confirmed anything.

Ingo has a receding hairline - (debatably) CANON

He is drawn with one in the art book. Does the art book count as canon? Until something in the main games says otherwise, probably. (Though there is some argument to be had that it might be an unflattering haircut instead.)

Ingo arrived in Hisui via wormhole - FANON

"For my part, I simply found myself one day here in Hisui, a region whose name I'd never heard... All I could remember was my own name. I was still standing there in bafflement when the Pearl Clan came to my aid."

- Ingo, PLA. (However, the art book depicts the pearl clan finding him facedown on the ground, so take his standing claim with a grain of salt)

We still don't know how he got there. Similarly, it is quite common to show Ingo arriving during a blizzard/freezing to death and generally in poor health/injured/unconsciousness. But the way he recounts it sounds much more peaceful.

It'a also common to have Sneasler be the one to find him. The art book (of dubious canon) shows a human pearl clan member finding him, and Ingo's quote seems to confirm that. It's possible Sneasler was involved but she isn't mentioned.

Ingo got amnesia from hitting his head - FANON

We don't know how he got amnesia.

Ingo remembers Emmet as "the man in white" - FANON

"I'm starting to recall a man who looked... like me. We'd battle and discuss Pokémon, I think... The words "I like winning more than anything else" flashed through my mind just now..."

- Ingo, PLA, about Emmet

He makes no mention of remembering Emmet wearing white or smiling.

Ingo calls her "Lady Sneasler" - FANON

Ingo only calls her Sneasler, no Lady. In fact, nobody calls her or any of the ride pokemon Lord or Lady because...

The ride pokemon are noble pokemon - FANON

There are 10 blessed pokemon descended from the heros of old, and these pokemon are revered by the clans and have wardens. The blessed pokemon are divided into two groups, the rides and the nobles.

The ride pokemon are not called noble pokemon, and they do not get titles. Mai talks about "the great Wyrdeer" but does not call him lord or noble.

"This suggests that even Pokémon that are not nobles can become frenzied..."

- Kamado, PLA, about the ride pokemon Ursaluna seemingly becoming frenzied

Ingo lives in Sneasler's cave - FANON

We don't know where he lives.

Ingo became a Warden because Sneasler liked him - FANON

"I showed a natural affinity for taming Pokémon, which is why I eventually became a warden. But still I wonder what my true purpose is here..."

- Ingo, PLA

There is no further information about his wardenship. There is no information on what his relationship with Sneasler was prior to him becoming her warden.

Ingo likes having photos because of the amnesia - CANON

"Ah, photographs. I appreciate having physical keepsakes—less ephemeral than memories. Would you do me the honor of posing for a photo with me, <player>?"

- Ingo, PLA, at the Photography Studio

Ingo has been in Hisui for XX years - CANON

The art book uses the placeholder XX for the amount of time Ingo has been in Hisui. Some have taken the double digits to mean 10+, however the first digit could easily be a 0. So, we still don't know. Net 0 information.

Emmet must be taking Ingo vanishing badly - FANON

We have not heard from Emmet.

***

That's all for now! I'm sure I've missed or forgotten something, feel free to add stuff in the reblogs! I might edit the list later to add more if needed.

[starcurtain]

A Very Rambling Rant about Alhaitham and Aranara

Sigh. Everyone on twitter is all excited over this idea that Alhaitham can see aranara, and I don't mean to be downer but like... I kind of hate this. Not the idea of Alhaitham seeing aranara, which is very cute, very nice, yes, but more the way this kind of thing unfolds.

It's a classic example of unconfirmed material, extraneous to the actual game, getting put out on social media like it's canon: Someone tweets "ALHAITHAM CAN SEE ARANARA!!" and suddenly it's running rampant in the fandom and people are completely convinced it's canonically true, without the actual game or any confirmed story-relevant materials genuinely supporting the idea. This is exactly how misinformation gets spread. (I'm looking at you, "Jade enslaved Aventurine" Star Rail fandom brainrot.)

And it's this "bandwagon canon" that leads to constant issues in the fandom when people point out that even some widely accepted stuff is actually fanon. People are literally vicious over defending things that don't actually have any evidence in the game itself.

I really wish this fandom was better at distinguishing "This thing is factually true" and "This is a really cool idea and there might be a few hints for it! I'm going to make this my headcanon!" Watching stuff in fandom go un-fact-checked genuinely makes me terrified for people's ability to fact check real world issues sometimes!

Not to mention the way this conversation is happening is just really unpleasant too?

I saw multiple tweets with thousands of likes going around saying things like "Of course Alhaitham can still see the aranara; he has child-like wonder while Kaveh is traumatized and had to grow up too fast, so it makes sense he can't see them."

Which like... This is so gross to me? Are these people just missing the massive unfortunate implications of their own words--the idea that traumatized people can't experience wonder for the world anymore? That they're somehow broken and can't experience any child-like joy??? It's a deeply unpleasant take to me.

And not only that, it directly contradicts actual canon, because Yoimiya's entire second story quest was about a girl going through a traumatic illness that confined her to a wheelchair and led to her experiencing guilt and depression--and about helping her to see that everything that made life worth living was still there for her, and that she had never lost her wonder or will to live in the first place.

And the whole thing just smacks of a fundamental misunderstanding of why adults can't see the aranara in the first place. It's not because there's some sort of magical "You must be 18 or younger to see aranara" rule. It's because the aranara themselves choose not to be seen by adults. They protect themselves by making themselves invisible. They're not invisible by nature! Everyone can see them--when the aranara want to be seen. Conversely, this means that adults with "childlike wonder" are not just automatically seeing aranara left and right. No matter how happy and childish at heart an adult is, they will only see an aranara if the aranara personally trust them and want to be seen.

The aranara trust children because children are generally good-hearted (and also probably easy to escape from), so there is usually no need to keep themselves invisible to children, but even among children, they are invisible until they choose to be seen. (I think everyone forgot the quest where you find the child who was kidnapped by the Fatui in the forest, saved by an aranara who chose to reveal itself to her, but then she refuses to go back to the village, so you leave her at the aranara nursery--only the aranara there at the nursery choose not to reveal themselves to her because they don't know her yet.) Even with children, aranara don't just go running up on them--they're incredibly cautious creatures who only show themselves after they're sure they'll be safe. They distrust adults because adults deliberately use "growing up" as an excuse to abandon simplicity, kindness, and gentleness in order to embrace concepts that include getting ahead of others and seeking profit--two things which could be particularly dangerous for a vulnerable forest fairy population.

There's also an extremely complicated intersection between the aranara and memory, as they represent and upon "death" return to being the forest's living memory itself. Avin, the girl in Yoimiya's story quest, is a child--but still loses the ability to visit her aranara companion because her illness keeps her away from the forest so long that she simply forgets her aranara buddy ever existed. Even aranara who would love to continue playing with their human companions find themselves forgotten over and over again, because they simply don't linger in human memory well. It's a giant metaphor for how fleeting and temporary human existence is in comparison to the natural world! It's a metaphorrrrrrr.

(There's also the fact that aranara freely move between reality and dreaming--something which Sumeru's adult population only recently regained the ability to even do.)

And like... does no one remember that Yoimiya could only see the aranara because Traveler was there to introduce her to them? She doesn't just automatically see them even though she has all the childish wonder possible in her heart.

I even saw tweets saying that anyone who thinks Alhaitham doesn't have child-like wonder in his heart and wouldn't automatically be able to see aranara fundamentally misunderstands his character and I just... First, see the point above--this is already a misunderstanding of how aranara work.

Second, am I just crazy, or is there absolutely nothing about having wonder and curiosity and passion for the world around you that is confined to children? Are we really going with "Having an imagination is for kids" as our takeaway from all this?

Alhaitham absolutely is passionate! He loves Sumeru as much as Nahida does! The mysteries of the world fascinate him, and he wants to be doing nothing more than ravenously learning and taking in new information at every opportunity!

But finding wonder and joy in life's mysteries is absolutely not restricted to children!

There's nothing inherently "childish" about loving fiction and the fantastical world of books, having a vivid imagination, being passionate about learning new things, and just plain out enjoying life. I'm sorry everyone else has apparently become such miserable adults that the only way they can believe Alhaitham finds joy in the world is by assuming he must have maintained a "child-like" inner nature. Please go read more books and touch more grass and maybe you too will experience adult wonder and joy???

Alhaitham's vivid curiosity about the world isn't remotely "child-like." It's based on the same sort of philosophical obsessions that drove Plato and Aristotle to redefine human thinking. To Alhaitham, Sumeru is likely much more vivid and beautiful and full of intrigue because he is now an adult who has the ability to freely think, formulate deeper questions, and the means to pursue research into his personal passions. His teaser trailer is literally about how he took the job of the Scribe because the Scribe records truth--not child-like faith in the magic of the world, but a constant unfilled yearning to get closer and closer to what is real.

If Alhaitham can see aranara, it's because he's earned the trust of the aranara by his deeds, not because he's secretly still an innocent, sweet baby boy deep down who has chosen not to grow up. (And like, if "traumatized people don't see aranara" is really what we're going with, are we actually arguing Kaveh is the only traumatized, "grew up too soon" one here? Did everyone just forget Alhaitham is an orphan with zero surviving family members left in the world and that he spent his entire childhood friendless, at least as far as we've been shown?)

Winning the trust of the aranara is something anyone could do if they show strong enough positive traits--just basic kindness, gentleness, and patience, which I promise you, adults can have.

At the very least, if we're going to suggest Alhaitham is child-like, can't we at least point to his actual childish behaviors, such as constantly pulling Kaveh's pigtails like a schoolboy with his first crush? Throwing hands with anyone who pisses him off too much? Being a jokester who continually sends Paimon books because she picked on him for his choice of reading materials once? At least y'all could have started there... Come on, now.

Phew, this really was a whole rant, but I just needed to get that off my chest. The Hoyo fandoms on twitter are so, so bad. Like man, don't claim people are mischaracterizing someone while not even knowing the lore yourself... Sorry if that sounds harsh, but...

[utilitycaster]

You have been watching CR so much longer than me, and I'm curious to know your take on TV Show Canon interfering with or replacing Live Play Canon? On the latest 4sd, Sam mentioned that they're sort of in a schrödinger's Canon, where in one instance the show and campaign have two opposing cannons and they get through it by not directly addressing one or the other. The example he gave was Highbearer Vord, who was an old man in campaign 1 and a woman in the show, whom Matt referred to by name or as 'they' in campaign 3.

Personally, I've never been precious about adaptations changing or ommitting things, and I didn't care about the change from the campaign to the show, but for some reason, the show changing the campaign gives me pause. I also personally love the show! Campaign one was my favorite, especially the chroma conclave arc, and I love the tv show just as much, so I don't know why I would be precious about one over the other? I think maybe I'm worried about changes retroactively impacting the campaign because I already saw and loved the campaign as it was and I don't want it to change, whereas the show is currently being created and so any changes or adaptations just feel like their own thing that I get to see unfold.

The change I mentioned is very small and doesn't really impact much, I'm just wondering what your preference would be for this practice in general! I think that the cast mentioned that some changes will be made to the beginning of the Mighty Nein's story for the upcoming show. In a hypithetical future campaign, if someone mentioned the M9, would you prefer it to be in line with the campaign or the tv show, would you prefer if it was vague like Vord, or is it dependent on what the changes are?

For me it would be dependent on the scale of the change and what it is. Honestly, for Vord I don't even find it in conflict in the present campaign (ie, in 843 PD); while obviously Vord's gender is different between the canon of Campaign 1 vs. the Legend of Vox Machina and those are taking place as two versions of the story in the same time, I just assumed that in 843 PD Vord was figuring some shit out re: gender and pronouns. (I'd also add that Vord's description during Campaign 1 itself varied wildly; Matt's changed character pronouns before in the past and I don't know if it's been deliberate or if he forgot but it's not a big deal).

I think if we're talking about scenes that were not visible in the campaign and were expanded upon in TLOVM (eg: getting to see more of the Briarwoods or the Chroma Conclave plotting without Vox Machina present), treating them as canon within Campaign 3 is fine; honestly those probably were canon in Matt's notes anyway, just unseen. Small things that aren't plot critical - changing a character's gender or appearance, for example - are also fine by me.

The issue arises if we get into actual plot conflicts - for example, the party splitting during the Feywild and Westruun arcs in TLOVM vs. Scanlan and Grog being present in the Feywild in canon. In that case, resolving the two is not possible and I don't care for attempts to make it so. I don't generally care for attempts to justify a cast mistake or canon contradiction and make it all lay flat when the answer sometimes is just "this is improv and they forgot", and this feels similar. Like...if Kamaljiori were to show up in Campaign 3, that would be valid, because he doesn't die in Campaign 1 and does in TLOVM, and when we're watching the streaming campaigns we should defer to campaign canon. I don't think it's fair to Campaign 3 to try to play it with an eye to animated adaptation, so any ripples from that can be addressed if an when they come up. But for stuff like Vord's gender, as long as you get the presence and the vibe right, details can be altered. The same, presumably, will be true for mentions of the Mighty Nein if there is an Exandrian-set Campaign 4.

For what it's worth, that is what I expect when the cast mentions changes to the adaptation as well. Like...look, if I'm wrong about this there will be other discussions to be had, but I think the idea that Molly won't die in the Mighty Nein adaptation is a rather desperate and unrealistic one since that sort of derails the entire rest of the campaign both plot-wise and thematically. Fine for AU fanfic, though I'm personally uninterested, but a poor adaptational choice. But changes like splitting the party between the Feywild and Westruun, or Grog becoming weakened, or Vax communing with the Raven Queen a little earlier and at a smaller temple, or Vex facing Saundor alone, all maintain the core vibes and themes while dealing with time constraints and letting Pike be more present. If someone were to ask Vex point-blank "was Scanlan there when you fought the guy who had that cool bow you're carrying" in Campaign 3 I think the answer should be "yes"; but that's not actually important. What's important is that Vex faced a guy who had been consumed by bitterness and grudges for a weapon that she ultimately carved the word for "forgiveness" into as a personal reminder. An adaptation should retain what's actually important to the story, but changing what hangs on the same fundamental fixed skeleton is fine.

[sammygender]

thoughts on how the sam & dean part of the fight before sam left for stanford went !

i am addicted to thinking about precanon so thank you for this <33

i think people r generally way too optimistic about how that initial seperation between them went. dean is awful to sam about stanford even years after he left and years after he came back!! hes still very visibly angry about it in s5 which is NINE YEARS after he left in the first place and refuses to even tolerate the idea it was a good moment for sam. i cannot comprehend how people think 22 year old dean had the emotional maturity to even let sam go without a fight, nevermind be supportive about it.

like. theres this amazinggg art on here of sam hitchhiking to stanford and all the comments are like 'erm that black eye would be from JOHN actually!' (side note but it is so funny to me how spn fans decide john hit them based on implication (which i agree w... to an extent...) but dean hitting sam onscreen multiple times somehow translates to 'DEAN WOULD NEVER DO THAT'. erm. okay.) 'nooo dean would've given sam a lift!'

and like. what show are you watching. if dean would've given sam a lift he would've done it to the bus station in moody silence and then locked the doors of the impala so sam couldn't get out to catch his bus to stanford and they would've started physically fighting for the car keys and dean eventually wouldve let sam get them and sam wouldve left. or something. but it would not be some sweet brotherly moment bc that directly contradicts canon <3

i do think the worst of the fight is between sam & john - that's always what's implied in canon - and in my head dean's just standing there stonefaced maybe refusing to even talk to sam until theyre left alone somehow and he breaks. but i also think dean hits sam at some point, will always have the image in my head of sam showing up to stanford w a bloody nose and fending off questions. (internally hes like no my dad didnt do this it was my brother so its fine. <3.) theres a scene like this in one of my fics so im just drawing from that. but. like....

idk how dean/john finds out. if dean found out before john, i think dean probably wouldve run to him about it in an attempt to get sam Not To Go as much as it would be nice if he didnt, so i reckon they have to find out at about the same time. i think sam is unsure what to expect from dean, who of course (as far as we see both in flashbacks and in canon) alternates between genuine care and support and angry, desperate possessiveness. he probably hopes for the best and expects the worst and gets the worst.

there r definitely lots of different ways it could go....maybe sam tells dean and dean tells john. maybe sam tells john without telling dean at all and thats how dean finds out which totally wrecks him. maybe sam tells them both at the same time. maybe sam never tells them and they find the acceptance letter. this is why stanford fight is sooo fascinating. i feel like i could write five different versions of it and all would be possible/interesting.

but whichever way, i just dont see dean as contradicting john. he generally Doesnt Ever precanon, this is established, he admits it himself, thats why its such a huge moment when he defends sam at the end of s1.....sam going on about dean 'protecting him' is 1. more subtle and probably to do with dean being the one to shoulder most of johns emotional baggage than the heller misinterpretation of 'john hit dean but not sam and thats what this means!!!' (tho i am sure dean did genuinely Protect sam sometimes including from physical violence. of course he did. this isnt to discredit that..i just emphasise the Sometimes.). and 2. partially just classic Sam Rewriting History (u always protected me from dad, from lucifer....girl he did those things very little certainly not always. know your worth sam winchester).

so if dean gives sam a very angry lift (to a nearby bus station...there is absolutely zero fucking way hes driving him to stanford and tbh i already find this quite unlikely but possibilities r interesting) its on john's say-so or at least not disapproval. which like. sure maybe. john certainly is concerned about sam's safety even after he kicks him out, checking up on him at stanford etc, id believe that hed want to ensure sam Gets there even if the fight ended up so bad he told sam he couldnt come back. tho hes stubborn and i dont think hed say it. so maybe itd be a case of dean kind of picking up that that's what john wants and complying even though right now half of him wants to never see sam again and the other half wants to tie him to the radiator so he can never leave. sorry i am literally brainstorming fic ideas in this ask answer now.

anyway....SORRY id say long ass answer as always but this is actually INSANELY long......sorry guys im about to embark upon getting tested for adhd and maybe then my rambles will be, while not shorter in length, more cohesive? tldr fandom is wrong dean is an absolute ASS during stanford fight. obviously sam leaving devastates him and how does dean cope with devastation or perceived abandonment do we think?? hm?? he is just as angry as john for the same and different reasons. and thats really so much more interesting than him being Secretly Supportive. <3

[ckret2]

How do you (personally) rank the validity of different canon sources?

Ex. Show, Books, Livestreams, Panels, Deleted Scenes ect.

Disclaimer ahead of time that this is solely for my own personal canon-compliant fic writing purposes and I don't expect anyone else to follow this or even think they're obligated to write canon compliantly

Tier one: the show is more canon than the books, but only 1% more canon. In defiance of Alex's decree, I do treat Little Gift Shop of Horrors as canon.

Tier two: everything in the books (plus the books' tie-in websites, like Shmeb-You-Unlocked or TINAWDC) is canon UNLESS it's contradicted in the show. If there's a contradiction, usually the show wins, but it has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes contradicting book info take precedence over show info if the book's info is better. The best outcome is when the info can be smoothly synthesized. (Note that having to weigh a book against the show only applies to CONTRADICTIONS; if the book just ADDS ONTO our knowledge of the show in a way that doesn't actually contradict it, it's automatically canon.)

Also in defiance of Alex, I consider Time Pirates' Treasure wholly canon, with the "official" timeline being one of the ones where they get the treasure and all of the other choose-your-own-adventure branches being things that happened in neighboring parallel timelines.

Out of the books, Journal 3, TBOB (+TINAWDC), and Lost Legends (+Shmeb-You-Unlocked) are the most canon. TBOB takes precedence over Journal 3 on matters where TBOB's lore is clearly intended as an upgrade on prior ideas (ex: the shaman's portal and the pyramids). Dipper & Mabel's Guide, Time Pirates' Treasure (+ the Axolotl page), and Don't Color This Book are secondarily canon. Lazy screenshot-based novelizations of existing episodes are whatever.

I choose to selectively semi-reject some of the skeevier conspiracy theory claims in the books as "Bill's lying about these": outside of those exceptions, going "there's no evidence Bill's lying about this part but I've decided that he is just because I don't like it" is the coward's way and dishonorable.

Info in the Bill Cipher AMA is third tier canon, since it was written in-character and comes directly from Alex. (Some quotes from the AMA were recycled directly into TBOB + TINAWDC.) Gus Burnside's twitter account is also third tier.

For the first three tiers, all info is canon unless something in a higher tier contradicts it.

The Cipher Hunt is 3.5th tier.

All out-of-universe materials—livestreams, panels, interviews, DVD commentary, tweets, doodles & concept art, etc—are fourth tier. If it's contradicted by anything in the higher tiers, they take precedence; but, for lack of a conflict, out-of-universe materials fill in the gaps. But the person involved matters: show writers' statements on the characters are more canon than voice actors' statements. If fourth-tier materials contradict each other, the newer one takes precedence. Fourth-tier materials can be selectively ignored if so desired, but better to find a way to twist them to make them work.

The Gnome Gemulets game is fifth tier; all the lore from it is canon, but the events may or may not have actually happened, or else only loosely happened like that. Gnome Gemulets may occasionally rank higher than the out-of-universe materials.

Disney.com flash games and the like are semi-canon; you CAN take lore and details from them if you want but the events probably didn't literally happen unless you really want to make it work. Okay to imagine that events happened that were loosely inspired by the games.

Deleted scenes and cameos (ex: Bill in the Simpsons) are semi-semi canon. They probably didn't happen, especially if it contradicts canon; but you can freely take ideas and vibes from them and use them as examples of the kinds of things that could happen (ex: Bill would try to con people into buying crypto just for the heck of it).

Unwritten episodes are semi-semi-semi canon: they definitely didn't happen, but by god, you could MAKE them happen.

The How Not To Draw Grunkle Stan short is as yet unknown. Under normal conditions it ought to be semi-semi canon, but since TINAWDC did some stuff with the Henchmaniacs escaping to reality shortly before this clip came out about Bill escaping to reality, there's a slim possibility this is part of a budding storyline about Bill & the gang in the real world, so I'm reserving judgment for now.

[wajjs]

i hate batstans who spamming hal jordan tag ughh

I know this is related to the now deleted poorly written post about Hal/Arisia, in which Jason chases Hal threatening to murder him for being a "pedo freak" and Hal is somehow scared of Jason when in reality Hal has no reason to be afraid of him since they're not on the same power scale.

I was saving this ask to post a good answer, but I'm very sick and ultimately it boils down to this:

The infamous "not a child molester" panel is purposefully shared out of context because it has inflammatory language and it's the best way to rage bait people + it prolongs ignorance in fandom circles (already known for never looking at the source material) by not explaining the whole situation like it should be explained.

It is an incredibly scummy thing to do considering how sensitive and delicate the topic is. It is also incredibly telling that it's mostly antis the ones who share this panel out of context and without nuance. Antis LOVE to use words like "child molester" and "pedophile" like they're candy and like these words have no real weight behind them.

I have seen antis pile on a survivor of child molestation for saying they do not agree with calling Hal a pedophile, because in context he's not, and using that accusation as a blanket statement "gotcha!" only helps to water down the complex terms and alienates survivors. I've witnessed antis tell survivors to "get over it" and that "maybe they (the survivors) are the real pedos" for "defending Hal Jordan".

I'm gonna break down the context in simple terms so that it can be understood:

Arisia joins the Green Lantern corps as a preteen/young teenager

Hal consistently, repeatedly, explicitly, calls her "little sister" across multiple issues and treats her like family

Arisia develops a crush on Hal that starts off Innocent and turns into an Obsession

Hal explicitly, repeatedly, consistently, turns her down

When they're trapped in a cave, Arisia cannot take Hal's "no" as valid answer and uses her willpower to age herself up into a full-fledged adult. She must have Hal

I repeat, she's NOT a child. In text, in canon, she's now drawn and written like an adult — a very precocious young adult, yes, but an adult nonetheless.

ONLY AFTER she turns into an adult does Hal show interest in her, and they make out in that cave to then develop their relationship

What's the REAL issue?

I am aware that the context is far from good, but what is most important from it is that the relationship is very clearly out of character within the same run it develops from. Before Steve Englehart, the writers consistently kept an older brother/little sister dynamic between them. Englehart was the one to add the ""romantic"" twist to it and directly contradict not other writers, but even himself. Moments before making out with Arisia, Hal is written turning her down. Again.

This is clearly not a character trait of Hal. This is a self insert situation in which the writer, and with support of the editors, decided to put his fantasy on page. It's not the first time this ever happened in comics, it will not be the last — it just is, unfortunately, infamous all around the internet.

To sum things up before I pass out again from the amount of meds in me:

Hal is not a pedophile. He only develops a romantic relationship with Arisia AFTER she's grown into an adult (in the blink of an eye, yeah). He is not a child molester. Nowhere in the run before or after was that ever a thing. It is beyond me why Englehart wrote that dialogue. Who knows.

His relationship with Arisia has its surprisingly sweet and stable moments, though it quickly deteriorates because Arisia and Hal are at different life stages. They break it off. It was retconned. I repeat, IT WAS RETCONNED. IT'S NO LONGER CANON. And for good reason.

I am TIRED of Batstans, mostly Jason Todd stans, using a clear example of bad writing to bash on a well beloved character. As if Jason hasn't suffered from atrocious writing as well.

Now can we stop with the obvious rage baiting and blatant spreading of misinformation?

short cbr article with a breakdown of events for those interested

[theweirwoodfiles]

The Weirwood Files: Why Rhaenyra is the Rightful Heir

Subject: A short essay detailing why Rhaenyra is the rightful heir over Aegon. 

This shouldn’t even have to be said, but I am seeing an uptick in team green fans claiming that Aegon was always the rightful heir, as if him being king was not enough for them. I personally believe this argument comes from wanting the greens to have the legal right of way so they have no guilt in supporting Aegon (although even if Aegon DID have the law on his side, there is still sympathy to be had for Rhaenyra being cheated out of inheritance that had been promised to her). Regardless, this write up will compile all the evidence that proves Rhaenyra was the rightful heir and was unlawfully usurped. 

First and foremost, Westeros is an absolute monarchy, which means it is run by one ruler who is not held to the law and is above it. The king has vassals, advisors, council members, but overall there is no power that “checks” the king. This system was put into place by Aegon I Targaryen, and he is described as the “final authority” on all governance in the realm.

Many people refer to this passage below as proof that Westeros is not an absolute monarchy, but notice where it says that Aegon allowed the other lords of the land to rule as they had been and keep their laws intact. However this only occurs because the king decides it so, he is still the final authority on matters, and yes, that includes inheritance matters as well. Inheritance laws do not exist above the king, it is still very much the other way around. 

In addition to the text evidence, we also have George himself confirming Westeros being an absolute monarchy, per this article.

The idea of a woman becoming a monarch while a firstborn son lives has been brought up twice before the dance. Rhaena Targaryen was a potential candidate for the throne despite having a living brother. The throne did not go to her not because it would be illegal to do so, but because she did not press her claim, and allowed it to pass to Jaehaerys. 

Alysanne suggested that Daenerys become queen despite having a living brother, Aemon. Alysanne was one of the most politically competent queens, and if law truly prevented Daenerys being queen over Aemon, she would not suggest it so casually. 

Many cite the Great Council called by Jaehaerys, something that set a precedent for male heirs, as a reason for why Aegon is heir over Rhaenyra. However, the council’s decision was not solidified into law. Precedents can be set, with new precedents contradicting them. Jaehaerys did not have to call a council, and he did not have to abide by it. He merely chose to do so. 

When Viserys made Rhaenyra heir, he called the lords of the land to swear oaths to her in an official ceremony. The titles that belong to the heir of the throne were then bestowed upon Rhaenyra. This was never undone. Rhaenyra was never stripped of her status as heir, not even by Aegon’s birth. Aegon, in turn, is never once referred to as heir within the text. 

In both book and show canon, we can see that this is true. In Fire and Blood, we have a passage that says Alicent and the greens had asked for the succession to be changed, meaning that the succession was set in stone. Aegon was never heir, the greens just wished him to be so. 

In the show, we have Jason Lannister in 1x03 say “--If you were to name Aegon as heir,” once again highlighting that despite being a male firstborn son, Aegon is not automatically heir. The greens would not be asking for the succession to be changed if Aegon was already heir, instead they would be referring to Aegon as heir already and pleading for Viserys to acknowledge this as fact. Once again, while laws, however loose they may be, exist, the king is the final authority in the realm. Viserys had the right to name Rhaenyra as his heir, and he has the right to keep her as heir despite Aegon being born. 

Let’s also not forget Aemond directly stating that Rhaenyra was usurped in 2x01 during his scene with Criston, and Otto’s “is that what you think?” to Aegon when he claimed Viserys wanted him to be king. Aegon was put on the throne not because of the law, but because of the green’s schemes and ambitions. This is also why in the book they do not attempt to claim legality but instead perform a coup and act in secrecy. If Aegon were truly heir all along and only Viserys was denying it, there would be no need for such. 

TL;DR: Rhaenyra is and always was the rightful heir under the law of Westeros and Aegon was a usurper. A water is wet essay but it needed to be said in full.

[myfandomrealitea]

I really wanted to ask you about this:

Do you have any advice of how to develop critical thinking and media literacy?

There are many, many ways you can practice critical thinking, evaluation and media literacy. At its most basic, you can access student resources for lower levels of education like earlier high school years and look at the examples and guidance given there. Rehashing this will often give you a good foundation to build off of and apply.

One of the main aspects of critical thinking involves discerning what is fact and what is opinion. A good portion of media analytics is opinion. What is 'bad' by one person's standards is 'sub-par' or even 'great' by another's. Similarly, the majority of fandom space is opinion-based. The main pitfall of fandom spaces is that everyone wants their opinion to be taken as fact, which is where critical thinking and even basic communication begin to fall away.

"I'm right and you're wrong" and "this is the way it should be, if you do it or think differently, you're wrong" are common roadblocks people run into when engaging with things like media analysis and even basic fandom activities like fanfiction.

'Mischaracterisation' is fanfiction is one popular topic, especially here on Tumblr. What people often fail to recognize is the true creative depth of fanfiction and using someone else's pre-existing characters. Characters as they are in the source material may not make the choices or behave in the ways necessary to activate or validate certain plot material or author intentions in fanfiction. Which is, inherently, one of the main points of fanfiction. Exploring the alternate.

While you might immediately recoil and say "he'd never do that!" you then have to sit back and recognise that that's exactly the point. That this iteration of that character is not meant to directly reflect the source material. Its a re-imagining, a re-interpretation. That doesn't mean its bad. Its simply different.

'Mischaracterisation' is only actually applicable in fandom spaces when someone is trying to insist as a blanket fact that a character would do something or behave in a way that blatantly contradicts their canon behavior, opinions, morals and perspective or deliberately interpreting an action in biased bad faith. It is not actually applicable to fanfiction where creative liberty dictates you can do whatever the fuck you want with a character because you're not trying to claim it as part of the source content.

Questions To Ask Yourself

Am I reacting to [media] emotionally instead of rationally? Is my emotional response to [media] blinding me to the rational or critical approach(es)?

Am I allowing my expectations to get in the way of me understanding [media] fully? Am I forming a biased negative opinion of [media] because it isn't meeting my expectations?

Even if I disagree with [media], do I actually understand it? Can I recognise the reasoning behind choices made or actions even if I don't agree with them?

Am I searching too hard to hidden meaning or purpose in absolutely everything? Can I recognise what is simply passive information/detail and what is active information/detail? (E.g; English tutors saying a character's curtains are blue because they're depressed when throughout the literature its passively reinforced that blue is the character's favorite color.)

Even though I disagree with the statement or opinion shown, is it necessary to argue against it? Is there any benefit to making my counter-opinion known or is it simply a no-end argument? Am I just using arguing as a means of release/fulfilment? Am I treating this person poorly because of their opinion/statement?

Resources

Critical Thinking Exercises & Explanations #1 The Critical Thinking Activity Workbook Early Stage Critical Thinking Games Five Media Literacy Activities Six Media Literacy Ideas

[stari-hun]

The Foundation vs Manus Vindictae

This idea was inspired by @ihaveforgortoomany ‘s post here!

It’s so fun that the story makes sure we know and see that the difference between The Foundation and Manus is the head start the Foundation has on being an established organization, and whether they pretend to be good. This is also like you said, a big part of why the Foundation wants to restore time. They had a massive advantage in being a long time establish organization. In Regulus’ time, it was implied from her reaction the Foundation had full authority to approach Arcanists and register them, or at least strongly convince them to join. Manus tries to have a persona of salvation over pure goodness but this is maintained moreso because they can’t actively gaslight people.

If you look into The Three Doors and see how people were affected by the incomplete version of the Artificial Somnambulism. They were going insane because it was never a good machine with good intent. It was made to use frequencies to manipulate the mind of an arcanist. While Laplace employees use the machine in order soothe injured arcanists or panicking ones, that doesn’t mean they’re not brainwashing members. They bend reality for these people to comfort them but that comfort is built on dependence and complete trust of the Foundation. Which is why on of my theories is that the AS is a reason Arcanists have mental breaks so frequently in the Foundation, the Manus has breakdowns within their ranks however that’s from exposure to the Manus Masks carrying The Storm chemical within them. Name Day in Getian’s character story event even has a mention that the AS is very dangerous for the way it gets into someone’s head, and Getian breaks into it because he had experienced something similar. He’s then able to have them see what he wishes. Taking what Jessica saw in [The Old One Flew Over the House], the AS is also used as a training tool for arcanists and a way to get true test answers out of them. Why would she need to take her exam in the AS when she could simply answer Foundation staff 1-1?? There’s no point of it besides getting into Arcanist’s subconscious. The reason this doesn’t work on Vertin anymore is because she holds zero trust for The Foundation anymore.

I think Arcanists in general tend to take a lot more mental stress from contradictions in their heads, for instance people create false memories if they have a gap in their memory because the brain doesn’t like having gaps there. We’d rather lie to ourselves or create a false reality than deal with pure unknown, but with The Storm no one knows what anything will be next.

After the events of Book 3, Vertin no longer places her trust in the Foundation because she knows what Constantine did. Madam Z wasn’t able to find out in time to save them, so Vertin watched her classmates disappear in front of her because Constantine wanted to unlock the potential in her. She then went on her own journey to record the eras directly, without being able to save anyone. Vertin won’t ever leave The Foundation because their goals align, but she might one day near the end of the story work with Madam Z to overturn the current system. Sonetto on the other hand has an imminent fate of her loyalty breaking towards the Foundation. She already suspects them of being morally corrupt at least to her standards, and she’s torn between choosing them and Vertin. From how we see her trust Vertin in [A Nightmare at Greenlake] + how she doesn’t make any comment on following the rules when Horropedia is blatantly breaking them, I think her loyalty switches to Vertin at some point.

Also a big theme is that Manus and Foundation both very much consider people expendable. The Manus treats weaker arcanists and humans blatantly as canon fodder, but Constantine sacrificed a group of children because they were defectors (Horropedia makes a note about how their actions had the entire school talking to the point they ran out of space to discipline them) and it might push Vertin to want to go out into The Storm to find a cure in the Name of Peace.

[the-crow-binary]

Trans headcanons: when people ridicule the thing they think they support

So I'm tired. Let's have a talk.

Let's start with the very concept of headcanons, before I get to the infuriating part: A headcanon is, by definition, an idea that has never been confirmed as being actual canon. It's people imagining things about the characters they like, taking advantage of the fact the media they're in never depicted certain things, certain moments of the characters' life, to fill the gaps. A headcanon that make sense, and isn't there to just make the character your OC, takes into account what the actual canon has already shown, such as the character's personnality or goals. (I'm taking characters as example here but headcanon can be about the media's universe as a whole, too)

For example: In Castlevania: Curse of Darkness, and it's mangas, we never saw the life Hector and Isaac lead in the Castle between the moment Hector arrives (Isaac being already there) and the moment he runs away. It's a perfect opportunity to have fun and imagine what happened all those years! So, by taking into account what official products gave us, such as Isaac and Hector's personnalities (before and after the curse took ahold of them), how they interact together, and their common roles and duties under Dracula's reign, we can easily headcanon that they used to be friends and respected each other, before it slowly gets crushed by Isaac's obvious inferiority complex and jealousy in regards of Hector's power and relationship with Dracula.

That's a headcanon. A thing that can differ from one person to another, as interpretation can also vary, just like the plots we like to see. But let me tell you something absolutely crucial this headcanon does that make it a valid one: it doesn't contradict canon material.

That's a thing I feel like tends to be forgotten by many claiming their takes on characters as "headcanon". It stops being a "headcanon" and start being a "i'm twisting this character into my OC" when you start making shit up that not only does not fit the Character, but also contradicts directly what has been shown about said Character, just because you're a certain way or like certain things. That's not a headcanon. That's fanfiction. Not one that will interest those who actually like the canon and doesn't like when people change things about it instead of just adding to it, but if you're having fun, go for it! Just own up to the fact that you're deforming a pre-existent character, lol.

Now that... that is still pretty harmless. Sure it's annoying to see someone take your Blorbo and make it do things it would never do and call it a "headcanon", but it's just that. Annoying. But then...

Have you ever come across, in your favorite medias, male characters who look are act just a bit feminine? Or female characters who might be a little rough, angry, or muscular? And then you go look for content of them, and are met with "that character is trans" headcanons? Chances are, if you're very active in fandoms, you have. Maybe some of you cringe because there's something wrong going on there and you're not sure what, and you're afraid you're just being transphobic even though you support transfolks and maybe are one yourself... at least it was my case at first lol. But not to worry! There's a very good explanations to your cringiness! And it's that: Lots of those headcanons are straight up awful in their logic and an insult to every genders involved! :)

Let's take the Netflixvania version of Hector as an example. He's the perfect target for those kind of headcanons, because he's a pretty boy! He's (a bit) feminine! So of course, just from that, you'll have people claiming he MUST be a trans woman. An awful take to call "headcanon", because it's very surface-level, gleefully ignores that everyone everywhere have both feminine and masculine sides to them (and the fact Castlevania is originally a JAPANESE product, have you ever seen ACTUAL anime? Pretty boys and boys who look like girls be everywhere in this media), some men being more feminine while some women can be more masculine, and literally goes back to gender-conforming logic. Something the very concept of transgenderism actually fights against. I mean sure, you have trans women trying to be as feminine as they can, and trans men as masculine as they can, for reasons that might differ from one person to another. But there's also those who don't. Those who simply exist, feeling secure enough in their gender that they don't care how masculine or feminine others percieve them to be. And what about the very cis people who don't conform to what others say they should look like, according to their genitalia?

Headcanoning a character as trans because of the way they look only is great !... To perpetuate gender-conforming mindset and clichés, and be uncomfortably close to transphobic logic (the "we can always tell" crowd who'll think a cis woman is a man because her body, that she has never altered in any way and is only the result of her genetics, is a bit too masculine, for example :) ). So what else you can use to headcanon a character as trans without it leaving a sour taste in other people's mouths?

Their personnality? Well, yes... but also no. It all depends on how you turn it. And in case of N!Hector? Oh boy! ^^

Hector is kind and compassionate... mostly with animals lol, and the devils he creates. He is gentle, can be vulnerable. He doesn't want humanity gone, but he wants them to be kept under control, because on one hand, he doesn't like them because Trauma, and on the other, he's not a bad guy at heart. He is naive, dare I say, emotionally, physically and mentally weak, wich causes him to be compared to a child by actual characters in the show, and a dumbass by the fandom. ^^ And ALSO causes him to get tricked, beaten and abused by vampires (wich makes the fandom call him even MORE of a dumbass for, and side with his abusers because "haha hot women vampire go brr"). Overall, even if he's trying to be tough here and there, and opposes some (futile) resistance sometimes (never going as far as it should've because of Peak Writing), he quickly goes back to being, well, soft (wich is NOT a bad thing in itself btw).

Now there's nothing wrong when you look at his personnality alone, and ignore literally everything else such as the way he was treated by the narrative, the characters, and the fandom itself. But look at this... and tell me it feels trans woman-coded.

Headcanoning Hector as a trans woman boils down to say "i think women are soft, naive, stupid, weak, kind and compassionnate, and men cannot be". It's already a very vomit-inducing take insulting both genders, but then you take into accounts what actually happens to Hector: him being tricked, used, abused, beaten, dehumanized by every character he interacts with and never taken seriously, even by the man who hired him as one of his GENERAL. Oh, and treated like a literal pet, too! Called as such by Lenore herself! And it gets worse. Because the narrative itself sees nothing wrong with that (exactly because he's a man :)). Just... why would you see a man being treated like a pet, not human and not even an adult, and think "ah, yes. A woman." ?? I'm sorry but I can't, in good faith, approve of that. What kind of vision does it mean you have of women and trans women?

So not only headcanoning N!Hector as a trans woman is an insult to women and tells more about how YOU view them than anything else (consciously or not), but it also serves to completely rip Hector off of his masculinity and insult men as well. As if a man couldn't suffer the way he did. As if a man could not be kind or naive without being compared to a child. As if a man had to have short hair or beard or drink beer or whatever you think a man is supposed to be like and how a woman is supposed to be like.

Oh, and special shoutout to that one tumblr user I will not name that literally said "how can you not headcanon Hector as a trans girl. She's literally a doggirl ok"! It's is the most awful take I have EVER seen and I want to throw up all over your blog! Literally, how dumb does one have to be to see a gentle, pretty man being treated like a dog for kinky points and go "not only is this a girl, that's also a doggo! Woof woof!" I swear to God.

Sigh... so, yeah. This far, I have yet to see anyone headcanoning Hector as a trans woman and not making me want to throw up in my mouth, considering how the character is. But there's one more thing! The narrative.

The narrative can also be used for headcanons, and often is. "What is this character and their story about?" "How is the [media] portraying them?". "How are we supposedd to feel about the character/story/actions?" In N!Hector's case, despite him having potential... the narrative is just humiliating him through and through. He gets tricked by everyone, mocked for his harmless personnality, his mistreatment happens out of pure sadism and to elevate the Girlbosses, and he gets used for horny points. He is just a victim durîg the whole show, and when you THINK he's FINALLY going to do something... nope! He vaguely help bring back the Big Bad Guy (wich ends up being useless i swear to god N!Hector's life is joke lmao killme) while falling for his abuser! Getting back at her by protecting her, I guess! ^^

So what was his character and story about? A misunderstood man... who exist only to be used and tossed around and never get justice nor is allowed to fight back. You can't even say he's a plot device because the plot itself mocks him and could have worked well, if not better without him. (Isaac going after Carmilla directly instead of going after Hector and choosing last minute to kill Carmilla while he's at it would have made a little more sense, though he still would have went after the wrong people, but that's another story) Definitely the kind of character I love to see having his masculinity revoked and called a woman! Not insulting at all!

See, it is very difficult to headcanon a character as trans... especially when you don't think about it through. Wich people like that one user calling Hector a "doggirl" did (that was a whole other level of victim blaming holy shit. Shows once again how men's and males' trauma and suffering are not taken seriously enough). What is happening to Hector here happens to many other characters in other medias, and to stay in Netflixvania, it is happening with Alucard as well. Because people are cowards and won't headcanon the big grumpy hairy guy as a trans woman, they have to headcanon the gender-nonconforming character and, by doing so, actually gender-conform him ❤️ (i mean it as a half-joke. you do you, but I think this is a clear proof of how the gender norms have a big place in your mind)

I think I would have less problems with lots of these if they weren't called "headcanons". Let's be honest, many will think of a character as trans because THEY'RE trans and it's their blorbo, and MAYBE think of justifying it further afterward. That's not how HCs work, you're just projecting. And you know what? It's fine! It's not a bad thing in itself! Make a pre-existent character trans if it's fun for you! If it makes you feel better! I mean I'm worried of N!Hector is the one you relate to the most. But it doesn't matter if others don't like it, because it's a content made for you, by you! But don't call it a "headcanon" (or claim it as canon directly, wut) and try to justify it when there's nothing in canon even slightly hinting at it being potentially true, or working, or making sense for the character. Don't call it "headcanon" when you're literally genderbending a character. Please. Think things through.

Also, remember when I talked about a proper headcanon does not contradict actual canon? Well. The male character you call a trans woman going by "he/him" the whole time kinda contradicts your idea. It's as if you "headcanoned" a character who has been seen only being attracted to the opposite gender and in love with someone of the opposite gender as being gay. Sure, you can say that's a closeted trans character... but then you better have solid reasoning for thinking that, once again. Or, you know, you could assume that you genderbend the character for fun (and i don't mean "turn it into a cis character of the opposite gender", i mean keep them trans, but don't pretend to base your vision mostly on canon). Would be less insulting than saying "this weak pretty man is actually a woman because he's weak and pretty, canon told me". I prefer someone who owns up to the fact they don't care about canon and just want to have fun rather than someone who implies they care about canon by using "headcanon" and then give poor and insulting arguments.

I get that lots of people with these headcanons don't have bad intentions and don't realize how fucked up their reasoning (or the simple fact of calling N!Hector a damn DOGGIRL- sorry i'll never recover from that) is, but still. As much as I respect everyone's right to do whatever they want with characters in their own little corner, caring about nothing but having fun, I've been needing to vent about this issue for a while now. Being an ally or a trans person yourself doesn't prevent you from spreading stereotypes, I'm afraid.

This problem of "i'm using poor and stereotyped arguments that is more insulting than anything to justify my idea" could apply to autism headcanons too, btw. And probably other things as well. Just. Please. Think about what you're writing. Think before you talk.

[zenkindoflove]

"I want what Elain wants and she wants Azriel"

Is a claim I often see e/riels use to claim why they are "pro Elain" and implying that if you ship Elain with her mate because "she clearly doesn't want him" then you are anti Elain.

So yeah this whole post is why that's bullshit.

First let's get some things straight that we all can agree are facts.

1. Elain had a crush on Azriel. It's clear by their looks and touches and her showing body language that she wanted to kiss him in the bonus chapter. It's unclear whether that crush survived post her tears over his rejection and giving the necklace back as they had no canonical interactions post solstice.

2. Elain does not want to address the bond right now and avoids Lucien. Her feelings about Lucien specifically and what she thinks about the bond are unclear.

Now that we got that out of the way, the assertion that you are the most pro Elain because you ship her with Azriel is quite a stretch. I'm sure you like Elain, as do I, but you do not hold some moral high ground because of who you ship her with.

First, let's discuss the idea that you have to support who Elain wants. People can want all kinds of people who are not right for them for a lot of reasons. It's a common experience for many to want the wrong guy. To have a crush and think they're the best and it'll all work out only to have your heart smashed by the cruel reality that they were wrong for you or didn't want you the way you did. It's also common to hate your friends' boyfriends and husbands because they're assholes despite how much they "want" them.

People's feelings change. Feelings are fickle.

In SJM's canonical world, mating bonds are not.

It makes sense that Elain, after going through her horrible rejection by the man she actually wanted and loved, Graysen, would not be ready to face what having a mate means. I'm sure it felt like infidelity to her, especially if she does desire and feel a pull towards Lucien like every other female with a mating bond has in this series. Her avoidance of Lucien can mean a lot of things, including that she wants him even if she mentally isn't ready or feels she shouldn't.

It also makes sense that she would seek out and find herself in a rebound crush with someone who is in her proximity and is low risk. Azriel doesn't come with the pressure of being her fated soulmate. He's just a dude. A dude who is pretty and paid some attention to her.

So yeah, I get why she wants him. Doesn't mean I think he is right for her.

Why isn't he right for her? To make a long post short, Azriel often undermines Elain. He diminishes her need for help when she's clearly depressed (ACOWAR), and he speaks for her and directly contradicts her wants (ACOSF, scrying). He is entitled to her without merit (the third sister line, bonus). He ignores her wishes to avoid violence and wants to kill people who are important to her (wanting Graysen killed, saying he'd kill Lucien in a blood duel - we know canonically if a mate dies it is like losing half of your soul). He thinks very little of her past his lustful fantasies (bonus chapter) and even to the point of projecting his own self-hatred when he looks at her skin (bonus chapter). Elain is symbolic for him of the thing he covets most (a mate), and his crush on her is a manifestation of his psychological need to pursue unavailable females because of his self worth (friends who will never romantically love him or a female with a mating bond). Basically they are a recipe for a toxic relationship full of avoiding real personal healing.

So yeah sorry, even if Elain wants to kiss him I'm not shipping her with someone like that just because she "wants" it. I would rather see her have a story where she discovers who she is and what being Fae means to her, which means directly addressing not only her powers (hello let her scry) but also addressing her mating bond head on by getting to know the male that she will always have a pull to, no matter if she rejects the bond or not. Elain is a fictional character with a narrative arc. Her wants now will not always stay static.

For me, as someone pro Elain, I want her to give herself a chance at a forever kind of love, one with a soul to soul connection and an eternal devotion. I want her to experience that unconditional love she so desperately craves. I don't want to read her choosing just some regular dude who will probably drop her the second his mating bond snaps anyways. She deserves a mate. Even if she doesn't know or understand that yet.

And quite frankly, I think once Elain does learn not only who Lucien is but the way he thinks about her and how devoted he is to her and only her, she will want him soon enough. I don't ship for characters' frivolous crushes in the now. I ship for their potential with the right person. The person who will see them starving and depressed and worry about their well being rather than what their powers can provide them. Who will hear their vision and cross an ocean because they believe in it. Who will fight across a battlefield just to make sure they're okay. Who will even push down their own needs and wants to give them space because that's what they want right now.

You know what that means though. If you're pro-Elain for wanting what Elain wants, then Lucien is the most pro-Elain person there is. And why wouldn't he be? He is her mate after all, and he will do anything for her.

So yeah, that's who I want for Elain, and I think that makes me pretty pro-Elain too.