#i think about this game way too much

[thewitchoftheweed]

Who Betrayed Who? A Cult of the Lamb analysis/theory.

The Bishops and TOWW give the Lamb conflicting accounts of the events leading up to the schism. So what actually happened? Who betrayed who? And why? I have a theory.

Let’s start with what they each say regarding the schism and the decision to imprison TOWW.

According to Shamura:

“Our brother, The One Who Waits. Back then he was known by the name Narinder. But as millennia wore on, he grew discontent with his role. He began to question. He was gluttonous in his ambition. And in my imprudence I loved him. For it, I lost my mind. For it, he lost his freedom. Can you fathom such betrayal, Lamb? Of your own turned against you? Would you like to find out?”

“The blame hangs heavy 'round my neck. I introduced him to ideas of change; for my domain is knowledge, and it is ever evolving. An organic state of being for myself, but for him... most unnatural. Death cannot flow backward. It was I who had him chained.”

According to Heket:

"It was not so long ago that we cast out the Red Crown. A mere thousand or so years. The heresy it preached could not be tolerated. Such noxious ideals... it could not be allowed. For this most damning of sins, the retribution must be slow and painful...And with greed and ambition unchecked, it drew Godly blood."

According to Kallamar:

“Please know, it was not my idea to cast out the Red Crown! The other Bishops, my siblings, the blame lies with them.”

And finally, according to The One Who Waits:

“You see me here in chains, reduced to nothing. But it has not always been thus. I was bound to this wretched place by the Bishops of the Old Faith. They betrayed me and left me to rot. Each of the four chains that bind me are guarded by one of the Bishops.”

All of them are vague about what exactly went down. The only other hint we have comes from the monument by the gates: “Here godly blood was spilled. Here Death no longer wished to wait.”

So: what actually happened?

Haro has some answers. He gives us some insight to TOWW prior to the split:

"He was unalike the rest of his kin. While others dealt with flux; chaos, famine, pestilence, war. Things in which their constancy must transpose. And yet he was the inevitable; the obstinate and irresistible. The one who waits. Truly peculiar, 'twould then seem, has appetency to invite the novel and the new, break ancient vow and primordial bond alike. Traditions stagnate and appetites augment, nonetheless. Doubt tears faith asunder."

Along with:

"Bonds of familial duty, turned instead to chains. Most voracious of appetites, curbed and contained. Most infectious of ideas cut off and cauterised before given chance to rot and spread. Cruel, verily. Alas, what other recourse was given? How does one kill Death? ... Alas. One cannot."

Haro is, as far as we know, an impartial observer to what happened. (I think based on his dialogue and seemingly intimate knowledge of the conflict, he witnessed it— but that’s a whole different post.) So his account is the closest thing we have to a neutral perspective.

From Haro we learn two key things, both of which are confirmed by Shamura and Heket’s dialogue:

1. Narinder was dissatisfied with his role amongst the Bishops. He was naturally curious and ambitious, while his domain was the only “static” one among them. In essence— he was bored, restless, and potentially feeling undervalued.

2. He was imprisoned to prevent a heresy from spreading. Which heresy? The monument and Shamura’s comments make it clear: “Here Death no longer wished to wait.” “Death cannot flow backward.” Resurrection was the unforgivable heresy.

Narinder realized that each of his siblings, whether they recognized it or not, had dual domains. Kallamar’s followers prayed for protection from pestilence, Heket’s prayed for protection from famine. They could presumably give health/fertile fields as well as inflict the opposite on heretics. Leshy's chaos could have become order, but as a "young" god, he hadn't yet reached that point. Shamura has two separate domains entirely, wisdom and war.

Narinder just had death. Static, never-changing, and irritating for someone who enjoyed the “novel and new.” I think the fact he’s a cat reinforces this. There’s even a colloquialism about it: “Curiosity killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.”

After serving his role, he became restless. Shamura then encouraged him to experiment with his domain, by their own admission. Perhaps they didn’t actually think Narinder would succeed, or perhaps they felt bad he was stuck in a static domain when it didn’t suit his personality. The result was catastrophic in the eyes of the Bishops: Narinder gained power over both life and death.

Why was this such a damnable heresy that it destroyed their family? A few reasons: the ✨Prophecy✨ Shamura (presumably) received, the implications of resurrection in the world of CotL, and what I think might be pre-existing divides within their family. This is where we start to delve into personal headcanons and theories, so hang in there for a second:

Narinder is the most powerful of his siblings. Full stop.

He is the hardest boss fight by far, even though he’s been chained for a millennia. You could argue that he’s empowered by the Lamb’s/cult’s devotion, but there’s a key flaw there: he imprisons the cult during the final battle, and blatantly turns against the Lamb. All devotion from the cult vanishes in that moment because the followers are very clearly pulling for the one fighting to save them: the Lamb.

So, Narinder was powerful. The most powerful. Perhaps he became the God of Death because he was instrumental in killing other gods prior to their ascension. He had a clear interest in necromancy and the world beyond, if we can assume the necromantic weapons are his. (Which they are strongly implied to be by their item descriptions.) So when they ascended, he had a fascination with death and was probably very, very good at killing— so Death initially made sense as his domain. However, Narinder was curious and creative and restless. He eventually got bored and likely began to resent his family. The most powerful of the Bishops, not capable of doing anything but waiting.

Then there was the family dynamic. Kallamar was afraid of Narinder. Heket seems antagonistic towards him. Leshy didn’t seem to have much of a relationship with him. So it’s entirely possible that resentment could have eventually led to a betrayal on Narinder’s part. But one thing held him back: Shamura.

I think Narinder was beginning to drift from his family, but turned to his eldest sibling because he still had great love for them. Shamura encouraged him to experiment, which was ultimately successful— one can presume he was intensely proud of discovering resurrection. He saw it as his crowning achievement and his way of finally leveling the scales between the five of them.

His siblings saw it differently. In the world of CotL, willing and unwilling sacrifices directly feed a god's power. Resurrection, perhaps in their minds, cheapened or weakened this power. Or, if we go with the theory that Narinder was the objective strongest, resurrection made him so powerful it scared them. If he can essentially grant eternal life to his followers, what’s to stop him from usurping our worship entirely? What's to stop a god of life and death from doing away with the others?

I think the prophecy was Shamura’s attempt to calm Heket, Kallamar, and Leshy’s fears regarding the discovery. Perhaps they had a way of divining the future— and received the aforementioned ✨Prophecy✨.

In turn, it convinced Shamura that the only way to preserve the majority of their family would be to get rid of Narinder. Haro’s dialogue strongly implies they discussed outright killing him, but realized given his domain it would be impossible. Imprisoning him was the only alternative, the only way to keep word of resurrection from spreading.

So. Who pulled the trigger first? Did Narinder actually plan to usurp his siblings, and the Bishops stopped him before he could? Or did Shamura completely blindside their brother?

I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I believe a betrayal was inevitable. Had the Bishops forbid resurrection and then left Narinder to his own devices, his resentment and pride probably would have eventually won out. Most of the affection they had for each other as mortals was beginning to wane, in part because they already seemed to look at him as a threat. If you treat someone like a loaded weapon, eventually they’ll decide to become one.

But I think at the true moment of the betrayal, it was Shamura.

They admit to being the one who made the final call, and also the one who encouraged him to experiment resurrection to begin with. Narinder was the closest to them in personality, and they seem to be the closest out of the five. (Some have even pointed out that TOWW chose not to watch Shamura fall to the Lamb— his dialogue as a follower implies he doesn’t know what their last moments were like, though he happily watched the others fall through the Crown.)

The most damning piece of evidence in my mind of Shamura being the true betrayer is the nature of their injury: Narinder split his favorite sibling’s skull.

The only one who outright says they loved him deeply. Because Narinder loved them, too, and in the moment of betrayal the worst of his pain and rage was directed at them. The one sibling he never thought would be capable of doing that to him. The one sibling who encouraged him to take this path, then brutally punished him for it.

As Shamura says, the two of them paid the heaviest price. The blame hangs heavy around their neck, because Shamura — the eldest and wisest of their family — set them all on the path of complete destruction.

Narinder, to me, is an excellent Lucifer allegory. Some will look at his very clear pride and say he deserved it— others will point out his true crime was challenging the existing status quo and trusting the person he loved most to listen.

[anonymergremlin]

Just posting this out of curiosity, but if you have any thoughts on "Lies of P"'s Story and you want my opinion or if I see any connection to the OG book… DMs and questions are always open!

[mohntilyet]

illario as the grandchild that is most like caterina is something i'm loving to chew on. the grandson that took her lessons to heart the most. kill anyone who sees your face and knows your name, "we are not revolutionaries", the first out of the two to prioritise the contract. power at any cost, and the only one to lean into the unnecessary abuse that their grandmother told them was tradition. why is anyone surprised he allied with the venatori? and then there's illario's considerable skill in infiltration and manipulating any mark, he has always had the charisma that lucanis lacked. illario isn't attached, he has/can/will use someone and immediately drop them; "that does free me from promises i don't intend to keep". he can lie about how much he cares so well that he fools a magister into believing he loves her. he kills zara without hesitation to cover his own tracks, meanwhile lucanis blindly promises a young girl in the middle of a siege that he will help her find her father. even the lessons about family stick with him, and in this entire messy power struggle, he never actually orders anyone to directly kill caterina or lucanis, not until he's backed into a corner.

and even after all that. despite even lucanis believing illario should be first talon, lucanis is still the better killer. illario is not strong enough to be the brutal assassin caterina needs him to be. so when lucanis seems to fill the role his mother left, grief and love for her dead heir apparent remains, and any of the other qualities caterina needs in her next talon doesn't matter. whatever his mother was, lucanis has to be. what illario does doesn't matter, because he will always be second best to caterina's memory of her favored daughter.

[thewitchoftheweed]

Aight so. I think Sean is meant to be a foil for Arthur, at least in Arthur’s own eyes.

Sean, like Arthur, comes from a line of malcontents. His father was an Irish outlaw who fled to America with his son, but was ultimately killed — likely right in front of Sean. Arthur’s father was also an outlaw and he watched his execution.

Sean carries a knife inscribed with the date 1848, the year several Irishmen (his family potentially included) attempted a revolution, likely a gift passed down from his departed father. Arthur’s signature hat is also his father’s, as it’s shown in Lyle’s mugshot.

He also very clearly looks up to Arthur, and his behavior is influenced by Arthur’s own honor. An honorable Arthur translates to an honorable Sean, and the reverse is true as well. This implies very heavily that Sean also sees the similarities between the two of them, and seeks to emulate Arthur the way a little brother might — which is exactly how Arthur thinks of him.

There’s also the aforementioned comment Dutch makes where he directly compares the two. One could presume that prior to the incident with Eliza and Isaac, Arthur was a lot more reckless, carefree, and much less self deprecating— a lot like Sean. As much as Arthur complains about him, he also has a lot of genuine affection for him, especially in High Honor runs. Sean is also implied to have been with the gang for some time, unlike Charles and Lenny who joined months prior.

For these reasons, I think Sean reminded Arthur of the happier, simpler times in his life before guilt and regret began to weigh him down. His return is undoubtedly one of the happiest, most hopeful moments within the game. The surviving members of the Van der Linde gang are together again at last. They’ve hit a train and got a major score, but the consequences have yet to catch up with them. They’re hustling for money in Valentine and the surrounding area, slowly but surely building up what they lost. In the moment of Sean’s party, both Arthur and the player feel genuine hope for the future— that this life might turn out for them, and they’re just one or two more big scores away from disappearing into the West forever.

But then reality sets in. Dutch can’t let go of this life; Arthur begins to realize this during their time at Clemens Point. He seemed willing enough to let the Blackwater job slide, trying to brush it off despite his clear unease surrounding the situation. But then you get the Valentine shootout, and the Pinkertons are hot on their trail. Then the trap laid by the O’Driscolls that nearly gets Arthur and the entire gang killed. By the time Dutch gets the idea to “play” these families, Arthur is intensely wary. He knows Dutch is playing with fire, and each job they do is nowhere near profitable enough to make the danger worth it. In the end, the gang gets played— and Sean pays the price for it.

Arthur’s attitude changes from there, with his faith in Dutch is wavering more and more with each passing day. Losing Hosea is the straw that breaks the camel’s back, but Sean was the real turning point. To Arthur, Sean represented what the gang used to be. Once he was gone, it was much harder to ignore what it was becoming. I also feel Sean’s fate is also a partial driving factor in Arthur’s decision to save John, Abigail, and Jack.

He lost one little brother already. Arthur’s last act is saving the only one he has left.

everyone was being very cute at sean's party

[priceofreedom]

this makes me so sad and angry

John is easily one of the best voice actors in the game, but because Barret doesn't get enough appreciation, he doesn't either. i'm so tired of the Barret erasure man, and so is he, understandably. Barret is one of the MAIN!!! characters and he gets nothing every fucking time. WHEN will this change.

[bongosinferno]

A devastating and confusing thing about the Fallout setting, when you explore the pre-war aspects, is what the creators think about pre-war America. In the first games we only get hints of the pre-war world, but they seem to be some sort of wild fascist nation invading Canada. In Fallout 1, the first thing we're introduced to of the pre-war society is seeing a soldier shoot civilians and laughing.

Now, for the first 2 games and New Vegas we don't really know much. What we know is that there's a fascist military group known as the enclave who were a sort of US deep state even before the war, and that the government teamed up with corporate interests to preform vaguely MKULTRA-ish experiments with the Vaults. Basically, the government was an extreme version of the 50s American jingoism and McCarthyism.

This is well and dandy, I guess issues come up more when we get to the later games, especially 4, where it seems like none of this extreme plotting and societal civil unrest which would exist is seen. The society as presented in 4 also seems quite progressive, gay people are featured in the opening, and none of the baggage of say, civil rights not existing are included. Now on a baseline, I don't want settings to be more conservative, homophobic and sexist etc., but it becomes a very confusing setting when it's displayed both as this jingoist extreme thing with fascist tendencies aswell as a progressive place where everyone is seemingly equal. If you're focusing on the 50s as your setting, and American nationalism in the 50s, then you can't have McCarthyism spoofs and anti-communism as a societal paranoia norm while also general equality is the norm without misunderstanding why McCarthyism and nationalist jingoism is bad. A massive harm done in anti-communist paranoia is how it degrades and vilifies any progressive movements (women's rights, civil rights, homosexuality) as being morally un-American and therefore connected to communism. To ignore this just makes any critique of MacCarthyism and jingoism weird!

Basically, pre-war America in Fallout 4 becomes this both sides thing where America is both pure and equal and white fences in every instance that we see as the player (the intro), while also supposedly being this dystopic MacCarthyist hellscape that's broadcasting gladly about their war crimes in Canada, and wants to root out communism. I guess the only fix for this issue without getting into the fine print like they had to do is just not to focus too much on the pre-war world.

[aq2003]

has anyone gotten the idea that odysseus' storyline in hades 2 is a depiction/exploration of trauma over his SA and how he's blaming himself for things that were out of his control? because that's the impression i'm getting from what i've seen. he talks about "goddesses" as his "greatest weakness" and that "he's not one to say no to them"...

when mel invites him to the bath, he brings up mortals having different standards for intimacy than gods and how it usually has a more romantic/sexual connotation. she then asks if he's uncomfortable and he has a startled reaction and brings up circe and calypso again (but never actually by name)

(this isn't ship/romance bait btw. odysseus knew mel as a kid and they're stated in-game to have a sibling/uncle-niece relationship)

also he grew apart from penelope after his return, but the game makes a point of showing that his love for penelope and telemachus is what drove him on at all so that element of his character isn't brought into question

[dykedvonte]

Jimmy only commits his worse moments when he’s alone with each individual character.

It’s implied he corners Anya in her room. He brutalizes Curly when everyone else is busy under the guise of medicine. He convinces Daisuke to go into the vent when Swansea can’t stop him. He kills Swansea after everyone is dead. It really highlights the type of violence he commits. He is a coward, he won’t take his chance if there is a possibility of active conflict, yet, he jumps on the opportunity to do so when there’s no risk. Not just when there’s no one to stop him but when he knows there’s no one to witness it. To judge and directly call out his faults.

No one outside himself to really see him as the monster he would never admit he is.

[revvethasmythh]

Reminded again, as I periodically am, that there's a fair number of people in the fandom that think of Nott the Brave and Veth Brenatto as two different characters, and not fundamentally the same woman. In the absolute literal sense, this is false: Nott the Brave, returned to the body of her choice and using her real name once again, is absolutely precisely the same person she was before Caleb cast Transmogrification on her. This is, incidentally, one of her main sources of angst towards the end of the campaign! A part of Nott must have both feared (and, in some ways, hoped) that when she was changed back into a halfling, she would also be a different person. That the person she became traveling with the Nein would be an easy identity to shed, which she may have hoped for because it would be easier to fit herself back into her home life with Yeza and Luc--and because it would be easier to say goodbye to the Nein if that were the case. And she feared it because she liked this person she became, no matter how transgressive society would label her for it. And she loved the Nein and didn't want those feelings to be altered.

But she didn't change. Veth Brenatto is Nott the Brave and Nott the Brave is Veth Brenatto. This was always the point. That's why it's an anagram. It's just that when she's Veth Brenatto again, she is much more focused on the why of what she's doing. Why am I still with the Nein? Why am I still adventuring? Why do I have this reticence to return home to my family? Why don't I long for that quiet, domestic life the way I once did? Her emotional journey becomes intensely personal, sometimes subtly/quietly told, and wholly about what kind of future she wants for herself and how her choice could affect those around her. Her two families become anchor points pulling her in different directions and she has to deal with that. Which is a different story than what she was telling when she was still Nott the Brave. Nott's story was much simpler--I am a goblin and I hate it and I would like to be a halfling again. I would like to be able to be with my family again. It's straightforward and it's achieved! But that's not where it ends, because she still needs to figure out a real, functional future for herself once her goal has been achieved.

All this to say, I think when people say they prefer Nott over Veth, it's important to remember that you are reacting to a certain story arc for the character, not an entirely different character. It may also pay to ask yourselves why you think they're so different. Was "Nott" funnier than "Veth" to you? Does her ability to serve as comic relief fundamentally change whether you like her or not? Did you appreciate "Nott's" themes more than "Veth's"? Or did you even notice the themes being explored in Veth's later game at all?

[shimmershy]

Buttercups and Golden Flowers

[doomedclockworkdotmp3]

heeyyy gaaanggg

the pose and the background of the album version (left) are based on oingo boingos only a lad album art. not cause i think he has anything to do with it but just cause ive been wantin to draw that pose for like. weeks and i didnt know who to put there. so why not my latest bug man.

[royaltea000]

Pose practice! ᕦ(ò_óˇ)ᕤ

[grandwitchbird]

There’s always been a lot of discussion around the way Ardyn’s tragedy is reflected in the chocobros.

But what always sticks out to me is that we only start to understand him after he’s killed his biggest reflection: Luna. We actually see the moment his mask cracks in the scene at the altar, because Luna is very much the most direct parallel to Ardyn. She’s a healer running on blind faith in a doomed world. She’s self-sacrificing and brave and devoted like Ardyn was. She’s truly blind to the plans of the gods she serves, like Ardyn was. And, most cruelly, she wears the face of the woman he loved, the woman whose betrayal* has been used to turn him into the monster we meet in the main story.

This gets underscored in the novellas when we finally get Luna’s perspective. The blindfold of her faith is removed. She’s cursed exactly like Ardyn. But she’s not safely removed from every source of help the way Ardyn was. The gods made a critical mistake. So she immediately sets out to use everything she can to fight the gods. She’s not broken like Ardyn because she’s not alone in this world. She even asks Ardyn himself for help. And, critically, he helps this cursed and less faithful but still-devoted and brave Luna.

This is why we get that uncharacteristic sincere brutality in the scene with Luna. Killing her is meaningless on its own: she’s a dead woman walking. That was for Noctis. But when she reaches out to him as his past self, so full of faith and devotion and grace, he has to reject her. He’s a monster and the world is damned, and she’s quoting the dogma that damned him personally. She hit home with everything he wants and grieves: his humanity, his faith, his sense of the world before his devotion was rewarded with betrayal. So he hits back. And it’s perhaps the most human thing he does in the game. Because there’s a part of him that wanted to take her hand.

* she was his betrayer and proof of his brother’s betrayal and was betrayed herself for her trust: Aera like Luna is an incredible narrative hinge. She’s the absolute encapsulation of the gods’ twisted justice.

[chibishortdeath]

Ya know, Castlevania tackled the concept that life after defeating Dracula could be difficult for a Belmont with Richter feeling like he’d lost all purpose and reason to go on living if not for saving others and fighting against something—

But, do you think any of them before him felt that way too?

I mean it sounds kind of miserable, being raised your whole life to be solely relied on for one moment… and then what? How do you handle the sudden shift to ‘not being needed anymore’? Evidently, most of them didn’t have very much happen to them after the events of their games since we don’t get to know—

But, do you think any of them ever got better? Do you think anyone before Richter ever learned how to live for themselves? Did Richter?

Anyway it’s 8 PM and I’m sitting around wondering if any of the Belmonts were still happy after their happy endings (debatable if certain ones got happy endings tbh but anyway), Konami can u check on them, I’m worried—

[f-misc]

Lee Byung-hun:

"When acting, it felt natural to start paying attention to Gi-hun. It seemed like the obvious thing to do. Because I was also a winner, and so was he. As we both went through that process, I believed it was inevitable that thoughts of hopelessness toward humanity and the world would naturally arise. And I thought such pessimistic views were only natural. Yet, seeing Gi-hun turn around and re-enter to destr​oy this system drew my attention. I found myself naturally keeping an eye on him. But when I joined as a fellow participant, I observed him from the sidelines. And perhaps, even the Frontman might have hoped that, since he's human too, Gi-hun's words would be right. I acted while thinking that maybe, deep down, there was a part of him cheering for Gi-hun."

[kagoutiss]

as if it was never there at all.