#forgotten civilization

[oscarseiler]

[aytonai]

Light Among the Ruins

[froopa-coopa]

redraw inspired by Castle in the Sky 🗡️✨

[synchodai]

HBO's Continued Insistence on Dumbing Down Westerosi Politics

So there have been countless thinkpieces already on how GOT simplified the feudalist politics of Westeros (by giving a lowborn sellsword lordship over The Reach, by having no consequences for destroying the Sept of Baelor, etc.), but I haven't seen a lot of people talking about that for House of the Dragon.

The worst being that the show presupposes that Rhaenyra is the lawful heir when the books showed there are plenty of lawful arguments why she wouldn't be.

Mind you that I've been enjoying the show a lot so far. This is just to vent out my frustration with the writers' failure to fully engage with the values and protocols of the Middle Age-inspired setting. The show seems uninterested in laws of the Realm in a story ostensibly about politics, save for when they're using it as an excuse to amplify depictions of sex and violence.

Blacks vs Greens wasn't a matter of misunderstanding of who each side thought Viserys wanted on the throne. It was the Targaryens' belief of their absolute authority clashing with the Realm's established traditions. Everyone always knew who Viserys chose as heir. In Fire and Blood, Grand Maester Orwyle said as much when he was parleying with Rhaenyra on behalf of the Greens.

Rhaenyra heard his terms in stony silence, then asked Orwyle if he remembered her father, King Viserys. "Of course, Your Grace," the maester answered. "Perhaps you can tell us who he named as his heir and successor," the queen said, her crown upon her head. "You, Your Grace," Orwyle replied. And Rhaenyra nodded and said, "With your own tongue you admit I am your lawful queen. Why do you serve my half-brother, the pretender?" Munkun tells us that Orwyle gave a long and erudite reply, citing the Andal law and the Great Council of 101. Mushroom claims he stammered and voided his bladder. Whichever is true, his answer did not satisfy Princess Rhaenyra.

(For non-F&B readers: Munkun is the Grand Maester who served Aegon III, the king who came after this civil war. Munkun's book, The Dance of the Dragons, A True Telling, is one of Fire and Blood's source texts. Mushroom is the King Landing court jester from Viserys I to Aegon III's reign. One is a source written with academic rigor but is secondhand at best. The other is a firsthand eyewitness account but is from a literal fool who will take every chance to make things more scandalous and sexual to please the crowd.)

In House of the Dragon, they replaced Orwyle with Otto and Orwyle's discussion of legal precedent with Otto handing Rhaenyra a book page from Alicent. It's quite evident here that the writers, much like Mushroom, thought a discussion on the actual laws of the Realm were negligible in this story about a succession war.

Even Alicent made no pretense that Viserys chose Rhaenyra over her children and I have no idea why the HBO writers decided to make her mistakenly think otherwise. Maybe they thought a queen regent pushing her son to take the throne over another woman made her appear unsympathetic as a character, but if anything, this only makes show!Alicent less politically savvy and more delusional than her book counterpart, fully believing an addled king's vague muttering on his deathbed was sufficient grounds to change heirs last minute.

Book!Alicent following Andal laws instead of her husband's wishes makes sense given her Andal upbringing, her devotion to the Faith of the Seven which enforces said laws, and her desire to protect her children from Rhaenyra given that Rhaenyra has shown she's not above murdering family (see: Laenor).

In the books, there was a long discussion between the former king's council on who should succeed Viserys.

Here are the arguments for Rhaenyra:

Rhaenyra was older than her brothers and had more Targaryen blood

the late king had chosen her as his successor, that he had repeatedly refused to alter the succession despite the pleadings of Queen Alicent and her greens

hundreds of lords and landed knights had done obeisance to the princess in 105 AC, and sworn solemn oaths to defend her rights.

Here are the arguments for Aegon II:

many of the lords who had sworn to defend the succession of Princess Rhaenyra were long dead [...]

Ironrod, the master of laws, cited the Great Council of 101 and the Old King’s choice of Baelon rather than Rhaenys in 92

the hallowed Andal tradition wherein the rights of a trueborn son always came before the rights of a mere daughter

Ser Otto reminded them that Rhaenyra’s husband was none other than Prince Daemon, and “we all know that one’s nature. Make no mistake, should Rhaenyra ever sit the Iron Throne, it will be Lord Flea Bottom who rules us, a king consort as cruel and unforgiving as Maegor ever was [...]”

Should the princess reign [...] Jacaerys Velaryon would rule after her. “Seven save this realm if we seat a bastard on the Iron Throne.”

Once again, the show chose to cut out this long political discussion. Instead, the council had already made up their mind and decided to stage a coup (when in their perspectives from the books, it would definitely not be a coup).

For all their marketing how two sides are equally grey, HotD is actively delegitimizing Aegon II. The strongest argument for him is how his claim follows the laws of the Realm, but the show doesn't seem to care about the laws of the Realm or the political need to maintain a more predictable/tested transfer of power.

Instead, the show focuses on Viserys's relationship with his daughter and the mysticism of the Targaryen bloodline. In doing so, they emphasize Rhaenyra's strongest arguments for succession — that she's more of a Targaryen than her half-brother and that her father prefered her.

And what for? Because in our modern-day, we don't have male-prefered inheritance and people can only imagine misogyny as the only injustice here? What about the injustice of a monarch exercising absolute control, thinking that his "superior" heritage makes him above the established laws of the native people?

This is not to say Aegon II is unquestionably the heir. But this is to say that the show removed the political nuance of why people are questioning in the first place. Precedence isn't the end-all-be-all of succession, but neither is "because daddy said so".

[jojo-schmo]

I'm spitballing here with a headcanon/theory...

Thinking about the Beast Pack's culture... I could see them feeling abandoned by the previous civilization in the Forgotten Land. Left behind in a crumbling world by people who sought out a better existence without even regarding them as worthy of being saved with them...

Why else could Leon be tricked into executing a plan in the game that would theoretically take them away to that same "land of dreams," if that wasn't a desire held by the Beasts? I could see some resentment towards those ancient people from the Beasts as well.

What if they called the people of that land, "The Forsakers?" The ones who abandoned them for the "land of dreams?" Hmm.

[alicelufenia]

The Court of Eilistraee

The Drow City Imberlur

When the fuck was anyone gonna tell me Ed Greenwood had a youtube channel [x] where he does shockingly well produced lore videos on little tidbits of the Forgotten Realms, straight from his home campaign to the greater rpg community.

Both of these videos related to Eilistraee and non-Lolth sworn drow settlements are a godsend. Visiting Imberlur someday would be a dream come true for my Tav, and I can totally see an astral projection trip into Eilistraee's court when she reaches the climax of her story, similar to how Gale had a one-on-one with Mystra towards the end.

Thank you Ed your little side stories are worth their weight in gold while WotC continues to do nothing with these elements that have been around for literally over 30 years.

[rmbunnie]

Red Hood Characterization

This is really long so I'm putting a cut here, I've been thinking about Jason Todd's character motivations and the question of whether or not his actions are based in a Moral Code (I don't think so, not to say he's without any morality) and I talk about that in more depth here.

I saw someone say on here that Titans: Beast World: Gotham City was some of the best Jason Todd internal writing they'd seen in a while, and I've been a Red Hood fan for 8 years or so now? pretty much since I read comics for the first time, so I went and checked out and I thought it was good! The way the person I saw talking about it as if it was rare and unusual made me wonder though, because as well-written as i thought his stances on crime were, there wasn't really anything in it that went against the way I conceptualize Jason?

This kinda plays into a larger question I've been thinking about for a while with Jason though, which is that, do people think that the killing is part of a fundamental worldview that motivates him a la batman, and that worldview is the reason he does the things he does?? Because 8 years ago i was a middle schooler engaging with fiction on the level that a middle schooler does, so I simply did not put much thought into it beyond "poor guy :(" but ever since I actually started trying to understand consistent characterization, I don't really see Jason as someone who's motivated by a moral code in his actions the way batman or superman is!

tbh my personal read is that he's a very socially-motivated guy, his actions from resurrection to his Joker-Batman ultimatum in utrh always seemed to me like every choice made leading up to his identity reveal was either a. to give him the leverage and skill necessary to pull off his identity reveal successfully, or b. to twist the knife that little bit more when he does let Bruce find out who he is. Like iirc there's a Judd Winick tweet like "yeah tldr he chose Red Hood as his identity because it's the lowest blow he could think of." And I think that's awesome, I think character motivations rooted so deeply in character's relationships and emotions are really fun to read! I also think it's where the stagnation/flatness of his character comes from in certain comics, because if his main motivation is one event in one relationship that passes, and he is not particularly attached to anything in his life or the world by the time that comes to pass, it's a little harder to come up with a direction to go with the character after that, because there isn't much of a direction that aligns with something the character would reasonably want? But I do think solving this by saying "all of the morally-off emotionally driven cruelty he did on his way to spite Batman was actually reflective of his own version of Batman's stance that's exactly the same except he thinks it's GOOD to kill people" isn't ideal. To be fully honest, it seems to me like he never particularly cared one way or the other about killing people to "clean Gotham of crime," he just did everything he could to get the power necessary to pull off his personal plans, and took out any particularly heinous people he encountered along the way (like in Lost Days.) Not to say I think the fact he killed people keeps him up at night anymore than everything else in his life events, I just never really thought he was out there wholeheartedly kneecapping some dude selling weed or random guy robbing a tv store for justice.

Looping wayyy back to my question, Is this (^) contradictory to the way he's written/the overall average perception of the character? Because like I enjoyed his writing in Beast World i have zero significant issue with anything there, I just didn't believe it would be a hot take, like yeah, that is Jason. It's been a while since I've read utrh and lost days, but I don't think my takeaway directly contradicts either of those too bad iirc. Idk all this to say I think Jason killing and being alright with killing is an obvious and objective fact, but i guess i've always seen it as more of a practical tactic than a moral belief, and I think taking the actions made during the lowest points of a character's life where he is obsessively focused on this ONEEEE thing and trying to apply it as a Motivating Stance to everything he's done after that, doesn't really follow logically for me.

[aliquistis]

On Mystra and Gale

Okay I gotta say it.

tl;dr: Gale is too old to have been groomed by Mystra (unless you headcanon him as 30 or younger), bc she was dead until 1479 (game year is 1492). I am not defending Mystra. Mystra is a mess. Her (FR) writing is a mess. But for this at least, the timeline doesn't add up.

Disclaimer: there is absolutely nothing wrong with people disregarding/tweaking lore for fan works/fanfic. God knows I do it all the time when I GM. That's your story now and you can do whatever you want with it, including exploring problematic relationships like what if Gale was groomed by Mystra? This is just a post for general information. Write what you want. Explore those dark recesses of the human heart. Fly free, you beautiful butterfly.

Too long but still gonna read explanation under the cut.

Let me preface this again: This is not a post in defense of Mystra. I have, in fact, been very loudly complaining about Mystra since long before Baldur's Gate 3 was even hinted. This is simply pointing out timeline discrepancies that it seems many newcomers to Forgotten Realms aren't aware of (totally understandable! You should not need to ingest 30 years of lore to enjoy a game and I'm not saying you do.) Additionally, FR literally kills Mystra every new edition and it gets dumber every time.

Anyways. It is highly unlikely that Gale was groomed by Mystra. This is not a statement of morality, it's a statement of timeline. Mystra died in 1385. She was in pieces (like bits of her magic were still in artifacts/her Chosen, such as Elminster in lore that I absolutely despise) and that, as far as I can tell, is how magic subsisted until 1479, when she was reconstituted by Elminster (in lore that I absolutely despise) This is a gross oversimplification of an event called the Spellplague. I am open to correction on how magic worked here because I moved to Pathfinder during the 4e era and you could not make me read those Elminster books if you put a gun to my head.

Regardless, from 1385-1479, Mystra was dead/missing/asleep. BG3 takes place in 1492. If Gale is 40 years old, he was born in 1452. This means, if Gale is 40, the youngest he could have been was 27 when Mystra contacted him. This lowers, obviously, if you think Gale is 35 or even 30. If he's 30 then Mystra could have contacted him at 17. Yes, a 17 year-old is a child and this could have led to grooming, but Mystra wasn't at full strength when she first returned and she most likely wasn't seeking new Chosen until the next year, 1480. Regardless, this is the reason I put grooming as Highly Unlikely instead of Impossible. I personally believe Gale is older than 30 (I say this as a person in their 30s), I believe he was written with the intention of being a man older than 30, and I cannot see him being in his 20s. (more power to you if that's your headcanon, he's an archmage, he could be 600 for all we know, fly free, etc)

OKAY THAT SAID. Would she have groomed him? Fucking probably! Mystra is a mess. I have been playing in Forgotten Realms in tabletop and video game settings for going on 25 years now and let me tell you. Mystra is a mess. I could make a whole long ass other post on all the many problems I've had with her writing over the years. Even without the "Mystra banged a minor" angle here, there is a serious power imbalance and very obvious manipulation on her part. And I'm here to tell you Gale isn't even the first wizard she has done this to! She's done much worse! Mystra has a ton of flaws (I could write a BOOK on Mystra's flaws) but it remains highly unlikely that grooming Gale in particular is one of them.

If you'd like more FR lore this person has some amazing lore write-ups that I really enjoyed reading during EA. And here is Mystra's forgotten realms wiki page, already linked to her death and return.

(my friend told me to post this after I kept bitching to them about Lore on discord and They Know Who They Are)

[uncanny-tranny]

When I find it hard to do certain things, I like to pretend I am a neanderthal living in a cave with my clan, and I must do The Thing in order to survive.

So, when I'm doing cardio at the gym, I'm actually chasing and tracking a mammoth, and when I need to cook, well, I'm not cooking on a stove top, I am hurdled over the first fire and watching the fat of our kill drip down onto the burning wood. And when I find it hard to crochet, I pretend that the first winter storm is coming and our clan needs me to make blankets to hurdle under and that I must contribute.

I hope whatever you do to do The Things will help. It is a uniquely personable trait to motivate yourself through pretend and stories. That's what makes this life interesting - that's what makes you feel larger than yourself 💛

[frevandrest]

Do you think things would've been different had Louis and Marie Antoinette accepted constitutional monarchy.

Oh, definitely. I am bad at alternate history (which I dislike about myself, because it is super interesting), so I can't guess how, but it would sure be a very different situation if they honestly accepted constitutional monarchy.

There is this misconception of the French revolution as the "mob"/revolutionaries jumping at the first opportunity to crush royals, but in reality, Louis and MA were given so many chances and things dragged for several years until it became clear that they were uninterested at being constitutional monarchs. Then and only then the republic was founded and monarchy abolished. (And all of this before any of them lost their head).

We know is that the people of France - revolutionaries at least - wanted constitutional monarchy more than Louis and MA did. National Constituent Assembly prepared everything for it to be put into place, all while the royal couple pretended they wanted to play along. In the writings and speeches of many prominent revolutionaries, there is a clear will and hope for constitutional monarchy. Only a minority (mostly among Girondins) called for a republic. Still, the project of the constitutional monarchy was well underway and constitution prepared when Louis and MA decided to flee the country.

It became clear in the summer 1791 that Louis never really supported the idea of a constitutional monarchy. And yet, they did not proclaim the republic then and there - Louis got another chance. So things dragged for another whole year, but this is where the idea of a republic was truly born: through Louis' actions and treason.

So given that the king's treason and unwillingness to accept the constitutional monarchy led to the proclamation of the republic (and (in)directly, other things, such as the war with foreign powers and a surge of counter-revolutionary efforts to name a few), I can definitely say that things would've been different if he and MA honestly accepted constitutional monarchy.

[nonexistent-tales]

pkciv fandom is forget me not seawatt core or should i jump into the void

[voidofz]

interiors | The Forgotten City

[tanyaluca]

Be crumbled.

So wild flowers will come up where you are.

You have been stony for too many years.

Try something different.

Surrender.

— Rumi

Photo: Tanya Luca

[irondadfics]

Hiii looking for a fic where it takes place after captain america civil war and Tony is super busy and keeps forgetting to take peter home and he's really homesick and eventually he tells tony and tony feels really bad. tysm<3

could either of these be your fic?

Day 10: "I'm Sorry, I Didn't Know" by trusfated_solar 

He stared at the reflection in the bathroom mirror, eyeing the purpling bruises critically. It had been a day or so since the battle at the airport, but they didn’t seem to be healing as fast as they normally would. His ribs ached every time he breathed and moved, but in a way the pain was good because it reminded him of why he was here.  Why he wasn’t home.

So, How Was Germany? by inkinmyheartandonthepage

Germany was a shit show. Rhodey was paralysed, Steve had nearly killed him and now May Parker was calling reminding Tony that he had left a fourteen year old all alone in a hotel room.

[embraceyourdestiny]

Do you not cry every day thinking about the people we’ve lost?

Mourning the people who aren’t here, and there’s no reason they shouldn’t be. They should be here with us.

People murdered by the thousands for no fucking reason.

Do you grieve people you’ve never met?

Because I do.

Every goddamn day.

[eleplay]

sledahv research facility