#i understand the narrative reasons for this

[onelastkiss4you]

Dragon Age: The Veilguard Just Went From A Good RPG To One Of BioWare’s Most Important Games

In light of BioWare scattering some of its most foundational veteran talent to the winds, Dragon Age: The Veilguard sure reads like something made by people who saw the writing on the wall. The RPG leaves off on a small cliffhanger that could launch players into a fifth game, but I’m skeptical that we’ll ever get it. The quickness with which publisher Electronic Arts gutted BioWare and masked it with talk of being more “agile” and “focused” shortly after it was revealed The Veilguard underperformed in the eyes of the power that be makes me wonder if BioWare was also unsure it would get to return to Thedas a fifth time. Looking back, I’m pretty convinced the team was working as if Rook’s adventure through the northern regions of this beloved fantasy world might be the last time anyone, BioWare or fan, stepped foot in it. But that may have only made me appreciate the game even more.

Yeah, I might be doomsaying, but there’s a lot of reasons to do so right now. The loss of talented people like lead writer Trick Weekes, who has been a staple in modern BioWare since the beginning of Mass Effect, or Mary Kirby who wrote characters like Varric, the biggest throughline through the Dragon Age series, doesn’t inspire confidence that EA understands the lifeblood of the studio it acquired in 2007. The Veilguard has been a divisive game for entirely legitimate reasons and the most bad-faith ones you can imagine on the internet in 2025, but my hope is that history will be kinder to it as time goes on. 

A Kotaku reader reached out to me after the news broke to ask if they should still play The Veilguard after everything that happened. My answer was that now we are probably in a better position to appreciate it for what it was: a (potentially) final word.

The Veilguard is just as much a send-off for a long-running story as it does a stepping stone for what (might) come. Its secret ending implies a new threat is lurking somewhere off in the distance but by and large, The Veilguard is about the end of an era. BioWare created an entire questline essentially writing Thedas’ history in stone, removing any ambiguity that gave life to over a decade of theory-crafting. As a long-time player, I’m glad The Veilguard solidifies the connective tissue between what sometimes felt like world of isolated cultures that lacked throughlines that made the world feel whole. But sitting your cast of weirdos down for a series of group therapy sessions unpacking the ramifications of some of the biggest lore dumps the studio has ever put to a Bluray disc isn’t the kind of narrative choice you make if you’re confident there’s still a future for the franchise. 

Unanswered questions are the foundation of sequels, and The Veilguard has an almost anxious need to stamp those out. Perhaps BioWare learned a hard lesson by leaving Dragon Age: Inquisition on a cliffhanger and didn’t want to repeat the same restriction. But The Veilguard doesn’t just wrap up its own story, it concludes several major threads dating back to Origins and feels calculated and deliberate. If BioWare’s goal with The Veilguard was to bring almost everything to a definitive end, the thematic note it leaves this world on acts as a closing graf summing up a thesis the series hopes to convey.

Pushing away the bigotry that has followed The Veilguard like a starving rat digging through trash, one of the most common criticisms I heard directed against the game was that it lacked a certain thorny disposition that was prevalent in the first three games. Everyone in the titular party generally seems to like each other, there aren’t real ethical and philosophical conflicts between the group, and the spats that do arise are more akin to the arguments you probably get into with your best friends. It’s a new dynamic for the series. The Veilguard doesn’t feel like coworkers as The Inquisition did or the disparate group who barely tolerated each other we followed in Dragon Age II. They are a friend group who, despite coming from different backgrounds, factions, and places, are pretty much on the same page about what the world should be. They’re united by a common goal, sure, but at the core of each of their lived experiences is a desire for the world to be better.

This rose-colored view of leftism doesn’t work for everyone. At its worst, The Veilguard can be saccharine to the point of giving you a cavity, which is far from what people have come to expect from a series in which Fenris and Anders didn’t care if the other lived or died. It also bleeds into a perceived softening of the universe. Factions like the Antivan Crows have essentially become the Bat Family with no mention of the whole child slavery thing that was our first introduction to them back in Origins. The Lords of Fortune, a new pirate faction, goes to great lengths to make sure you know that they’re not like the other pirates who steal from other cultures, among other things. I joked to a friend once that The Veilguard is a game terrified of getting canceled, and as such a lot of the grit and grime has been washed off for something shiny and polished. 

That is the more critical lens to view the way The Veilguard’s sanitation of Thedas. To an extent, I agree. We learned so much about how the enigmatic country of the Tevinter Imperium was a place built upon slavery and blood sacrifice, only for us to conveniently hang out in the common poverty-stricken areas that are affected by the corrupt politics we only hear about in sidequests and codex entries. But decisions like setting The Veilguard’s Tevinter stories in the slums of Dogtown gives the game and its writers a place to make a more definitive statement, rather than existing in the often frustrating centrism Dragon Age loved to tout for three games.

I have a lot of pain points I can shout out in the Dragon Age series, but I don’t think one has stuck in my craw the way the end of Anders rivalry relationship goes down in Dragon Age II. This is a tortured radical mage who is willing to give his life to fight for the freedom of those who have been born into a corrupt system led by the policing Templars. And yet, if you’ve followed his rivalry path, Anders will turn against the mages he, not five minutes ago, did some light terrorism trying to free. In Inquisition, this conflict of ideals and traditions comes to a head, but you’re able to essentially wipe it all under the rug as you absorb one faction or the other into your forces. So often Dragon Age treats its conflicts and worldviews as toys for the player to slam against one another, shaping the world as they see fit, and bending even the most fiercely devoted radical to your whims. And yes, there are some notable exceptions to this rule, but when it came to world-shifting moments of change, Dragon Age always seemed scared to assert that the player might be wrong. Mages and Templars, oppressed and oppressors, were the same in the eyes of the game, each worthy of the same level of scrutiny.

Before The Veilguard, I often felt Dragon Age didn’t actually believe in anything. Its characters did, but as a text, Dragon Age often felt so preoccupied with empowering the player’s decisions that it felt like Thedas would never actually get better, no matter how much you fought for it. While it may lack the same prickly dynamics and the grey morality that became synonymous with the series, The Veilguard’s doesn’t just believe that the world is full of greys and let you pick which shade you’re more comfortable with. It’s the most wholeheartedly the Dragon Age universe has declared that the world of Thedas can be better than it was before.

Essentially retconning the Antivan Crows to a family of superheroes is taking a hammer to the problem, whereas characters like Neve Gallus, a mage private eye with a duty-bound love for her city and its people, are the scalpel with which BioWare shifts its vision of how the world of Thedas can change. Taash explores their identity through the lens of Dragon Age’s longstanding Qunari culture, known for its rigidness in the face of an ever-changing world, and comes out the other end a new person, defined entirely by their own views and defying others. Harding finds out the truth behind how the dwarves were severed from magic and still remembers that she believes in the good in people. The heroes of The Veilguard have seen the corruption win out, and yet never stop believing that something greater is possible. It's not even an option in The Veilguard's eyes. The downtrodden will be protected, the oppressed will live proudly, and those who have been wronged will find new life.

That belief is what makes The Veilguard a frustrating RPG, to some. It’s so unyielding in its belief that Thedas and everyone who inhabits it can be better that it doesn’t really entertain you complicating the narrative. Rook can come from plenty of different backgrounds, make decisions that will affect thousands of people, but they can never really be an evil bastard. If they did, it would fundamentally undermine one of the game’s most pivotal moments. In the eleventh hour, Dragon Age mainstay Varric Tethras is revealed to have died in the opening hour, and essentially leaves all his hopes and dreams on the shoulders of Rook. After our hero is banished to the Fade and forced to confront their regrets in a mission gone south, Varric’s spirit sends Rook on their way to save the day one last time. He does so with a hearty chuckle, saying he doesn’t need to wish you good luck because “you already have everything you need.” He is, of course, referring to the friends you have calling to you from beyond the Fade. 

Varric, the narrator of Dragon Age, uses his final word to declare a belief that things will be okay. This isn’t because Rook is the chosen one destined to save the world, but because they have found people who are unified by one thing: a need to fight for a better world. But that’s what makes it compelling as a possibly final Dragon Age game. Reaching the end of a universe’s arc and being wholly uninterested in leaving it desecrated by hubris or prejudice is a bold claim on BioWare’s part. It takes some authorship away from the player, but in return, it leaves the world of Thedas in a better place than we found it.

The Veilguard is an idealistic game, but it’s one that BioWare has earned the right to make. Dragon Age’s legacy has been one of constantly shifting identity, at least two counts of development hell, and a desire to gives players a sandbox to roleplay in. Perhaps, as Dragon Age likely comes to a close, it’s better to leave Dragon Age with a game as optimistic as the people who made it. I can’t think of a more appropriate finale than one that represents the world its creators hope to see, even as the world we live in now gives us every reason to fall to despair.

In my review for The Veilguard I signed off expressing hope for BioWare’s future that feels a bit naive in retrospect. Would a divisive but undeniably polished RPG that felt true to the studio’s history be enough when, after 10 years of development, rich suits were probably looking for a decisive cultural moment? That optimism was just about a video game. Having lived through the past 32 years, most of the optimism I’ve ever held feels naive to look back on. I think I’m losing hope that the world will get any better. But even if we haven’t reached The Veilguard’s idealized vision, I’ll take some comfort in knowing someone previously at BioWare still believes it’s possible. - ken shepard, shepardcdr.bsky.social

[king571]

Screaming into the void of Tumblr again since a few brain dead posts slipped into my feed yesterday.

Caitlyn is not a domestic abuser for hitting Vi. Just like how Vi is not one for hitting Powder.

Given the context of this story and where these characters are at mentally, any professional would have explained that to you. Abusive relationships have clear patterns, but your minds are too focused on your own feelings and biases that you keep trying to demonize her character to justify your own hate. You refuse to see her as anything but a human being because of her background and status. Its amazing how you have a filter tag for who deserves basic empathy and understanding and who does not. Its honestly sad for you.

What is really happening in that scene is Caitlyn is completely overwhelmed by her emotions and is unbalanced. On top of all the trauma Jinx has put her through in season 1, she watched her mother die in front of her, and she is blaming herself. She is angry because she is devastated over her mom, but she hasnt been able to grieve healthily and properly. She is trying to stand tall and take the weight of the crown she has rejected her whole life. The memorial attack, where she can feel and honor her mom, gets violently attacked. And thats her tipping point.

She is desperately trying to hold on to the one person she cares for and trusts as support and thats Vi aka her mom's murderer's sister. It sounds absurd when you say it out loud. The moment she is stopped by Vi again, she feels a visceral sense of betrayal. The reasons do not matter for someone in that mental state at the time. It is simply wrong to expect humans to react rationally in these emotionally dense situations. She does not attack Vi or try to take control of her; she simply wants to leave. Then she freaking gets stopped and is compared to her mom's murderer. It doesnt matter that Vi has good intentions, that is the biggest insult and kick you can give her at that moment. She simply doesn't want to stay with her, to be held by her. And that's valid. She completely loses herself in her anger and responds physically by hitting her. It does not matter that it is the wrong thing to do because realistically, this is a very possible and expected human response. I seriously feel like I am trying to explain Psychology 101 to some people. Seperate your own feelings from the show for once and see the narrative.

And stop twisting the truth of this character. Stop mislabeling her and accusing her with definitions that do not fit her story to satisfy your own negative emotions.

If you were in Caitlyn's position, given these childish reactions I bet a lot of you would not have the control, consciousness, and moral backbone that she has in this story. She is literally one of the strongest characters in the show. Honestly, Jinx has always been my favorite character, but you all are turning me into a die hard Caitlyn defender around here.

[thedaythatwas]

on nagito komaeda and love

I just think it’s sort of funny that for a character whose (arguably) most well-recognized CG is this: 

komaeda’s narrative so heavily centers love. and I don’t just say this because I’ve had komahina brainrot for years (though this is true!!). even if you don’t care about komahina, it’s tough to deny komaeda is a walking tragedy in large part because of the role that love plays in his life. his characterization is driven by the way his luck has denied him love, and how he seeks it out regardless. in that sense, I think that without understanding komahina as at least one-sided, you miss out on one of the juiciest, most miserable pieces of komaeda’s character development.

tldr; a love-centered reading of komaeda makes sense, recognizing komahina as “a thing” in DR2 (whether you ship it or not) is pretty important to understanding how komaeda operates, and I’ll try to prove it right here under this page break!!

Part 1: Komaeda’s Love Life (or, his life without love)

I think it’s safe to assume that if you clicked here, you know about komaeda’s absurdly miserable, tumultuous childhood, but I’ll do a quick recap just in case! meteor kills his parents on a plane, he inherits a ton of money. he’s kidnapped by a serial killer, he finds a winning lottery ticket in the garbage bag he’s thrown out in. he’s diagnosed with terminal cancer and dementia, he gets into hope’s peak.

in his free time events, komaeda *explicitly* frames his luck cycle as something that takes away the people he loves. it only “takes action” against him after his relatives have died (for the sake of this essay, let’s assume that komaeda loved his parents, or would have at least been hurt by their passing). by way of other close connections… well, his wording here implies that by the time of his diagnosis, he didn’t really have anybody in his life. 

either komaeda didn’t allow himself to get close to anyone after the meteor incident, or he did, and they were taken away by his luck. at some point during his childhood, komaeda learned he should view himself as a death sentence.

so, how does this loss of love shape the komaeda we know? I’ll talk about this in terms of four of his defining (and connected!) traits in DR2 canon – the ones that really make his actions make sense: his self-loathing, his hope-seeking, his learned helplessness, and his certainty that his existence poses a threat to those around him. komaeda’s experience with loss makes him view himself as a source of death, which in turn fuels these tenets of his character. ultimately, his loss and the complexes that arise from it give him good incentive to push people away.

his self-loathing

komaeda hates himself. he views himself as worthless outside of his potential to serve as a “stepping stone” for the hope of the ultimates. he claims that this is driven by his beliefs around talent, which are in turn linked to the way his worldview rests on viewing hope as “absolute good.” the talentless (himself included) are only good for advancing the hope of the talented. still, his self-loathing is a bit more personal than that. take what he says and dig just below the surface, and it’s a clean cut trauma response all the way down. which leads us directly to…

his hope-seeking

komaeda is willing to do literally anything to serve hope. on the island, this (in short) means dying. this is where I prod at komaeda’s reasoning a bit more: komaeda’s willingness to act the way he does in canon also stems from his belief that his dying would be a net good for the world. his existence kills the people around him. his illness will kill him anyway. he has less than no value, and hope is invaluable. to go out for the sake of hope would give his wretched life purpose; it’s his dream come true.

and it’s no mystery why komaeda cares so much about hope: again, it’s a coping mechanism! komaeda’s belief that all bad luck is a necessary precursor for good luck and that hope will always triumph over despair is (as he himself says!) the only reason he’s managed to stay alive. I’ll say it again because I really can’t emphasize it enough – komaeda thinks that just by existing, he kills the people he loves. ouch!

learned helplessness / his existence as a threat

komaeda has, essentially, learned to submit to his luck cycle. all bad luck is good luck in the end – isn’t that amazing?! almost paradoxically, he’s hyper-vigilant about the negative impact his luck has on those around him. this is a tricky one. I make sense of it this way: komaeda’s perception of how much his luck impacts the people close to him isn’t inflated, like, at all. the supernatural way the world bends around komaeda to screw him over really does pose a danger to himself and others, and he takes measures to minimize that danger. his stated acceptance of his luck cycle is… well, again, he’s coping. 

if komaeda really thought that all bad luck is ultimately good luck, he wouldn’t try to protect his classmates from his bad luck. but, as we see in island mode, he does!

but really, who could blame komaeda for lying to himself? I’ll restate the facts. komaeda thinks that luck is absolute power. he says that he’s powerless against it. his luck has taken his family, and it’s left him with nothing but money that he doesn’t want. he’s certain he’s a curse, and there’s no end to that in sight: so long as komaeda exists, he’ll keep on losing – murdering – everything he loves. 

in the face of all of that despair, what can you do but abandon your self-esteem and pray for something good to come out of all of it? how else could somebody possibly survive carrying that burden, truly believing that load will never be lightened?

tldr; komaeda thinks his existence is a threat, and a big chunk of his personality is a frankensteined way of surviving the pain that comes with that. still, we should question how much of his worldview komaeda has really internalized without inner conflict. 

Part 2: Enter Hajime Hinata

we get some answers on that front when we see that despite the clear and obvious danger it poses, nagito komaeda still finds himself falling hard for hajime hinata. that’s really, really loud.

I’ll preface this part by saying that you don’t need to actively ship komahina to understand what I’m trying to get at here. this said, I’ll be recapping an argument you’ve almost definitely seen before: komahina is definitely “a thing” – at the very least as a one-sided thing. to this, I’ll add the (perhaps bold?) claim that without recognizing that much as true, you’re missing out on a big part of what makes komaeda so interesting.

komaeda’s FTEs make it abundantly clear that komaeda has feelings for hinata. apart from his famed failed love confession, the fact that komaeda is willing to allow hinata to get close enough to learn about his views on hope and luck is telling. 

(the smoking gun here hinges on trusting that komaeda was telling the truth during the time you spent with him; in so many words, that he only lied about lying. so, for the sake of argument, let’s assume this is true! there’s good proof for it, anyway.)

if you read his final FTE as komaeda flashing his soul to hinata and making a decision at the very last second to retreat, turning to old coping mechanisms to protect hinata from his luck, it’s sort of a komahina bombshell. that capitulation spells out for us that komaeda understands sharing his life experiences with hinata to be one of the most intimate things he could possibly do.

he recognizes the exact moment he lets hinata get too close – when his life story is finally told – and he does what he’s learned he needs to do to get them both out of that situation safely: he tries to make hinata hate him, and tells himself (and hinata!) that he did it for the sake of hope.

(and yet, komaeda let hinata approach him every FTE, knowing damn well that they were both playing with fire… very interesting.)

now, let’s say you don’t consider the FTEs to be integral to canon. I mean, you can really easily miss out on all of komaeda’s content if you choose not to hang out with him in chapter 1! so, for the skeptic, in the unskippable main story, komaeda tells hinata this:

komaeda cares about hinata despite everything. and I really, truly mean despite everything. at this point in the story, the fact that he still cares about hinata calls into question basically every single one of his core beliefs. he’s read his final dead room prize – not only does hinata not have a talent, we can presume that komaeda also knows hinata became ultimate despair along with the rest of them. 

hinata has continually sought out komaeda’s company, even though komaeda knows himself to be worthless at best, lethal at worst. komaeda was willing to let him get closer, even though he knows how dangerous that is for hinata. he can’t help but let hinata try to know him. 

isn’t he awful? to want what he knows he can’t have, even though that wanting has never done anything but cause pain? he’s really the lowest of the low, to love someone who destroyed the world, who makes him question the views that will allow him to do the only good thing he’s ever been able to do for it: to die for hope. 

and yet, it’s a nod to how incredibly capable of love komaeda is that he’s still willing to reach out for it, no matter how many times it’s burned him in the past, and how much it hurts him in the present to want it. he understands more than anyone that his feelings can only result in disaster. reading komaeda as someone who can’t help but go on loving anyway makes his story hurt so much worse. 

but, you miss a whole lot of that without an eye for komahina. seeing hinata as the eye of komaeda’s emotional hurricane (and keeping tabs on their connection accordingly) allows us to glimpse past the cracks in komaeda’s front. we see that komaeda’s worldview is less stable than he presents it as – hinata is where komaeda’s coping mechanisms, for better or worse, run up against a wall. that tends to be uncomfortable for a guy who’s just barely coping in the first place. then again, growth is supposed to be uncomfortable, isn’t it?

Part 3: The Future He Chooses

so, all of this considered, I think one of the most interesting ways you can flesh komaeda out post-canon is by asking how he’d find himself willing to accept love. whether that love is from hinata or the ultimates, whether it’s platonic or romantic, love is the thing that komaeda wants AND fears in equal measure more than anything. it’s the source of his self-loathing and his obsession with hope. it’s the reason he’s lived the way that he has for so long – lonely, and afraid of being anything but.

getting into a relationship wouldn’t solve komaeda’s problems for him, and that’s a good thing. it would force him to confront old ones, and probably create dozens of new issues for him, too. writing him through that makes for great character study!

hinata (or anyone else, for that matter) can’t love komaeda into loving himself, but he can give him a shoulder to cry on while he works through 22 years of fear and sorts through the wreckage of a worldview that’s long since stopped serving him. I don’t think his progress would be linear. but, I think that he could do it. komaeda learning to accept care is what his healing looks like. 

(well. and physically recovering from cancer and dementia. but that’s neither here nor there!)

a post-canon komaeda learning to love narrative is also in line with the themes of DR2. hinata leads the survivors out of the neo world program because he makes the decision to choose his own future, creating a new version of “hope” for himself and his classmates. likewise, komaeda can make the decision to save himself. that is, if he trusts himself enough to actually touch and hold the thing that he’s never been able to stop reaching out for, anyway.

after all, hinata is lucky too. (and if it turns out he isn’t… y'all like angst fics, right?)

(shoutout to @cynopter for looking this over and confirming that I'm not spouting nonsense <33 thank you for reading my thesis of the week <33)

[canonizzyhours]

Before I say this I want to make it clear I am someone who overall likes Izzy. I wanted him to be redeemed and I liked his season 2 redemption arc. But there is something important about season 2 that I feel like I can only say here, because my more canyon-sympathetic moots would go nuts if I said it on main.

If you want to understand season 2 in a way that's not reading against the text you absolutely have to accept that the toe stuff is presented as comedy. Like some previous posts here said it's basically a loony toons gag. It's funny like how it's funny that Jim locked Lucius in a trunk for days and like it's funny how Roach and Buttons tried to kill and eat the Swede and like how it's funny that Ricky's nose got cut off. If you did not get that Izzy losing toes was supposed to be funny you cannot understand anything that comes after.

This isn't about woobifying Ed or excusing his actions. Ed does a lot of really bad things to his friends in the first two episodes. The bad things he does are

(1) being a really shitty boss - overworking everyone, being callous to his employees' needs, stealing paychecks by dumping loot overboard, etc;

(2) endangering everyone by steering into the storm;

(3) purposely making people who cared about him traumatize themselves by killing him; and

(4) shooting Izzy.

The shooting is clearly portrayed as out of line. THE TOES AREN'T THOUGH. THE TOES ARE PORTRAYED AS FUNNY.

The point of it is not that Izzy is being abused. The whole point of the "unhealthy relationship" line is that it's not actually domestic abuse, that's what makes it funny. Here is one of the ways you know they're supposed to be funny: remember when someone in the crew talked about how funny it was on instagram and a bunch of people screamed at her for thinking it was funny? It never occurred to her anyone would react that way because the entire cast and crew obviously understood it as funny.

(Including Con! He's clearly playing the scene as comedy on purpose with those little heem heem whimpers and it's doing an enormous disservice to his performance to refuse to see it! We KNOW he intended to play it as comedy because you can look back at the Vanity Fair article that came out before season 2 and he talks about how one of the challenges he faced in the season was going back and forth between comedy and drama and he SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS PLAYING IZZY'S FOOT INJURY AS COMEDY.)

People in the canyon are STILL mad about how they think there was a plotline in season 2 about Ed domestically abusing Izzy and wondering why the show didn't pay that off but the reason it didn't resolve that is because they imagined it. There was no domestic abuse plotline. There was a RUNNING GAG about Izzy losing toes, which was played as funny because the show expected you to understand that Izzy did in fact vote -- campaigned, actually -- for the leopards to eat his face. It's supposed to be funny while also at the same time making him pathetic enough that you can decide he's suffered sufficiently for what he did in season 1.

The show does not portray all of Izzy's suffering as funny! Like I said, the shooting is treated pretty seriously and that's why it gets brought up multiple times later in the season! But the toes, the toes are purely funny, and they're framed as funny because the narrative knows he deserved it.

#442.

[akitossohma]

i wanted to say your post about lu guang's morality is currently my favorite thing ever. im not sure if you're just incredibly smart or have the gift of prophecy but you are so right and the post is very very good

hi! i'm so glad you enjoy my post >.<

i tragically do not have the gift of prophecy, but i'm happy to explain my reasoning! spoilers ahead.

first off, i wanna say that when i made that post, it was less of a prediction and more of a reading of what the show had already laid out.

i've seen a few detractors of my post on twitter, all of them saying things along the lines of "this is a misguided take because lg is selfless. lg only killed vein bc vein killed csx. we have no proof that lg is sacrificing others." there's a lot to pick apart with these rebuttals, and i'll get to that, but i feel there is one essential point they are all missing: time travel in an of itself is an act of hubris.

going back in time with the intention of changing the past is one born out of great hubristic selfishness. anyone doing so is automatically (and wrongfully) assuming the role of a god.

the show is well aware of this. take the earthquake arc for example. as csx takes it upon himself to try and evacuate the village, lg points out that in doing so, he could end up inadvertently killing more people. this is because the butterfly effect is uncertain and lg knows this. that whole interaction functions two-fold. one: it establishes that the narrative itself is aware of the stakes here. it is an in-universe acknowledgment that changing the past, even if it's to save lives, is extremely risky and ultimately selfish. two: it establishes that lg is very aware of this truth, which is what makes the s2 reveal so shocking. despite being aware of the consequences, lg is still trying to change the past to save csx.

it also tells us that lg's steadfastness about csx not changing the past is likely born out of a fear of csx accidentally messing up the timeline lg is cultivating, and not out of some noble effort to minimize their impact on others' lives, which is how it was previously framed. all this evidence paints a very clear picture: lu guang is not the morally just character we once thought. he is placing his own happiness above literally everyone else's wellbeing. yes he is trying to save csx, but he's only doing that because he can't stomach the idea of living without him. his motivations are objectively selfish at their core.

back to the detractors: i feel some people are conflating lg's actions being done out of love for his actions also being selfless. and while i agree there is an (albeit twisted) form of love behind all this, there is nothing selfless about what he's doing. why does lg get to decide what the future should hold? why does any one man get the final say on what happens to the rest of the world, and all the billions of rich lives within it? hell, why does he even get to decide what happens to csx? yes he's acting under the pretense of saving csx, but does csx even want to be saved? would csx even be okay with what he's doing? i honestly don't think so. when csx believed lg had died, he contemplated using his powers to go back in time and save him, but ultimately decided against it because as far as he was concerned, lg wouldn't approve. he understands the potential chain reaction that comes from saving even one life because lg drilled it into his head. even if he is impulsive to a fault, at the end of the day, csx would never want to cause harm to others, especially not at this magnitude.

even if this effort to change the past/future fails, the fact that he was willing to take this massive risk in the first places says a lot about his priorities and overall character. while he probably doesn't actively want to sacrifice others, he absolutely will if it means keeping csx in his life saving csx.

in this most recent episode, just minutes before killing vein, he says to him, "do you know the butterfly effect? in a dynamic system, any subtle change in the initial conditions may lead to different outcomes. i've been thinking how to change a destined ending completely. if there is an additional point before this, an unchangeable point, what will happen? no need to fear the deviation. just let it happen more completely." lg killed vein partly out of revenge yes, but also to create another unchangeable node in the timeline. he is trying to secure csx's future by taking another life.

and none of this is even touching on how lg possessed a woman's body, which is a COMPLETE violation of her autonomy, to kill vein, knowing damn well she'd take the fall for his murder. lol.

so yeah. lu guang is (and always has been) a selfish, immoral bastard (she said with love), and the writers were very deliberate in setting that up.

there's so much more i could say on this but then this would get way too long, which it already lowkey is haha. thank you for the ask! i genuinely appreciate the opportunity to word vomit all this <3

[littlestsnicket]

random armand focused iwtv thoughts and headcanons with absolutely no fandom wank this time:

i think armand is actually probably a really good teacher. he was certainly successful at teaching louis to use the fire gift, and i think it dovetails nicely with his desire to provide service and his capacity for levelheaded severity and dominance. (which he does have--the evil trauma gremlin is a separate trait and doesn't usually get triggered when teaching)

fucking obsessed with the park bench scene. louis sitting there in the rain with an umbrella in his lap, looking at armand, looking at the umbrella, and being like "i'm a bit wet". he's feeling that out, seeing how armand responds to this power dynamic before they have the rest of that conversation. like... this is calculated, louis knows and is telegraphing what he wants from armand, and armand is so eager to give it. it makes me insane. obsessed with their dynamic. truly obsessed.

and the scene before louis is going to give madeleine the gift... i actually don't think armand takes poorly to having his boundaries respected. i don't think armand is quite that fucked up (or more accurately, he is that fucked up, but has a good understanding in at least some parts of his brain about exactly how fucked up he is even if he has some weird cognitive dissonance about it, and is able to rationally interpret that as a good thing in that moment, even if it puts him off balance). what armand takes poorly is louis being wrong. louis took responsibility for something and couldn't actually handle it and that totally undermined armand's sense of safety in their relationship. which is obviously not reasonable or healthy, but i think makes a lot of sense for armand and his decision making process.

i'm also really attached to the idea that armand has a good working knowledge of modern risk aware BDSM practices. he has the internet. and as much as louis and armand don't have many (hardly any) actual peers and are therefore wildly codependent, i think they both have a ton more casual contact with people than they appear to in the dubai interview. i think louis is coming out of a particularly bad depressive funk so temporarily doesn't have much contact with the outside world, and showing himself to have outside contact doesn't serve armand's narrative. anyway, i think armand has been to his fair share of kink clubs.

i think a large part of why lestat lets louis go with armand in the tower is because he believes (correctly, at least in this case; that is literally the least convincing yes i have ever heard when louis asks armand if he saved him) that armand is not a very good liar so if louis doesn't believe lestat saved him, it's primarily because louis doesn't want to. armand is great at controlling a narrative, significantly less great at flat out lies.

armand functions, structurally, as a femme fatale in a detective story. he's exactly as simultaneously shady, secretive, tragic, and alluring as he seems to be--the reveal is just that he's done something worse, but still totally in character, than we thought.

loumand from louis' perspective: i loved you in paris, i'm not sure if i love you now or am just scared of being alone. sometimes i can work with that and things are good, other times i think i'm betraying claudia's memory by being this close to you and am going to punish both of us for it. a lot of the time i'm clinically depressed in a way that actually has very little to do with you, but you're such a martyr you can't see that and sometimes i crave the resulting attention and subservience and other times it makes me sick with both of us.

[saltyprincessblog]

I wonder if he has talked with his family or friends since everything went down because I know he asked for a public defender ( court document: https://www.reddit.com/r/FreeLuigi/s/kRAsP6VgDE ) so he definitely didn't want to contact any of them still.

On top of that, I know often times especially in cases with these serious charges, attorneys would advise loved ones not to contact their client for a few months, to let the case narrative build , because everything communicated they have is either recorded or watched and loved ones get emotional and start talking in a way that can be taken out of context and used against people.

I wonder if KFA and Marc did the same and if that's a solace to Luigi.

I can understand why he asked for a public defender, considering he hadn't spoken with his family for 5 months and suddenly call them to ask them to hire an attorney doesn't sound like something he'd do. Take this with a hugee amount of salt, because its just unverified reddit comment, but I read on r/LuigiLore that a redditor said they had seen Lu's visitor log leaked on 4chan, and apparently his family hadn't visited yet. So this could be a reason why. His emotional state is quite vulnerable right now and seeing and speaking with his family can aggravate both sides and cause undesirable results.

[chernychnyi]

samson is literally a villain who does villain things and people manage to hate him for all the wrong reasons. for being addicted, desperate, angry, poor. for his DA2 version that, i promise you, is not villanious. i have no problem with "a villain guy is evil actually and i don't like him" and i don't agree with the take that he was more suited for getting a positive character growth than cullen. but that take is so prominent for a reason: because they're narrative foils! it's okay i promise! samson doesn't make sense as a character if you deny him his compassion. you can argue how well that is written, but it's there, and for a reason. he is shown to have compassion for people that cullen overlooks (without malice and for his own understandable reasons): for mages, for templars, for the tranquil. it grows more twisted and wrong and leads to a larger tragedy as samson falls deeper down. while cullen moves up and learns compassion. they're mirrors.

[nikalaeva]

Why don't I think Feyre is an unreliable narrator?

Remember that "unreliable narrator" is the literaly device. The author CONSCIOUSLY forces readers to look through the eyes of such character for the sake of plot.

In ACOTAR, Feyre can be considered an unreliable narrator, but the narrative should show this. For example, Feyre calls her sisters evil and useless, but the reader sees that they cook, wash, clean, care for disabled father, which means Feyre’s view is limited by her feelings. But with fairies it should be the other way: let Feyre admire them, not believe the stories about their cruelty, dream of breaking out of poverty into a fairytale, but the facts say otherwise, and the reader again sees that Feyre is still naive and emotionally immature, so her view is unreliable.

And if SJM added the inability of fairies to lie, glamour and some sorts of illusions, it would create a cool contrast, like, the fairy world is not for human, it's fabilous on the outside, but on the inside ugly and nasty, and only a smart person with iron willpower will not go crazy there.

Many people say that Nesta is more reliable than Feyre as a narrator because ACOSF is written in third person with Cassian, and Feyre loves Rhysand, but Nesta hates him. I disagree, because obviously, despite the third person, the author pokes in me with Feyre's opinion (= Rhysand's opinion = SJM's opinion) throughout the entire narrative, but only from the beginning of ACOMAF Feyre ceased to be as unreliable as she was or could be in ACOTAR.

Proof that in ACOMAF Feyre is, unfortunately, reliable narrator is the Rhysand retcon. Just because Tamlin turned out to be an abuser with anger issues doesn't negate Rhysand's acts in UTM. There is no reason why Feyre suffered from nightmares and bulimia in the Spring Court, but suddenly was healed in the Night Court, went to CoN, which is exactly like UTM (after how long, remember?) and obediently went to the Weaver so that precious Rhysand would be pleased with how strong she is 🙄😮‍💨.

And further in the story there are no consequences for the shit that Feysand does. Deception and theft from Tarquin, responsibility for turning Nesta and Elain into fairies, destruction of Tamlin's Court, disgusting behavior at the meeting of the High Lords. Indifference to other people's traumas and losses, to everything, except sweet little Velaris, nepotism, public sex, irresponsible attitude to planning pregnancy - should I continue?

At the same time, everyone who is against Feysand is presented as unreliable - they are villains, like Nesta and Tamlin, idiots, like the Illyrians, who call Rhysand a half-breed and clip wings of their women, or just fools, like the High Lords, who just don't understand, that Rhysand had it the hardest of all.

(if I was one of them, I would be shocked hearing something like that, and I would never have anything to do with this Court of Crazy Cretins (CoCC, read like "cock").

But I understand why Feyre is considered an unreliable narrator. Otherwise, it's just impossible to accept so many plot holes and retcons and remain sane 😅

[whistleinthegraveyard]

Honestly, I voted the second one, buuuut I think it'll be a mixture of the first three.

The first because, personally, I don't think there was really much that Ozzie could have done, at least practically. Even bringing up the Asmodean Crystal would probably been at best a temporary solution, as I really don't think Andrealphus would sat there and given up so easily, plus I think Satan wanted to execute IMP/Blitz for "stepping outside their station" anyway, and all the accusations were simply an excuse to do so. And sure, we can argue that he should've tried anyway for the sake of principle/morality, but honestly if there is a risk of Fizz getting caught in the crossfire and/or being punished in his stead, I don't blame Ozzie for deciding to not risk Fizz's life.

HOWEVER, I do think there's going to be a very difficult conversation between Fizz and Ozzie about this, cause it definitely shows how fucked up the current system is, and Ozzie is part of that system regardless. I really don't think it'll be a full blown Full Moon-style drag out unless Ozzie really is a piece of shit who don't give a fuck like some people think, which I don't think is accurate to what we've seen of him so far. I think it'll be more the two of them explain their feelings/side of things, and we'll get more insight about why Ozzie didn't do anything. Even maybe more info about the relationship between Satan and the rest of the Sins, and why Satan was the one that ended up in charge without Lucifier around.

(Also, hot take? I think the folks who are really gunning for a Fizzmodeus drag out fight/break up are wanting one not cause makes sense for the narrative/characters, but because they want to see Ozzie "punished" for his inaction, which is. Too weirdly moralistic for my taste lmao.)

And while I think the issues about the trial itself will be resolved within an episode, cause unless Ozzie's reasons are actually shitty/selfish, I think Fizz will ultimately understand, it'll probably have repercussions throughout the season, with Ozzie overcoming whatever it is stopping him from standing up to Satan in the first place.

[imai-zumi]

brahma is so funny dude my man gives an asura a boon with a tiny loophole then does it again a short time (god years) later, learning nothing

[aingeal98]

More Jason and Cass thoughts (sorry but also not sorry) but if I was magically given full control over DC and could write what I'd want obviously I'd make Cass Batman but I've been thinking of what sort of reaction and role Jason would have in response. I think I'd write his version of "Congrats on the new job!" as a test, involving the Joker and civilians and gangs and Red Hood and a ton of explosives. Bruce failed me, and now he's given up. You're his successor, let's see how you handle this dilemma that freaked him out so badly he threw a batarang into my throat rather than let me avenge my own death in front of him.

So obviously Cass will overcome the traps and the puzzles. That's the fun part to show how competent both of them are and sprinkle in little character moments as we go. But then we reach the emotional crux of the matter, probably laid out as some sort of saw trap because it's Jason. Here I am, a victim of murder. You say nobody dies tonight but I did, and I want the man who did it dead. Not only did Batman fail to avenge me but he failed to stop the Joker from going on to create even more victims. What right do you have to stop me from getting justice for myself? What right does this man have to life after what he's taken from me and from countless others? I'm not trying to kill a random stranger, I'm specifically demanding justice for my own death that I never got while I was gone.

There are two ways this could go. The straightforward route if I knew my time on this run was limited would probably be a pyrrhic victory like the ones Cass's og series was so fond of. Just like Bruce in utrh, she acts on instinct and saves the Joker (and Jason this time) . A win technically, but she fails the test. Jason is once again vindicated but with nothing to show for it. The story ends with Cass sending the Joker back to jail and going back to the batcave, where the old Robin costume looms judgementally, highlighting her failure. It would be the most fitting end given their character molds, all tragedy and conviction and unstoppable force meets immovable object etc.

However... I think the option I prefer would be a little different. Cass levelling with Jason, a killer talking to a murder victim. She has no right to stop Jason from getting justice, she has no love for the Joker but she knows any death she allows to happen like this would devastate her, just like that death row inmate long ago she tried to break out but ended up letting go once the family of the victim talked to her and demanded justice. I think... In this specific situation, she'd just be honest. Morally she has no right sure. Personally she just really really doesn't want anyone to die. Give her one chance, please. Let her try it her way. Not demanding, not lecturing or insisting, just... Please. Don't do this. Let me try another way.

And then what? Jason asks.

In the end a deal is struck. Cass will take the Joker and lock him up, ensuring he never harms anyone again while also trying to rehabilitate him. But the second she fails and he gets free, Jason kills him and she won't stand in his way. It's the kind of deal that leaves both of them mildly disgusted and dissatisfied with themselves, neither of them naturally creatures of compromise when it comes to this specific topic. But Cass is willing to do anything to avoid death and Jason did not expect the new Bat to be so... Flexible? Kind of? Of course maybe she won't actually hold up her end of the deal and when the Joker gets loose she'll try and stop Jason from killing him and he'll get his miserable vindication, but right now this is something strange and new and he's mildly confused and curious about where it will go. He doesn't believe in her ability to contain the Joker forever but he's willing to let her try because her reaction to that future failure interests him. She's given him a sword of damocles to hang above her head and he didn't ask for it or expect it. It's the type of power he never thought the Bat would just... Hand to him.

The conflict ends with neither of them fully winning or losing. They both don't really know what to feel about this.

The thing is, the second Cass let's Jason kill the Joker she's hanging up the mantle. She's staking the Bat on this, because it's always go big or go home with her when it comes to saving others, even someone like the Joker. In this magical universe where I have unlimited power, Cass would lock the Joker in a secret bunker and have Leslie Thompkins talk to him daily, mostly because I think her pacifism speeches and debates in the comics would make a fun contrast to the Joker's evil sadism. (But what about his rights? Doesn't he deserve a trial and to be held in a regular prison? I'm going to be honest I think Cass would be very comfortable bending the rules on this specific situation. Morally questionable but I'd have fun with it. She's going to let Leslie treat Joker like her personal pet project to save his soul because yes she wants him to change but also she's got a city to save every night so go crazy Leslie, have fun.)

And the Batman series would continue with Cass as the lead, new challenges and new antagonists and every twenty issues or so for the first hundred we'll cut back to the Joker briefly if his chats with Leslie can help highlight some thematic element of the current arc. But bit by bit he'd slowly fade away onto oblivion, maybe getting referenced every hundred issues or so until eventually no one remembers or cares about him because there's so much else going on. Meanwhile Jason's got a good thing going as Red Hood, primarily based in Park Row and a tentative ally on the occasion when their vigilante work aligns. Unlike Joker he's a much more frequent character in the comics, and after say 10 years (this is my magical fantasy universe Cass's batman run is going to last for a very long time alright) when people think of DC characters they think of Red Hood long before they think of the Joker.

Is any of this realistic? Right now of course not. It's why I'd go with the pyrrhic victory if I actually got the chance, because it would be the best way to tell the story in the larger context of the Bat narrative. But it's my fantasy DC editor and writer daydream and I'm going to dream big. They're never going to be normal happy siblings, their personal demons will never fully let them be free and the looming possibility of losing everything they currently have narrative wise if Bruce comes back as Batman will always be there. But it's maybe the closest to peace they'll ever get. Unsatisfying and tame compromise that probably violates several laws and ethical codes but whatever. Cass has never read the Geneva convention and Jason's not going to shed tears over the Joker. Let him die relevancy wise if not physically.

[nellasbookplanet]

The thing is, I can get behind most of the desicions bells hells have taken regarding predathos, it’s more that the road to getting there didn’t really work or was sometimes skipped over entirely in favor of circular discussions.

'Keeping predathos sealed will never work in the long run now that the truth is out, and we'd rather see us as the ones controlling it/keeping it from harming people than risk ludinus/someone else using it as a weapon in the future' and 'the exandrian accord will never agree to anything that would risk predathos being freed/endanger the gods and therefore we must make this desicion without their input' and 'as long as the betrayers exist as gods there will be a risk of a second calamity and it’s wise to seek a way to minimize that power differential' and 'if the gods remain gods and predathos can't be killed they will eventually clash and mortals will suffer in the struggle' and 'the primes will never seek to kill the betrayers or assist mortals in doing so because that is their family' and 'the gods themselves have been hurting and unable to heal since leaving tengar, and perhaps the change of permanently becoming mortals not as strictly tied to their domains will allow them change previously withheld from them by their natures' are all valid arguments.

But the hells rarely if ever touch on these arguments, rather focusing in on individual slights and imagined ideas of the gods being tyrants needing to be humbled. They never slow down to discuss the practical implications of the changes they want to implement (the gods will be back on their side of the divine gate now!), or to consider the good the gods and their followers do (have we already forgotten the changebringer helping fcg find self-worth or the everlight helping resurrect Laudna?), or the nuance behind their harsher decisions and actions (aeor was going to murder them! the primordials were in the process of exterminating all mortals!!), or the sacrifices the primes have made to protect mortals (they went to war against their own family!), or the importance of faith to much of the exandrian populace. No matter how many sensible arguments there are for the end decision, if the characters won’t engage with said arguments leading up to it while dismissing anything opposing it the decision will still feel largely empty and self-centered in the end.

[vaguely-concerned]

from what I infer from some of his dialogue, my guess is that while lucanis hasn't had a proper relationship before he has had one night stands and short term flings. and -- listen, I know he's a dick and a menace and probably a hopeless case but please do still spare illario dellamorte a moment of your thoughts and pity for the role of incredulous yet intrepid wing man that he's all but certainly had to play on several occasions for that to happen. there are 100% people out there who were trying SO fucking hard to get no strings attached laid by this stupidly hot emotionally unavailable mysterious stranger who won't be in town for long without lucanis ever realizing it. people who would have remained tragically unlaid if illario weren't there to clue him in.

I'm just imagining Illario staring in pure dismay and disbelief at his dumbass of a cousin failing to pick up what someone isn't just putting down but scattering all over the floor like glittery confetti burning with a magnesium flame brightness to spell out 'SIR PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE RAIL ME THIS IS AN OFFICIAL ENTHUSIASTIC INVITATION TO MY BED' and having to push him out the door after them like 'maker's breath sometimes i don't understand how you have the wits to grip the right end of a knife, lucanis, they were throwing themselves at you and you just stared at them in mild puzzlement until they gave up and went away go fucking GET THEM for the sake of my sanity if nothing else!!!'

[tiredyke]

every time queer discourse surges on this site everyone is so quick to jump to “it was actually the evil lesbians who divided us” because y’all heard the term “political lesbian” and never bothered to figure out what that meant

[marsreds]

God, in pity, made man beautiful and alluring, after his own image; but my form is a filthy type of yours, more horrid even from the very resemblance.