#i'm also not opposed to people using their names for me based on who i'm using as an icon. that's cool too. the more names the merrier lol

[averlym]

which is gayer? SIX or Adamandi (real)

adamandi

[aeroring]

oh yeah btw i added like 3 more pronouns to my blog description because lol i felt like it

[dykeiism]

i feel inclined to differentiate between "reasonable rights and accommodations that should be given to trans people" and "blatant attacks on women's rights." i'll go as far as to say that most radical feminists will agree with me on most of these points, so if you want to learn about what radfems actually believe, this is your chance.

reasonable rights and accommodations for trans people:

equal opportunities for employment and housing

access to affordable and high-quality healthcare

transparent, unbiased, and publicly accessible research & meta-analysis done on the short- and long- term risks and benefits of gender affirming care

outlaw all forms of conversion therapy. outlaw gender exploratory therapy unless the patient is able to give informed consent. enforce strict science-based regulations on the therapeutic methods used

freedom of expression (i.e. the ability to dress however you like, and to use a preferred name)

widespread implementation of co-ed and trans-only spaces

legal protection against harassment and assault

these are all things that i, and many other radical feminists, wholeheartedly support. we also believe that trans people, like everyone else, deserve dignity, respect, sensitivity, and kindness from the people around them. what i'm seeing more and more of in recent years, though, is that the trans movement is no longer focusing on the aforementioned human rights. instead, i see an overwhelming about of trans activists making unreasonable demands that infringe on the rights of women. the demands are as follows:

the right to enter women-only spaces based solely on gender identity or expression (this includes shelters, prisons, locker rooms, and sports teams)

the ability to access medical transition as a minor under any circumstances, or as an adult unless other treatments have proven unsuccessful beforehand

widespread use of language that destabilizes women and female people as coherent groups that are also in need of rights

deplatforming anyone who criticizes the movement, no matter how polite, respectful, good-faith, or reasonable the criticisms are

i support the trans movement that advocates for the human rights of trans individuals. however, i cannot support a movement that allows males into women's spaces, that is medically irresponsible, that makes it impossible to discuss women's rights, or that opposes intellectual freedom. i don't think any feminist can support this in good conscience.

[aaronsrpgs]

In Praise of Random Encounters

I'm in my "responding to frequently asked Reddit r/rpg questions" phase, so please allow me to defend the random encounter. This post is in response to everyone who goes, "Why do people use random encounters? They interrupt the flow of the story, and it doesn't make any sense to have something randomly show up and fight."

Did you know there was a Pokemon named after me?

In this post, I will argue against these strawmen, make a case for random encounters in certain games, and describe my favorite random encounter situations from my own games.

This disputation against random encounters can be broken up into three parts:

they interrupt what is already going on ("the story")

they are illogical

they're automatically a fight

I'm going to address these last to first.

Random encounters shouldn't jump right into fights. If used as intended, they come with an encounter distance, meaning sometimes you just see signs of the encounter, or you spot them from far away. And they should also come with what used to be called a reaction roll, which dictates how the encounter feels about the PCs. These were rolled on 2d6, which meant there was a bell curve that favored results in the 6-8 range, which were usually something like "wary" or "neutral."

Second, the logic of random encounters. If you're using them right, random encounters should make sense. They should only have a chance of happening in places where the encounters could be, and encounter tables ought to be chosen based on location. So you won't get a dire trout in a desert or whatever.

This last bit is the hardest one. If it feels like a random encounter would disrupt "your story," you're probably running a game whose underlying philosophies are opposed to random encounters, yes. It's probably also opposed to many other frameworks that were present in traditional/old-school rule sets. If your game has a pre-planned story or plot, if that plot requires a certain pace or order, and if the injection of outside elements would disrupt that plot, you probably shouldn't use random encounters.

(You also shouldn't use D&D or its cousins. You might also not want to have other players, since they can disrupt those plots. But that's just me being petty.)

A page of random encounter rules from Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. This is a shitty example. I promise it's easier than this.

So when SHOULD you use random encounters? Use them if the game you're running is attempting to simulate a world that has its own logic and background that is not dependent on the player characters. Random encounters help show that the world is in motion at all times and that people and creatures move about of their own volition. They don't show up when it's meaningful to the plot or the other characters; they wander. They're random.

Another key component of this style of gaming is that they usually consider story as something that emerges from or comes after play. "Remember how we tried to cross the raging river full of electric eels, and you dropped your sword, and I almost died, but we made it across? That was awesome." These things didn't happen because they were important plot points predicted by the DM; they are the results of rolls at the table, rolls that are honored in their immediacy and only made sense of after the fact. Does this mean that you risk having a disjointed mess from which no pleasing story can emerge? Yes! But you also risk having a story emerge that no one could have planned, that is equally surprising and pleasing to everyone at the table.

This emergent storytelling is probably the greatest joy of the random encounter. Don't approach the encounter with, "It doesn't make sense that a goblin would be here." Instead, adopt the attitude of, "Let's figure out why this gobllin would be here." (And while you're at it, use that same attitude toward books you read and movies you see.)

A related aside: in some play cultures, the DM is considered to be someone who plans everything out and slowly reveals bits of story as rewards to the other players. As a DM, this can feel really stagnant, and it can be a lot to keep track of, and there is far less joy of surprise. Using dice at the table to introduce new elements can bring some of that fun back to the DM.

Everything I've said so far is a synthesis of dozens of rulebooks and blog posts I've read across a decade of running games, so please allow me to introduce a final element: my own experience with the joy of random tables.

In 2014, when 5E was coming out to great demand on the backs of Stranger Things, Critical Roll, and The Adventure Zone, I started running a campaign for friends and coworkers. There was no developed play culture around 5E at the time, no cottage industry of third-party developers. So in running it, I was drawing on what I had been reading for years: old-school roleplaying and story games.

So I prepped my starting town (doing way more work that I would today), including random encounter tables for the area. And when the players were out searching for some ruins and getting lost west of town, I rolled a random encounter. It was some gnomes. All the gnomes here had escaped from a gnome hell for greed, so they weren't exactly kind. And their reaction roll was just south of neutral, so they were a little surly.

A bad screenshot of my "west of the town of Wall" encounter tables.

They led the players to the ruins and waited, trying to trap them inside after they'd been run down by the undead inside. But the players overcame the trap and told the gnomes off. (They didn't want to get in another fight after going through the ruins; more emergent storytelling.) So the gnomes ran off, but they would remember this.

Flash forward to a different session. In the main mega-dungeon under the town, the players were exploring a new area. Another random encounter: the devil of gnome hell! It was a giant mole with masses of earthworms for limbs, and it was searching for its escaped prisoners. It threatened to kill the PCs unless they gave it a magical item. So Pepper the elf gave up his winged sword, which he'd found in the aforementioned ruins. He loved that sword.

And here's where it all comes together. The gnomes were trying to settle the land west of town, but the humans had a fort there. The players were going to that fort to get some information about the faerie realms. How could I show this situation in a way that would, as succinctly as possible, illustrate the tension while giving the players a choice on who to join? Well, the gnomes would be attacking the fort. This normally wouldn't be much of a battle…but the vengeful gnome from the ruins had made a deal with the gnome devil for power. And now he was wielding Pepper's sword, using it to fly over the fort walls and attack.

Pepper was pissed! He wanted his sword back! The other players were more interested in figuring out a way to stop the ongoing conflict between gnomes and humans. And the gnomes were split between wanting to peacefully settle their new land and get revenge on the players for driving them off from the ruins. Who would prevail?

I hadn't planned a story, but I had created a situation a story was likely to emerge based on the players' actions and the results of the dice.

Conclusion

This isn't me saying this is the only way to play. It's not the only way I play. In a short one-shot or a tightly paced, emotional game, I would never use random encounters. But they can be fun! And they (and their associated suite of rules) can address some of the issues that lead to DM burnout and genre predictability.

If you find me in the wilderness, I will fight you.

[imthepunchlord]

God, I REALLY hope Juleka wins the Butterfly poll when it’s time for it - she’s the only one out of ALL the girls whose main color is actually Violet (as opposed to Pink or Indigo), and I feel like her character development wasn’t handled as well as it could’ve been (NONE of the character arcs were, but she sticks out to me in that she’s one of the more recurring supporting characters due to being Luka’s sister yet is simultaneously forgotten by both the canon show and the fandom in how things would affect HER SPECIFICALLY instead of adjacently through the people around her). I also feel like she would be a good match with whatever you’re going to solidify for Bugettes!Nooroo based on the tiny hints you’ve teased about him, both in itself and compared to Roaar, with whom I feel there were existing avenues for it to work but could’ve been sold to us much better in-show. Plus, I’d really just like to see her in a hero suit that’s actually purple; it still bugs me personally that PURPLE Tigress is far more magenta in actuality, almost red even, and very much like REFLEKTA’S main color at that.

Yeah we will see, as ultimately it'll come down to how the polls go, and I know Marinette and Rose have also gotten mentioned for Butterfly.

Juleka will also appear in the poll for Mantis, as Indigo is that in between blue and violet. So it's all kinda up in the air on how it'll go.

I also do agree. Juleka is one of the classmates that does stand out to me in her potential, and yeah it's butchered. So badly. This is primarily on the writers, but one of the things I dislike about Luka is the factor that, for the Couffaines, he's the priority. You could cut out Juleka and you wouldn't miss much. Like, the worst aspect is learning Jagged is their dad, but it was more Jagged and Luka's story than Jagged with both kids. Like, what was the point of making them both his kids when only kid really got priority in this revelation?

And yeah... Juleka with Tiger isn't really my go to pick either. I get her whole thing is trying to find her voice, to be heard and stand out. And with a kwami named Roaar, that does technically work off that agenda, but the power is One Punch Man vs doing something tied to vocals or sound. Which kinda makes the kwami's name a little random (honestly all Zodiac kwamis have really strange names that don't relate to their powers or themes).

The other odd detail is that, when you think of felines that are about roaring, tigers aren't what immediately come to mind, it's the lion. They roar to establish territory, to be heard and say "I'm here!", unless Roaar is meant to be a sort of mix of a tiger and lion? As she doesn't have a body covered in stripes?

I know that, supposedly, there's a Lion Miraculous coming, but it's not official yet.

Either way, tigers I more associate with hunting, stealthy ambush. Not really speaking out. I'll give it, tigers can be tied to leadership which does involve being heard, but it's more military leadership. They're more tied to war, aggression, and strength.

As for the kwami, to me, Roaar came off a bit of a bully. Which maybe Juleka just needs that tough love/push to speak up, but I personally didn't really care for their interactions. Though I still say Mullo and Mylene were the worst paired characters out of all kwamis and humans.

And yeah, Roaar visually doesn't really match with Juleka.

Technically, she matches with Cat the most.

Her main color is black, with bits of purple and green.

While Plagg is meant to be a black cat, there are times he's purple. And of course he has them big green eyes.

I could also see Juleka visually working with Kaalki. I see a hue of purple in her gray, and there is the green eyes to work off as well.

There's also the intrigue that Juleka wants to be a model and Kaalki expects someone famous or wealthy, getting a holder who isn't but wants to be, Kaalki would have to work with them to get them to where they both want Juleka to be; though I do see them butting heads a bit as it's pairing two of high and low status, but that could be fun. Plus, there's the pun potential of Juleka learning to be a show pony with Kaalki's help (she could've also called herself Knightmare).

And yeah, with Butterfly, Juleka could've done well. You do have to communicate with others, so Juleka would have to work at talking with others, to express her thoughts and to be heard, and there's some pressure to be taken off as it's more long range communication vs close, but the option is there for close range communication whenever Juleka is ready for it. And Nooroo would be a gentle and patient guide.

We'll have to see if it happens though.

[goth1c-pinki3-pi3]

Okay so to the two people who said they would listen/read my ideas, this is for you two before i go to sleep and expand on a later date.

•So for galra keith I would definitely think that he had a lot more galra traits then the show gave him.

• For example his nails were typically stronger and grew in a curved shape

• For another example, his hair was naturally a dark/deep purple but his first foster family after his dads death dyed it black thinking keith had dyed it young to the purple color

• Speaking of purple, i would also think that his eyes were a deep dull purple/plum color

• moving to the scene where Krolia suggests the name Yorak, i personally think that Keiths dad would have included that in his name after she left earth

• so Keiths full name is "Keith Yorak Kogane"

•In terms of galra, he'd probably be seen as a late bloomer to the blade of marmora because he hasn't grown in his ears or tail, not knowing that his tail was surgically removed by one of his foster familys (theres a very rare chance of a human being born with a tail, and I think the tail wouldn't have grown much because the human body has evolved to not need a tail and half his biology was against the tail)

Now onto the good stuff, ergo the trans stuff

• i'd say he's transmasc who's known since he was a young boy, but that could also be me projecting, who knows

• my big thing was what about periods? because i know that everyones is different, i'd say his started at 15 give or take a few years, but before he ended up leaving earth

• With his period, because Galra most likely dont have anything quite as similar (based on cats, i suppose. With cats all their internal bleeding is reabsorbed), his periods would probably be very light as half his body (might/) will absorb the blood and the other half will shed it out.

• I'd say for the same reason he uses cloth pads, simply for the reuse ability and his light flow would have made it easy to clean

�� i also head cannon that him growing out a mullet is the result of him shaving his hair at some point, and regaining enough confidence to grow his hair out while knowing that he could easily cut his hair if he felt dysphoric

• with the chest situation, it can go two ways. with the episode when keith and lance are going to the pool, Keith is shirtless, so that is a point to small-chested keith

• but we could also just, ignore that and pretend that he was in a compression shirt that was meant for trans people to swim in. because if there was shorts with them then im sure there was something for compression (ignoring how the alteans could shapeshift)

•One of my biggest head cannon when it comes to trans!keith, is that only Shiro knows, and that if they're ever overheard talking about it (like shiro lecturing keith about working out in a binder or something), everyone just completely misunderstands the conversation

Keith: Shiro it's fine (Shiro just said he can't work out safely in his binder)

Shiro: No it's not keith, you can't keep doing this. You know why. We're in space, you can't avoid the consequences anymore than you could on earth. (Shiro is talking about Keiths ribs, and how if Keith breaks a rib or something akin to that, then there is nothing in space that can help him as opposed to earth where at the very least he could have fixed his ribs)

Lance or Coran overhearing and thinking that it's just about keiths little pick pocketing habit (another head cannon): Huh, i didn't know Keiths been a pick pocketer when he was on earth.

Anyways, thats all i can come up with right this second, if i feel like i'm able to i'll expand on a couple of my head cannons / thoughts

[supremechancellorrex]

I've been thinking about what the Bad Batch means to me these past few weeks and things just don't quite sit right. When I started watching the Clone Wars, it felt like a lot of love and care had been poured into the project. The clones had unique personalities built from the ground up, with even minor characters getting quirks. Hevy only appeared in two episodes, yet is so loved. Hardcase is missed despite only really appearing in one arc because of expert character crafting and real, actual effort with the writing.

The point of the Clone War was that the clones were individuals, they had agency and they could have an impact on their lives and others. Referred to as 'property', with no representation or rights, they are slave soldiers in function, who are biologically identical although at times with slight variation, but their personalities and motivations matter and have weight. This is why Fives nearly ruins Palpatine's plans. This is why Rex is able to resist the inhibitor chip in Order 66 and help save Ahsoka.

This is why I'm not sure I can forgive the Bad Batch.

Spitting on Grandpa

When the Bad Batch started, I was initially quite excited because it was advertised as a sequel to the Clone Wars. The first episode opens up with the title 'The Clone Wars' fading into the Bad Batch, but the show is anything but because the 'regs', as normal clones have been dubbed, don't matter now. Instead, the only characters with agency are a special group of clones who mostly don't look like the clones based on Jango Fett (Temuera Morrison) or even scientifically fit the basic definition of what a 'clone' is.

How is this not meant to be insulting for TCW and the Clone Fandom? I watch normal clones like Commander Wilco get shot in the face. I watch Mayday choke and die for Crosshair's development. I watch Rex play second fiddle to the Bad Batch on screen, the man and leader who used to always say "I'm always first, kid" and take the reins. I watch Cody appear for an episode only to not appear again this season and have no impact on the narrative other than Crosshair's development. Can 'regs' no longer change the world? Do the 'boring', 'regular' slave soldiers have no impact anymore?

Echo: "The fate of all the clones is now sealed because of us."

When it comes to normal clones impacting the narrative, the closest we get is Rex's resistance network, which features actual clones actually doing something. Yet apparently an episode about the Bad Batch discovering an island paradise world and battling a tsunami deserves more screen time than seeing how the 'regs' set that one up. Even this plot point is less about finally saving Howzer and normal clones like him, and more about Echo not being with the Bad Batch and further setting up the plot regarding Tech and Crosshair. The normal clones remain non-entities outside of the Bad Batch's development, they have no agency beyond this.

This is why we see stock reg clone characters bully the Bad Batch in the Season 1 opening, because despite them all being slaves under the thumb of fascism and the fact normal clones treated Ninety-Nine (the beloved hunchback clone from TCW Season 3) fine, it's the Bad Batch's plight that only matters now, their persecuted perspective on being special and better than the regs, regs that are now treated as old news, an afterthought. The world feels small, and inexcusably less richer than it was.

Essentially, we're no longer allowed to see what the reg clones motivations are, why there are reg clones that actually, canonically, dislike the Bad Batch as opposed to Ninety-Nine. People like to speculate, but on screen we are not shown or told in TBB. We're also not shown why all the named clones from Howzer, Mayday, Fireball, Gregor and Nemec to Cut, Cody and Rex never had issues with the differences other than they're the good regs I guess. Hell, even Cody and Mayday's remaining squad say nothing of Crosshair's mutations, not even one catty comment.

Conclusion

So, what does this mean? The Bad Batch steals the clones' agency and makes it their own. They wear the clone identity, but refuse to help normal 'reg slave' clones that look like actual clones in favour of focusing on themselves and their 'more important' personal problems. The Bad Batch are special not because of who they are or that they've worked hard, but because they look different from other clones, because they're just more capable and have special abilities. It's not who you are that counts, it's what you are.

And, now, I even see fans doing what TCW told us not to, disregarding normal clones, 'explaining' why the Bad Batch are fine to leave the reg clones to die because they called them "The Sad Batch" one time. Somehow the Bad Batch undoes all of TCW's work, stripping the clones of their agency and making them into just victims sleepwalking into extinction as we wait for the Bad Batch to consider trying to actively save them.

Echo: "The fate of all the clones is now sealed because of us."

And, then the rest of TBB go cave exploring and holidaying on Pabu. This series might as well be about natborns.

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

Could you talk about Robespierre and Brissot??? Or maybe more about Brissot, I'm really curious about him!

1789-1792 In his memoirs (written 1793), Brissot writes the following about his activities as a law student in Paris around 1774:

Before leaving the subject of Nolleau’s chambers, […] I must recall the fact that chance gave me there, as second clerk, a man who has since played an amazing part in the Convention, but against whose future celebrity I should at that time have been prepared to bet anything. Ignorant, without knowledge of any scientific subject, incapable of conceiving or expressing an idea of any kind, he was eminently fitted for a career of dishonesty. 

Though Brissot doesn’t state it outright, the second clerk and future member of the Convention mentioned here was at first identified as Robespierre. When Claude Perroud published an edition of the memoirs in 1912, he did however dismiss the idea entirely, considering the fact that in 1774, there would be another four years before Robespierre even began to study law in the first place.

If connections between Brissot and Robespierre before the revolution is something we’re in other words lacking, once we’re into it, it doesn’t take long before the former starts to mention the latter’s name. This in relation to describing interventions made by him during the sessions of the National Assembly and the Jacobin Club in his newly founded journal Le Patriote Français. Based off volume 6 of Oeuvres complètes de Maximilien Robespierre, I find Brissot to have mentioned Robespierre’s name a total of 26 times throughout 1789 and 1790, the very first being in number 17 (August 27 1789). As the journal was more concerned with giving a neutral summary of the sessions, as opposed to spreading the author’s own opinions, most of these cannot be used to determine what Brissot’s personal stance on Robespierre was. Sometimes, the overall neutral tone does however give way for a bit more colorful adjectives:

M. Roberspierre [sic] wanted us to adopt this truly noble formula: ”Louis, by the grace of God and by the will of the Nation; King of the French: To all citizens of the French Empire; People, here is the law that your representatives have made for you, and to which I have affixed the Royal seal. He wanted to develop his thoughts, but he was stopped from doing so. Le Patriote Français, number 66 (October 10 1789)

M. de Robespierre claimed that martial law should not be imposed in the critical circumstances in which the Nation finds itself plunged, and he produced a great impression, with an idea that is imposing and sublime at first glance but which lacks accuracy. Le Patriote Français, number 76 (October 22 1789)

MM. Roberpierre [sic], Biauzat, and Chapelier easily shattered this diplomatic erudition and proved that it was not a question of the rights of the Province of Cambrésis but of a crazy deliberation of an unconstitutional body. Le Patriote Français, number 105 (November 21 1789)

M. de Robespierre defended good principles, he showed that the executive power had an interest in increasing the number of wars, while the interest of the legislative power laid in avoiding them. He concluded that it was dangerous to entrust the law of war to the former. Le Patriote Français, number 184 (May 19 1790)

...There is, however, an article touched by M. Robespierre which has aroused murmurs. This ardent orator made it understood that priests must belong to society through the first of bonds, that of marriage. There is no one who has reflected a little on the cause of ecclesiastical corruption, who has witnessed the good effects of the marriage of priests among Protestant sects, who is not convinced of the necessity of this reform. But although all good minds are convinced of it, although all are convinced of the possibility of combining it with Catholic doctrine, not all also think that this is the moment to propose this idea; they are stopped by the fear of increasing the effervescency among the ignorant: it is perhaps only a false terror... In any case, we must at least prepare the minds, and that is what M. de Robespierre had not done. Le Patriote Français, number 197 (June 1 1790)

M. Robespierre responded very well to the prepositions, by proving that the legislators of a people that succumb under the weight of taxes and debts, can not lend themselves to sentiments generous enough to leave to the prelates their immoderate powers. Le Patriote Français, number 320 (June 14 1790)

M. Robespierre courageously defended the true principles against M. d'André.  Le Patriote Français, number 474 (November 25 1790)

In his memoirs, Brissot writes that Robespierre in July 1790 brought him a copy of a letter to Desmoulins to insert in Le Patriote Français — ”I remember on this occasion Robespierre with his fears and his scruples which he could not dissimulate. Desmoulins' thoughtlessness alarmed him; he didn't know what to think of it.” Brissot did however ”think it agreeable” to Desmoulins to insert neither this letter, nor the response the latter wrote in return and which was also given to him. In December the same year, both Robespierre and Brissot signed the wedding contract and attended the wedding ceremony of said Desmoulins, who in a letter to his father reported that everyone present had been driven to tears during it, after which they all went over to have dinner at his place. These are the earliest confirmed meetings between Brissot and Robespierre that I’m aware of, though it’s far from impossible they had had contacts prior to this as well.

Brissot continues to bring up Robespierre in his journal throughout 1791. He mentions his name or debates which he has taken part in around 50 different times, calling him things such as ”a vigorous defender of liberty” (number 525, January), ”a friend of principles” (number 571, February), ”an enlightened patriot” (number 600, March), ”a vigorous patriot” (number 608, April), ”[someone with] rigorous principles” (number 646, May), ”[someone] favored by eternal principles and sound politics” (number 659, May), and ”a good patriot, firm in principles, deaf to considerations [and] the most implacable enemy of the aristocrats” (number 676, June), and openly showing his support for his stance on topics such as the colonies/the rights of men of colour (number 646, May, number 671, June, number 777, September), the self denying decree (number 608, April), the right to bear arms (number 630, April), the dismissal of army officers (number 673, June) and other smaller affairs (number 586, March, number 591, March, number 592, March). On April 2 1791 Mirabeau passed away, and the following day, Robespierre proposed to the Assembly that the honors of the Pantheon be given to him. In his memoirs, Brissot claims that ”Pétion reproached [Robespierre] for this the same day, he reproached him for it in my presence.”

On June 18 1791, Adrien Duquesnoy attacks both Brissot and Robespierre in number 30 of his journal Ami des Patriotes — ”We are, moreover, on the eve of reaping the fruits of the infernal spirit of system which torments MM. Robespierre, Brissot, etc. They have shouted so much against the distinction of active citizens.” In number 682 of Patriote Français, Brissot responds to his charges and at the same time clarifies that he and Robespierre don’t have any private contacts:

What more will I say about the connections you tie between me and M. Robespierre, and about this infernal spirit that you attribute to us both, about this party over which you make us preside? I have always liked to pay tribute to the inflexible patriotism of M. Robespierre, but I do not share all his opinions; but I don't see him; more than a month has passed since I last had the pleasure of servicing him (de l’entretenir). Party leaders who form a coalition see each other, I believe, a little more frequently.

The number was released on June 21 1791, the same day Paris woke up to the discovery that the royal family had fled the capital during the night. In her memoirs (1793) Madame Roland claimed to in the afternoon have seen both Robespierre and Brissot at Pétion’s house discussing these most recent events:

I was struck by the terror with which [Robespierre] seemed to be overcome on the day of the king's flight to Varennes; I found him in the afternoon at Pétion’s; where he said with concern that the royal family would not have taken this course without having a coalition in Paris which would order a Saint-Barthélemy for the patriots, and that he expected to be dead within twenty-four hours. Pétion and Brissot said, on the contrary, that the flight of the king was his loss, and that it was necessary to take advantage of it; that the dispositions of the people were excellent; that it would be better enlightened on the perfidy of the court by this approach than it would have been by the wisest of writings; that it was obvious to everyone, by this fact alone, that the king did not want the constitution he had sworn to; that it was time to ensure a more homogeneous one, and that it was necessary to prepare minds for the Republic. Robespierre, sneering as usual and biting his nails, asked what a Republic was!

One month later, July 16 1791, both Brissot and Robespierre are found signing the same adress as two of 24 members of the Jacobin Club’s Committee of correspondence. This is the third time Brissot is listed as taking an active part at the club as far as I can see, and the first time he and Robespierre are mentioned during the same session. The day right after, in number 707 (17 July) of Le Patriote Français, Brissot is found agreeing with Robespierre in the big discussion regarding what’s to be done with the king following his capture at Varennes and return to Paris the month before:

…It is very true that to have the king judged by the legislative body would be to violate principles. Also their defenders, Robespierre and Buzot, constantly asked that this great trial be referred to the nation. In that way, we don’t make one power dependent on the other.

The same day this number was released, the massacre on the Champ de Mars took place. Three days later Brissot defends Robespierre against allegations he would be responsible for what had just happened in number 710 of his journal:

Let patriots in all parties stop accusing each other of being the authors of this terrible catastrophe. How did one have the audacity to suspect even the purest virtue? How did one have the audacity to suspect and circulate that MM. Buzot, Pétion, Robespierre were at the head of this uprising? How did one try to raise the national guards and the people against them? Have we therefore already arrived at the unfortunate times of demagoguery, when Socrates and the Phocians [sic] were made to drink the hemlock?

Unlike many other journalists who had to quit their journals in the wake of the massacre due to arrest or going underground, Brissot managed to avoid any repercussions and could stay in Paris and keep his running. In number 774 (September 23 1791), he does however make it clear that, following his election to the Legislative Assembly on September 14 (a place which he surely had the by Robespierre proposed self denying decree much to thank for), he will have to occupy himself much less with Le Patriote Français and leave most of the editing in other hands, but nevertheless continue to give it his ”full attention.” If it would thus appear his role in the editing continued to be considerate, I don’t know how to measure just how much responsibility Brissot is to take for the things that appeared in the journal following this moment…

A week after Brissot’s announcement, the National Assembly was closed down, and yet another week later, October 16, both Robespierre and Brissot are listed as two of twelve jacobins appointed to take part in ”conferances on moral and constitution.” The former did however soon thereafter leave Paris for a visit back to his hometown. He was back in the capital in late November, after which it didn’t take long before a wrench was driven between him and Brissot.

It all started on December 16, when Brissot, after a two month long absence from the Jacobins, showed up and there delivered his first speech in favor of France going to war against German princes (Discours sur la nécessité de déclarer la guerre aux princes allemands qui protègent les émigrés). After the speech was finished, Robespierre, who had shown his opposition towards the idea of war already on December 9, 11 and 12, when brought up by Carra or Réal, suggested the printing of it be adjourned. Two days later, December 18, he responded to Brissot with a speech of his own (Discours de Maximilien Robespierre sur le parti que l'Assemblée Nationale doit prendre relativement à la proposition de guerre, annoncée par le pouvoir exécutif…). After he had finished reading it, Sillery rose to support Robespierre’s position, while Brissot asked to obtain the floor to speak against him during the next session. On December 21 and 25, Carra, Machenaud and Simonne all spoke in favor of going to war, while Desmoulins on December 26 instead took Robespierre’s side with a speech against it. Four days later, Brissot held his second speech in favor of the idea (Second discours de J.-P. Brissot, député, sur la nécessité de faire la guerre aux princes allemands). Journal des Débats de la Société des Amis de la Constitution reported the following in regards to the session:

M. Brissot reads a very long speech, frequently interrupted by applause, on the necessity of an offensive war. He ends with an exhortation to true patriots to submit to the law and never allow themselves to attack the constitution in any way. This exhortation appears to MM. Robespierre and Danton a criticism and an indictment made to the speakers and writers of the Society, because of the kind of affectation which appears to them to be there. They rise to demand the change of this passage in the printing made of this speech. The greatest warmth spread throughout the Society during this discussion, in the midst of which M. Brissot, giving the most striking testimony of the attachment the Societies and M. Robespierre have for the constitution, undertakes to correct the end of his speech in a way so that it won’t leave any doubt regarding his intentions. The sitting is ended at eleven o’clock.

Three days later, January 2 1792, Robespierre held his second long speech on the subject. Unlike his first one, where he had just spoken against going to war in general, here he rather chose to mainly speak against the arguments Brissot had used for it in his speech on the 30th.

…I will try to fulfill this purpose by responding mainly to the opinion of M. Brissot. If general features, if the brilliant and prophetic portrayal of the successes of a war ending with all the peoples of Europe fraternally embracing one another, are sufficient reasons to decide such a serious question, I will say that M. Brissot has perfectly resolved it; but his speech seemed to me to present a vice which is nothing in an academic discourse, and which is of some importance in the greatest of all political discussions; it is because he has constantly avoided the fundamental point of the question, to raise his entire system on an absolutely ruinous basis.

According to Journal général de France, there were however still no hard feelings between Robespierre and Brissot, who ended up embracing each other after the speech:

A great split has just taken place among the Jacobins. M. Robertspierre [sic] has always maintained that we should not wage war: it places in the hands of the executive power means that it could use against the constitution. M. Robertspierre's [sic] obstinacy in maintaining his opinion had made him quarrel with M. Brissot; but they solemnly reconciled, and the club applauded with enthusiasm the embraces they lavished upon each other. Today, M. Robertspierre [sic] is fighting against MM. Brissot, Guadet, Vergniaud, Grangeneuve. The ascendancy of Mr. Robertspierre [sic] still makes success uncertain.

Robespierre had ended his speech promising he would come with further clarifications a few days later, which he also did on January 11. A week after that, January 18, he and Brissot got into a controversy regarding a letter that would have praised Lafayette and expressed doubt over the patriotism of the inhabitants of Metz, printed in number 891 of Le Patriote Français, that had been released the very same day:

Robespierre […] was surprised to have seen a patriotic newspaper, Le Patriote français, expressing doubts about the patriotism of the inhabitants of Metz, and praising La Fayette.

A member asks to make a point of order, and observes that this letter had been inserted the day before in the Moniteur.

Several voices: You’re attacking the patriotism of M. Brissot.

M. Brissot: I declare to the assembly that I was unaware of the letter which was inserted in Le Patriote français by my collaborator. M. Robespierre seemed to cast doubt on the authenticity of this letter. I just saw M. Roederer, who assured me that he had seen the original, and who guarantees it to be genuine. Mr. Robespierre seemed to attack my silence. The painful task that I have imposed on myself prevents me from contributing to the journal assiduously; yesterday I once again spoke for an hour at the National Assembly, and the people can judge whether I am abandoning their cause.

M. Rouyer: Messieurs, I render justice to the patriotism of M. Robespierre and M. Brissot; I am angry that we discuss people when the public good needs us. I am guarantor of both; I ask the Society to move on with the agenda.

M. Robespierre: I declare, in particular, that I am very pleased that M. Brissot was unaware that this letter had been inserted in his journal; I am far from thinking that he wrote it, since the title states that it was inserted in the Moniteur: it is because it is in a newspaper which enjoys a great reputation that I thought it necessary to speak; I have never attacked M. Brissot, our principles are the same; I only refuted his opinion. I come back to my point: I say that the National Assembly must display great character, that it must bring order to the kingdom, that it must never protect the impunity of ministers, that it must exhaust all the good that legislators can do, and then it can declare war.

M. Rouyer climbs to the rostrum and makes some observations in favor of war.

M. Louvet reproaches Robespierre for not seeing the danger where it is, for denying it elsewhere, and thereby incurring a very great responsibility.

The sitting ends at ten o’clock.

In number 893 (January 20) of Patriote Français, Brissot’s collaborator Girey-Dupré responded to Robespierre’s charges, writing that the letter, which had been printed not only in Patriote Français but other ”patriotic journals” as well, had only been an extract from the Moniteur and did not contain any praise of Lafayette. ”As for the suspicions that M. Robespierre tried to spread against this paper,” Girey-Dupré adds, ”I have disregarded the slanders of the aristocrats and the ministers, I can well endure the bad mood of a patriot.”

At the session of the Jacobins held the very same day, Brissot held his third speech in favor of war, where he chose to mainly respond to the arguments laid out by Robespierre most recently, just like the latter had done with him on January 2:

I’m now arriving at the arguments Robespierre made against me at this tribune that I still haven’t answered. […] It is very strange to today see M. Robespierre walking on the same line as the ministry, nevertheless maintaining that he is on the opposite side, and claiming that those who support him are actually against him. […] Certainly, we will not accuse, despite these connections, M. Robespierre of being in concert with the minister; but he should at least believe that this concert does not exist between this minister and those who openly fight him, who vigorously denounce the vices and abuses of his administration. This idea brings me back to some insinuations on the purity of my intentions, which distort M. Robespierre's speeches. They are foreign to him, I like to believe; for I have seen him, I have known his soul, and wickedness never came near him. If there are disguised poisons in his speeches, I will only attribute them to the suggestions of men against whom he is not sufficiently armed with distrust.

When the speech was over, Brissot and Robespierre were made to embrace each other yet again:

M. Brissot justifies himself in response to the insinuations thrown at him by Robespierre in a previous session, and implores him to put an end to a dispute which can only be agreeable to the enemies of the public good.

M. Dusaulx: All the patriots of this club have long been suspended in the course of a discussion which seemed to compromise two good patriots who must love and esteem each other; something would be missing after what M. Brissot said before leaving this assembly, it is the duty of these two generous men to embrace each other. 

No sooner had he finished than MM. Robespierre and Brissot were in each other's arms, amid the unanimous applause of the Society, moved by this touching spectacle. 

M. Robespierre: By yielding to M. Dusaulx's invitation, I only gave myself up to the impulse of my heart, I gave what I owed to the confession and to the fraternity and to the feeling depth that I have of a man who enjoys the greatest consideration and who must render the greatest services to the fatherland; I will prove to M. Brissot how much I am attached to him. This should in no way change the opinion that every man should have of the public good; it is to do all that will be in me, and what I believe necessary for the public safety, that I will ask to answer in another session to the speech of M. Brissot. (speech 3?)

M. Rœderer: I ask for the floor to point out an oversight which, no doubt, escaped M. Robespierre, and that is to request the printing of M. Brissot's speech. I ask for it in his name.

Robespierre did however think this gesture had been a stupid one, as revealed through a letter he wrote to Antoine-Joseph Gorsas, author of the journal Courrier des 83 départements, eight days later. He also safeguarded his own position on the war (that he by then had already held a third speech against on January 25), which he meant Gorsas had gotten wrong when describing the session on the 20th in the latest number of his journal:

I noticed in your number from today an error which deserves to be corrected. When summarizing the latest session at the Friends of the Constitution, the article of which I’m speaking supposes that I have renounced my principles on the important questioned which today agitates all the spirits, since one feels it holds onto public safety and the maintenance of liberty. I would consider myself little deserving of the esteem of good citizens had I played the role this article ascribes to me. What is true in this recital, is that, after a speech held by M. Brissot, on the pathetic invitation of M. Duseaux, the two of us cordially embraced, applauded by the entire club. It is also true that I went through with this action with much pleasure, that the important discussion where we had embraced holding different opinions, had not left any bitterness in my soul; that I am far from viewing as particular quarrels debates that interest the fate of the people, and where I have never held any passion other than that for the public good. Also, far from thinking that neither the fate of the big question which occupies all of France, nor my particular opinion could in any way be subordinated to my sensibility and my personal affection for M. Brissot, I immediately mounted the tribune in order to manifest this sentiment in the following way: ”I just fulfilled a duty consisting of fraternity and of satisfying my heart; I still have an even more sacred debt to pay to my homeland. The profound sentiment which ties me to it, neccessarily supposes love for my fellow citizens and for those with which I have the closest of bonds: but all individual affections must give way to the sacred interest of liberty and of humanity: I could easily reconcile it here with the attachment, with the respect that I have promised to all those who have served the homeland well, and who will continue to serve it well. I embraced M. Brissot with this sentiment, and I will continue to combat his opinion on the points where it differs from my principles, by indicating where I agree with him. May our union rest on the sacred base of patriotism and virtue, let us fight like free men, even with energy if it’s needed, but with respect, with friendship.” Robespierre.

Robespierre didn’t hold more speeches purely about being against war following January 25, but continued to show his opposition at the Jacobins regardless throughout the following months. On February 10, he held a speech with the title On the Means to save the State and Liberty, ”that is to say, (he underlined) to stifle civil war and foreign war, by confusing all the projects of our internal enemies.” On February 24 he spoke out against the club’s committee of correspondence for having stated that the club was in favor of the war, and that those who had supported the opposite party had changed their mind — ”As for me, it remains for me to prove that I have not renounced my opinion in favor of a party that I consider to be the most dangerous for the homeland and for liberty.” Two days later, he demanded that a circular meant to be sent to the sister clubs in the provinces regarding the question include a table containing the reasons put forward by different speakers for or against war, as opposed to stating the majority of the society was for it. Brissot on the other hand retreated back to the Legislative Assembly to continue pushing his agenda there instead, supported by people such as Louvet, Gensonné, Vergniaud, Isnard, Guadet, Manuel, Roederer, Bangal, and Cloots. Number 963 (March 30 1792) of Le Patriote Français contained an article titled ”On the new tactic of the enemies of liberty” and, while not naming Robespierre by name, suggested that those that were against war had ulterior motives for doing so — “any opinion against the war can only be very disastrous, and we understand that it must be used by this Austrian committee, which wants to give its friends time to prepare to attack us.” The article is not signed by Brissot and as mentioned above, he had by this point in large part handed over the editing to others. Regardless, it can probably be concluded that such an article appearing in what was technically still his journal did no miracles for his and Robespierre’s relationship.

In February, Desmoulins released the 60 page long and influential pamphlet Jean [sic] Pierre Brissot démasqué, which acted both as a denounciation of Brissot, treated, if not yet as a full blown traitor and counterrevolutionary, at the very least as a fool and an object of ridicule, but also as a defence of ”my college friend” Robespierre. In Choosing Terror (2014), Marisa Linton writes that Robespierre ”may well have been involved in [the pamphlet’s] production,” probably basing this on the fact that we know he had had a hand in other of Desmoulins’ works. If we’re lacking any tangible evidence for this in the case of Jean-Pierre Brissot démasque, Desmoulins did himself nevertheless claim that ”[Robespierre] sees me as invulnurable after the proof of incorruptibility that I produced in my latest writing to Brissot” in a letter inserted in Journal de M. Suleau not long thereafter.

On April 20 1792, Brissot and his allies finally had their way as France declared war on Austria. The very same day Robespierre spoke at the Jacobin club, saying that, now that the dice had been rolled, he too was in favor of ”conquering Brabant, the Netherlands, Liège, Flanders, etc” while also stating that ”now is above all the time where we must supervise the executive and the constituted authorities.” Three days later, April 23, he asked the Jacobins to for the opportunity to share his thoughts on “a civil war plan presented to the National Assembly by one of its members” during an upcoming session. But before that could happen, on April 25, Brissot showed up at the Jacobins for the first time since January 20, when Dusaulx had made him and Robespierre embrace, and delivered a long speech where he defended himself against accusations that he would have nominated ministers, been allied with Lafayette and Condorcet and dined together with Narbonne and Madame de Staël, and, while not naming Robespierre by name, warned of ”agitators” seeking to divide the society in the time of war:

Their (aristocrats and agitators) conduct is the same; like the friends of the court, the agitators denounce and seek to divide the patriots; like the friends of the court, they cry out against war, when war is wanted by the majority of the patriots. [applauds]. Certainly, I will not imitate my adversaries' ease of slander, I will not rely on rumors that they are paid by the civil list; I will not denounce based on rumors that they have a secret committee to influence this Society; but I will say that they follow the same path as the supporters of civil war. I will say that, without a doubt, they do more harm to patriots. At what point do they come to divide this Society? At the moment when external war and internal war threatens us. Ah! Gentlemen, why, for several months, have one been trying to hijack the agenda here? The most important questions demand your attention. When all the Societies of the kingdom expect you to solicit a host of decrees favorable to the people, the sanction of which is easy in the present state of the ministry, you let slip an opportunity which perhaps will never arise again; It is time to occupy yourself with the discussion of the objects which interest the National Assembly, and which we want to make you lose sight of. I ask the Society to give explanations on this, and I conclude that, denouncing the denunciations that I have refuted, we move on to the agenda.

Right after this, Robespierre tried to take the floor for a point of order, but this request was refused and instead obtained by Guadet, who started denouncing Robespierre, calling him an ”imperial speaker” who would only talk about himself — ”M. Robespierre had promised to denounce a civil war plan formed within the National Assembly itself, I summon him to do so. I denounce a man who constantly puts his pride before public affairs, the position to which he was called. I denounce a man who, whether ambition or misfortune, has become the idol of the people.” Robespierre then took to the floor, declaring that ”my most ardent adversaries are not MM. Brissot and Guadet” but nevertheless requesting time to properly respond to them, something which he was given. Two days later, April 27 1792, he could deliver a speech by the name of Réponse de M. Robespierre, aux discours de MM. Brissot & Guadet du 25 avril 1792. Robespierre criticized both of the in the title named men, before nevertheless asking for peace — ”I only want to give you proof of moderation. I offer you peace on the only conditions that the friends of the homeland can accept. On these conditions I gladly forgive you for all your slanders.”

But just three days later, April 30, Robespierre complained to the Jacobins that the printed versions of the speeches Brissot and Guadet had held on the 25th matched badly with what they had actually said. His objection did however not gain any support from the president Lasource. A little more than a week later, in number 1003 (May 9 1792) of Patriote Français, we find an article titled ”On the war of M. Robespierre,” signed by Brissot and with the following content:

M. Robespierre continues to wage war against me, to denounce me, and to have me denounced to the Jacobins. I won't bother to answer him; this war is a scandal, and can become a source of calamity for liberty. Despite all the advantage that my adversaries give me over them, I consider it a real crime to continue it. The pain of true patriots, the joy of feuillans, and the interest of liberty, command my silence. Moreover, this war will fall by itself, I like to hope, because it is only about absurdities, and the people do not pay for absurdities for long. The trial between M. Robespierre and me will be judged by our common conduct. He deserted his post (as public prosecutor), without being able to give a single good reason; I am and will be faithful to mine. It is by faithfully fulfilling my duties, and not by eternally denouncing that I will respond to him. I expect him at the end of the legislature; I will produce my actions, we will examine his, and the public will be the judge of our patriotism. Agendo non dicendo was Cato's motto, and it is also mine.

A week after that, May 17, the first number of Robespierre’s new journal Le Defenseur de la Constutition was released. Just six pages in he takes a dig at Brissot and Condorcet, questioning their conduct in the aftermath of the Flight to Varennes and Massacre on Champ de Mars the year before. He remarks how these two men ”up until then known for your connections to La Fayette, and for your great moderation; long-time spectators of a semi-aristocratic club (the Society of 1789)” suddenly started waving the word ”republic” around, Condorcet by publishing the treatise De la République, ou Un roi est-il nécessaire à la conservation de la liberté ?, Brissot by founding a journal by the name of Le Républicain, while their friend Duchatêlet put up posters preaching the same ideals on all the walls of Paris. Robespierre considers the timing for this to have been counterproductive at best:

With all the spirits fermented; just as much as the word republic caused division among the patriots, gave the enemies of liberty the pretext they were looking for, to publish that there existed in France a party which conspired against the monarchy and the constitution. They hastened to attribute to this argument the firmness with which we defended in the Constituent Assembly the rights of national sovereignty against the monster of inviolability. It was with this word [republic] that they misled the majority of the Constituent Assembly; it is this word which was the signal for the carnage of peaceful citizens, slaughtered on the altar of the homeland, their whole crime having been to legally exercise the right of petition, enshrined by constitutional laws. Through this name the true friends of liberty were disguised as factious by perverse or ignorant citizens; and the revolution regressed by perhaps half a century.

He also brings up the fact that it was Brissot who had been the author behind the petition that asked for the the removal of the king ”at a time when the faction was only waiting for this pretext to slander the defenders of liberty” which was then presented on the Champ-de-Mars. While Robespierre is quick to underline he doesn’t think the intentions of Brissot or Condorcet were ”as guilty as the events were disastrous,” dismissing the thoughts of other ”patriots” who have suggested the two were secret allies of Lafayette, he also writes that ”I only want to see in their past conduct anything but impolitic sovereignity and profound ineptitude” and warns them that ”anyone who bases ambitious projects on new errors of the monarch, who dares to start civil war, at a time when foreign war is being provoked, would be the greatest enemy of the homeland.” The number also contained a copy of Robespierre’s Réponse to Brissot and Guadet from the month before.

In number 3 of Le Defenseur de la Constitution, which can be dated May 31, Robespierre also published an article by the name of Considerations regarding one of the main causes of our ills, where he attacked Brissot once again, designating him and Condorcet as the most famous leaders of a faction that also included ”other deputies of Bordeaux, such as MM. Guadet, Vergniaux, Gensonné...”(he justified going against his former stance to not focus on individuals by rhetorically asking ”how to reveal the factions, without naming Claudius, or Piso, or Caesar? How to fight the Triumpirs [sic], without attacking Octave, or Antoine or Lepidus?”). For 22 pages, Robespierre examined Brissot’s ”faction,” listing several charges and taking from it three truths:

The first [truth] is that, as members of the legislature, they have violated the rights of the nation, and labored mightily to imperil liberty; the second, that they have employed pernicious maneuvers to deprave the public spirit, and make it deviate towards the principles of despotism and aristocracy; the third, that they have done everything in their way to corrupt patriotic societies, and to make of these necessary channels of public education, instruments of intrigue and faction. […] Justice, common sense, civil and political liberty, you have sacrificed everything to the interest of your ambition and to cowardly vengeance; you had to complain about one of the denounced writings; and you were not ashamed to be accusers, judges and parties at the same time. With your heart full of cruel and vile passions, you invoked the public good and the sacred name of the laws.

Robespierre ends by declaring:

…it seems to me that it has now been proven that your patriotism was neither sustained nor true; that the scattered features, by which it seemed to announce itself, can well fool the eyes of unreflecting men, but not redeem the great faults that you have committed against the nation: that in general they do not relate to the public good and to the cause of the people; but to a system of intrigues, and to the interest of a party. I don't need to know whether it's the court or some other faction you serve; it is enough to see that it is not liberty. It is even clear that your conduct can only promote the triumph of the court; and that it is up to it to take advantage of it. If you are strangers to it, you are not so to any other party. However, any party is harmful to public affairs, and it is in the interest of the nation to stifle it, as it is the duty of each citizen to reveal it.

In the aftermath of the publication of both these numbers, sections with the title Why? (Pourquoi ?) appeared in Le Patriote François, the first in in number 1014 (May 20), the second in number 1032 (June 6). Each paragraph of these sections began with the mantra ”Why do M. Robespierre and his partisans [do this/that]. We don’t know, but [something that implies Robespierre has ulterior motives for doing it].” None of these articles are however signed, so there’s no way to know if Brissot was the author (I have my doubts that would be the case for at least the second article, since Brissot in that case would be referring to himself in third person). Throughout June 1792 we also find other numbers of Patriote Français where Robespierre gets mentioned in hostile terms (number 1035 (June 10), number 1036 (June 11), number 1042 (June 17)).

But on June 28 1792, Brissot and Robespierre were shortly reunited after the former had held a speech at the Jacobins denouncing Lafayette, who on the 16th had written an open letter to the Legislative Assembly where he had suggested shutting down all political clubs in order to retain order. 

M. Robespierre: When the danger to liberty is certain, when the enemy of liberty is well known, it is superfluous to speak of a reunion, because this feeling is in all hearts. As for me, I felt that it was in mine from the pleasure that the speech given this morning to the National Assembly by M. Guadet gave me, and from that which I have just experienced by hearing M. Brissot. (Applause.)

The journal La Rocambole des journaux, even claims Robespierre wanted to embrace Brissot once again:

I agree to this with all my heart, replies Robespierrot [sic], and to prove it to you: come here Brissot, let me embrace you; let us think only of crushing Lafayette, and of having him indicted; but first, each citizen must denigrate, tear apart, defame this conspirator with all his power so that before being judged by the national high tribunal, he is condemned in public opinion.

Of course, the reunion didn’t last for long, already a month later, July 29, Robespierre did for the first time openly show his support for overthrowing the king and the Legislative Assembly and replacing them with a convention tasked with carrying out major changes. He also argued that the selfdenying decree he had put forward a year earlier be used again, barring the members of the Legislative Assembly (obviously including Brissot) from sitting in the Convention. The next day, July 30, Le Courrier du Midi reported the following:

The club of 300 legislators was held today, in the former Jacobin barracks, near the club of friends of the constitution. Mr. Isnard has just caused a major split there, by declaring that he was going to denounce MM. Antoine and Roberspierre [sic], former constituent deputies. The latter had declared on the 30th [sic] that the current legislature was incapable of saving national sovereignty, and in the hands of intriguing legislators. Roberspierre [sic] spoke with rare energy; and the club ordered the printing of his speech, fortunately improvised. Mr. Isnard is therefore awaiting this civic harangue, to make his denunciation, tending to send the two constituents to the high court of Orléans: his motion was supported by the tartuffe Brissot, who showed the same commitment. Patriotic deputies left the insidious session and tore up their cards; they came to reveal this cowardly plot to the Jacobins; and the publicity of this uncivil act will undoubtedly cause Isnard and Brissot's project to fail.

During his trial a year later, Brissot claimed to not remember this incident.  Regardless, the day right after it, August 1 1792, it was spoken of at length at the Jacobins, with energic attacks being made against Brissot. Robespierre was present at the session but chose not to mention Brissot or Isnard, confining himself to repeating his wish of convening a national convention meant to last for a year. ”This effective way to keep all intriguers away from this constituent assembly seems to this speaker sufficient to save the homeland from the dangers that it owes only to weakness and intrigue.”

The very same day, news of the Brunswick Manifesto begun to sweep through Paris, and before the Brissot and Isnard controversy could get any too drastic follow-ups, it was overshadowed by the Insurrection of August 10 which brought and end to the Legislative Assembly. Two days after the insurrection, August 12, Robespierre began to serve on the Paris Commune. On September 2, during the end of which the so called September massacres began, he is recorded to have done the following during the evening session of said commune: 

MM. Billaud-Varenne and Robespierre, developing their civic feelings, paint the deep pain they feel over the current state of France. They denounce to the General Council a plot in favor of the Duke of Brunswick, whom a powerful party wants to bring to the throne of the French.

The next day, Brissot could report the following:

Yesterday, Sunday, I, as well as parts of the deputies of the Gironde, and other equally virtuous men, was denounced at the Paris Commune. We were accused of wishing to hand over France to the Duke of Brunswick, of having received millions from them, and of having concerted ourselves to go to England to save ourselves. Citizens, I was denounced at ten o'clock in the evening, and at the same time they were slaughtering in the prisons… This morning, around seven o'clock, three commissioners of the Commune came to my house… for three hours, they examined, with all possible care, all my papers.

If this had been a naked attempt to get Brissot murdered in prison is hard to know for sure. Historians willing to give Robespierre the benefit of the doubt have suggested he may not have learned of the massacres yet when denouncing Brissot. Though I wouldn’t say his case is much helped by the fact that, when explaining his actions during and attitude towards the massacres in a speech held November 5 1792, he denied he had even been present at the Commune the days before and during them (which is obviously false) as opposed to admitting he had been there and said what he’d said, while asseverating he had not had any evil intentions…

In his Discours de Jérôme Pétion sur l’accusation intentée contre Maximilien Robespierre (November 5 1792) Pétion recounts the following conversation between him and Robespierre which took place just one day after Brissot’s house was searched, and where Robespierre confirms his suspicions regarding Brissot having connections to Brunswick. Like Brissot one year earlier, Pétion too underlines that no personal relationship existed between the latter and Robespierre:

The surveillance Committee launched an arrest warrant against Minister Roland; it was the 4th (September), and the massacres were still going on. Danton was informed of it, he came to the town hall, he was with Robespierre. […] I had an explanation with Robespierre, it was very lively. I still made him face the reproaches that friendship tempered in his absence, I told him: ”Robespierre, you are doing a lot of harm; your denunciations, your alarms, your hatreds, your suspicions, they agitate the people; explain yourself; do you have any facts? do you have proof? I fight with you; I only love the truth; I only want liberty.  ”You allow yourself to be surrounded,” [he replied], ”you allow yourself to be warned. You are disposed against me, you see my enemies every day; you see Brissot and his party.” ”You are mistaken, Robespierre; no one is more on guard than I against prejudices, and judges with more coolness, men and things. You’re right, I see Brissot, however rarely, but you don’t know him, and I know him since his childhood. I have seen him in those moments when the whole soul shows itself; where one abandons oneself without reservation to friendship, to trust: I know his disinterestedness; I know these principles, I assure you that they are pure; those who make him a party leader do not have the slightest idea of ​​his character; he has lights and knowledge; but he has neither the reserve, nor the dissimulation, nor these catchy forms, nor this spirit of consistency which constitutes a party leader, and what will surprise you is that, far from leading others, he is very easy to abuse.” Robespierre insisted, but confined himself to generalities.  ”Allow us to explain ourselves, I told him, tell me frankly what’s on your mind, what it is you know.” ”Well!” he replied, ”I believe that Brissot is with Brunswick.”  ”What mistake is yours!” I exclaimed. ”It is truly madness; this is how your imagination leads you astray: wouldn't Brunswick be the first to cut his head off? Brissot is not mad enough to doubt it: which of us can seriously capitulate! which of us does not risk his life! Let us banish unjust mistrust.” Danton became entangled in the colloquy, saying that this was not the time for arguments; that it was necessary to have all these explanations after the expulsion of the enemies; that this decisive object alone should occupy all good citizens. 

In Histoire générale et impartiale des erreurs, des fautes et des crimes commis pendant la Révolution française (1797) Louis Marie Prudhomme also claimed that, on September 3, Théophile Mandar proposed creating a dictatorship in order to stop the massacres to Pétion and Robespierre. Robespierre then cried out: ”Be aware! Brissot would become dictator!” ”O Robespierre,” Mandar said to him, ”it is not the dictatorship that you fear, it is not the homeland that you love: it is Brissot that you hate.” ”I hate dictatorship and I hate Brissot!”

A little more than two weeks later, September 21, the first session of the National Convention was held. Robespierre and Brissot had both been elected deputies, the former representing Paris, the latter Eure-et-Loi. In the pamphlet J. P. Brissot, député à la Convention nationale, à tous les républicains de France; sur la société des Jacobins de Paris, released less than a month later, Brissot writes that before the opening of said Convention, Danton, in the hopes of sorting out their differences, organized a meeting between the three. But as might be expected, it didn’t bear any fruit…

Before the opening of the National Convention, Danton, trying to bring together what he called the parties, sought me out, and I did not refuse explanations, because I have always had a horror of divisions. I attested to the consideration that I for a long time had held for Robespierre and his faction, although constantly harassed by them. Danton asked me some questions about my republican doctrine; he feared, he said with Robespierre, that I wanted to establish a federative republic, that this was the opinion of Gironde. I reassured him. Robespierre was informed of this, and Robespierre continued to spread the word that I wanted a federal republic.

Just two days after the opening of the Convention, September 23 Chabot came to the Jacobins and announced that in number 1140 of Patriote Français, released the very same day, ”Brissot or his croupier said […] that the Convention appeared to be divided into two distinct parties; one of which is a disorganizing party. This seems to me to be one of the intrigues that people play to keep the deputies sent from the departments to the Convention away from the Jacobins: they will be told that it is in this Society that this disorganizing party resides. […] I therefore denounce this intrigue that seems to me to have been made in order to depopularize Danton, Robespierre and Collot, and I say that, if Brissot does not explain this article in his journal, he is the biggest of scoundrels.” When Brissot hadn’t yet appeared to give an explanation on October 10, the jacobins struck him from their list of members, and other ”girondins” followed suit the very same month.

On September 25, a stormy session played out between girondins and montagnards within the newly opened Convention (as would be the case for almost every session the following time as well), that among other things included Osselin claiming that ”a party of Robespierre” existed within the Convention, Robespierre denying this to be true, saying that ”it was when I loudly demanded the dismissal of Lafayette before the war, that it was said, in these public journals, that I had had conferences with the queen, with Lamballe, and that my resignation as public prosecutor was the result of this infamous transaction; and it was at the same time that a patriotic but inconsiderate writer (Brissot) accused me of aspiring to dictatorship: and it was at the moment when the National Convention was about to begin its work that these miserable imputations were reproduced,” Brissot asking what right there is for issuing arrest warrants against deputies, and Verguiaux developing on this by accusing Robespierre of having implicated him, Brissot, Ducos, Guadet, Condorcet and Lasource in the complot favorable to the duke of Brunswick denounced at the commune on September 2.

On October 29 1792 Brissot released the pamphlet J. P. Brissot, député à la Convention nationale, à tous les républicains de France ; sur la société des Jacobins de Paris where he, after having accused Robespierre of secretly working with the Austrian committee during the Legislative Assembly and hiding out during the Insurrection of August 10, once again came back to what the latter had been up to during September 2:

Robespierre accused me, at the rostrum of the Paris Commune, of having sold France to Brunswick. He had, he said, proof, striking documents. He promised to show them. Readers, do you want to know this striking evidence? Here it is: I got it from Pétion and Danton, to whom Robespierre did not blush to entrust it. Brunswick, he said, would not have entered France if he had not had a deal with the Gironde faction and me to deliver Paris to him. And where was this deal? In Robespierre's head. Without doubt I could refute, with a thousand arguments, this profoundly stupid accusation, were it not profoundly atrocious. I could retort, with advantage, against Robespierre, this pleasant logic, and prove to him, perhaps, with more plausibility that he himself and his accomplices were in concert with the Prussians; but disdaining such an easy victory, I move on to other considerations. And, I ask my readers, what idea should one form of a man who, on a hypothesis, on a reverie, publicly dishonors representatives of the nation, already surrounded by slander and daggers; who delivers them to the people. What will I say to the brigards who took on the name of the people; to the brigards ready to strike, at the sole signal of the first slanderer who presented himself. And it was on September 2 that Robespierre resounded with this slander! It was the day when the surveillance committee, dripping with blood, issued arrest warrants, or rather massacre warrants, against the deputies of Gironde and against me! It was the day when the scoundrels, who triumphed in Paris, piled up their victims at the Abbaye prison, because they had made the Abbaye a butchery, a tomb for their victims...! Yes, Robespierre was obviously either a monster, or the imbecile instrument of monsters. He was accused of aspiring to dictatorship, to the tribunate. His conduct would seem to prove it, if the mediocrity of his means, if the terror of death, which constantly surrounds him, did not keep him from this perilous post: a dictator must include among his risks that of a violent death; and to brave death, you need some courage. Whatever his secret intentions, when I remember all the circumstances which preceded, accompanied or followed the awful day of September 2 [he then spends two pages listing these circumstances] I cannot help but believe that this tragedy was divided into two very different acts; that the massacre of the prisoners was only an accessory to the grand plan; that it covered and was to bring about the execution of a conspiracy formed against the National Assembly, the ministry and the most intrepid defenders of liberty; that its authors lacked only the courage to execute it, and to mount the tribunate on the corpses of Rolland, Guadet, Vergniaux, Gensonné, etc. and on mine... […] ”I know it,” said Robespierre naively one day to a deputy from Gironde who accused him of having ordered the assassinations. ”I know, that neither you nor your friends would have had an aristocrat assassinated.” This trait paints the spirit of the band.

The next part in the reblog.

[duhragonball]

Roundabout

I watched CJ the X's video about Rick and Morty, mainly because I kept seeing people screencap the parts about perfectionism near the beginning. Well, I thought I should see it for myself, and then I wound up getting pulled into the "Story Circle" concept used by series co-creator Dan Harmon.

This may be old news to a lot of people-- in fact, I'm sure it is, because Harmon admits that this is heavily based on the monomyth concept popularized by Joseph Campbell. I've never fully appreciated the "Hero's Journey" idea before, but I think Harmon has refined it by simplifying the names of the steps. "Atonement with the Father" just becomes "Take", and that's a lot easier for me to grasp. Campbell probably never meant to suggest that every story features a literal "atonement with the father", but his work involved identifying common elements in story structure, so I'm sure he had trouble coming up with fitting names for everything.

Harmon's circle might be a little too simplified, since there's a lot to unpack in the word "Take", but his model is focused on making a formula to write new stories, as opposed to comparative mythology. What I like a lot about the Story Circle is that Harmon insists that it's not a rule that must be learned and followed. Rather, it's an observation of something all humans do when they tell stories, whether they realize it or not. But sometimes it can be helpful to be made aware of the pattern, like checking a map even when you're familiar with the route.

It can be fun, although probably distracting, to apply the circle to existing works. The Star Wars movies used Campbell's monomyth as a blueprint, so that's probably too easy. But it can also be used on individual scenes too. Luke(1) falls down a trap door and now he has to find a way back out (2) before the rancor eats him (3). He manages to avoid being eaten using a bone and some nooks and crannies in the pit (4) but at last he finds a door out of the dungeon, except it's locked, leaving him cornered (5). But he manages to drop a heavy gate on the rancor as it approaches him, which kills it (6). The bad guys then open the door to bring him back to Jabba (7), who now prepares to feed him to an even worse monster outside (8).

And that probably sets up the next cycle in the movie, where Luke saves everyone from the next monster, and so on. I think at long last I understand why these kinds of story structures are presented as "circles" or cycles". You don't have to do multiple laps, but the structure allows you to do so, and acknowledges that multiple cycles can also form a larger circle, and so on.

With episodic television series, the final step, change, often means reverting to the status quo. There's a M*A*S*H episode where Radar tries to become a serious writer, and he keeps trying to inject his army reports with purple prose, until finally Hawkeye explains to him that he has to use his own words and stop trying to imitate what he thinks the "pros" use. So Radar does learn a lesson, but the lesson basically puts an end to the weird dialogue he was using the whole episode and puts him back to normal. The Korean War doesn't end, and Colonel Potter doesn't die, and Klinger still wears dresses, but the structure is still followed and sets up the next cycle.

I can see how this is very useful in a writers' room for a television show, especially one like Rick and Morty, where the characters seem to be capable of almost anything. It probably helps to take stray ideas like "Rick turns himself into a pickle!" and run that through a formula to make sure you can get a working script out of the gag.

Anyway, I'm currently trying to use it to flesh out some ideas for my fanfic, since I have a lot of story beats I want to accomplish, but I don't have much to connect them together. Using the Story Circle seems to be helping me figure out which pieces I'm missing, so maybe this will compensate for all those years where I could just use DBZ Episode 66 and Xenoverse 1 as loose outlines that I could follow. This fall, I gotta build my own story skeleton before I can fill it in, and the clock is ticking...

[bookofmac]

okay okay okay, thinking thoughts

So I find the concept of Names really interesting in Camlann, reading into the extracanonical stuff put on the tumblr is giving me food for theory crafting. The Catacylsm seems to be some kind of return of magic to the world (possibly heralded by the return of The King of the Britons in their hour of need?) and thus people with significant Names have access to something because of it. they fall into the stories of their namesakes; Perry, Gwaine, and Kay are Knights, Morgan is Morgana Le Fay, and we now have a Gwen in Shújūn.

Based on Kay's dicussion with Perry if more people can fill in the roles of their stories to more 'to plan' the stories will go, Of course this is not good news if you know the general end point of Arthurian legend (Betrayal, muderer, war, most everyone dead, the 'Glory' of camelot gone). It's inherently kind of a doomsday cult if you stay in those stories, you know where parts of this are going (i'll get back to this)

it also seems like there may be some, for lack of a better term, kin drama going on. There are 900 members of the court and Kay mentions that Peredur is a really uncommon name outside of Wales, meaning there are certain knights who are more common, i assume Lancelot's, Kay's, maybe a few Talisin's, a bunch of Gareth's, and like 50 Elaines like in the legends lol

We also dont have the context for how Names work full yet and neither do our characters. I think theres a lot of answers to be had with Shújūn/Gwen with how it works, how you know other than the buzzing in you're head and desire go through the motions and Follow the Story

Now, where does Dai fit in all this?

Dai doesn't have a Name, and I think theres going to be a point where he changes his name in a major way, but not to a Name, but a Bardic name. In welsh poetic and story telling tradtions Welsh poets, THE OG Bards, will take on pseudonyms tell their stories. This practice stems from the medievil era, but goes forth to today, and many modern Welsh and welsh heritage poets have connections to this tradition (Dylan Thomas' middle name was his great uncles bardic name, Sarah Williams published her work under the name Sadie), I believe it's also a requirement to have one if you intend to perform in the major Eisteddfod, (I am Australian so my experiance of Eisteddfods here is very different so if i'm wrong on that let me know)

Why would he do this? I think Dai is going to, at least try, to write him and his friends a way out.

Much ink is spilt over how Arthurian legend doesnt have an 'orginal text', and as such there are lots of stories that are inherently contradictory; Bedwyr is the best knight, but so are Gwaine, Lancelot, and Galahad. Mordred is some random king until his Arthur's son. Arthur has a sister, no he has two, actually he has three and one of them is an Elaine. This could be used to explain any doubles (are you my Gwaine), as well as why we see a few different spelling varients which are, the very welsh Peredur as opposed to Percival or Parzifal, the anglisised and more boarish Kay as opposed to Cei or Caius (this last one might just to keep Dai and Kay distinct tho). These variations are no more or less 'canon' than any other telling of the story, and so often the writer of a given telling of Arthurian legend is going to have their own bias. But things dont HAVE to end the way they always do, and sometime you need to have someone outside the story you're caught in to tell you a new one.

You are not locked into that ever looming cloud of Thomas Mallory and Le Morte d'Arthur.

Other evidence I have for this is that Dai sings at the begining of each episode, and sings in welsh at that. He also is, to a point our narrator, existing both in and out of the current narative. Also his name is an a lyric of Sosban Fach (a song i would be surprised if it wasn't in the show at some point) 'Dai bach y sowldiwr' which is also not from the text the song was based on. Tangential yes, but i think it's worth thinking about.

I think there is also something to be said about choice in what your name is and how it feeds into the overall theme of identiy, and how that plays into other themes at play in the story, like Transness, Imperialism, and Predestination

TL:DR; While he doesnt have a Name, Dai's gonna give himself an epic bard name and save them all by writing a killer hook to get them out of the story

[offshore-brinicle]

[Cracks knuckles]

More simple observations then anything, admittedly.

First things first, Dante uses golden bough resonance seemingly on command, seeing a possibility and thus wishing it into reality, which isn't exactly how we've seen it beforehand - namely in how it manifests the fathoms of one's ego into reality. The image of the symbol we've come to associate with collecting a bough is red and yellow with added chains, as opposed to its usual pure gold - the implication of which is that the specific construction of their head allows them to fine tune this output of reality warping in some way or another.

Given what Faust says of the laws of causality and such, I believe that they were fine tuned to be able to exclusively manifest concepts regarding time, possibly making it more powerful in exchange for limitations on what they can do. This personally reminds me of the people in IV, who were 'revived' by the fathoms but only in body [that is, if I'm remembering correctly] whilst Dante brings back everything of the sinners.

Then this brings us to the actual abilities [currently, ability] themselves and the menu around it. Firstly, the button one clicks to active them is labeled 'Durante' which: is believed to be the baptised name of Alighieri, means 'during' in Italian, comes from the Latin word for 'endure' and was the name on Dante's coat on an early art piece of them on the bus. The idea of 'enduring for a period of time' both fits with the Canto and how Heath endured through his childhood for only the period of time he thought he could be with Cathy, and how Dante endures through the pain of death only for limited amounts of time. Though I do not know of how to tie in Alighieri's name with the game, alas.

Anyways, onto the actual mechanic, once we open it's menu, we are greeted by an unfinished but upright tree of life from the kabbalah, with 'Hokma' at current being the only one unlocked. The chain motif appears again, representing Dante's control over it - or some kind of contract or agreement being made with it, as with the chains binding the sinners. There is also additional text on there but I simply cannot read it, a shame.

The symbol used is the one for Hokma's floor in LoR, with the only other place it has been seen in Limbus being Gregor's base E.G.O, alongside the symbols for Malkuth, Gebura, Chesed and Binah. We also see it when the ability is first awakened, with overlayed hands settling in the 9'oclock position, the same one Dante started the game off with, and white chains are seen again as the symbol of connection/control. This of course yet another thing tying the boughs to Lobcorp and its consequences, this time with specific reference to a very important character. We do skip over Keter for the time being, which I don't know enough to comment about.

We also see 'Pigritia' or 'sloth' under Hokma's symbol, but given as there are more parts of the Kabbalah then sins in game, we may end up bringing in some other sins like 'vainglory' from past ideas around christanity. Plus, this implies a connection between Gregor and sloth, which is proven true in how it the affinity of his base E.G.O. The sins the other badges rep. may also be ones connecting more personally with Gregor as well, but we'll see in due time.

Now. Golden bough synchronisation isn't something I believe we've seen before, but it is in the corner of the home screen whilst Dante commits season name. This could be Dante's bough synchronising with one of the ones on the rooftop in order to perform that feat, or something else I am too tired to think of right now.

The ask is. Really long but! I do think the fact they are called 'sapling of light' abilities is really interesting, it implies a more grown version of the seeds of light sowed within the people of the City - I believe its either grown as a result of interacting/resonating with the boughs, or due to Dante's experiences and developments through their journey. This also presents a non-zero chance that Dante is an attempt to recreate the seed of light project, something I'm sure at least a few of Limbus' workers [coughcoughFAUSTcough] know of in some capacity.

I believe that's it for that for now, though.

HONESTLY REALLY FANTASTIC ANALYSIS, I also caught up on the thing about Dante's name and the label on their coat since my mother language is Spanish and "durante" means "during" in it, so it naturally led me to understanding it easier.

God the appearance of Hokma's symbol was such a jumpscare it left me agape, but also the fact that it's the symbol used for Hokma ever since the Library came to be as well as the Sephirah in the floor, and also the fact that Hermann is interested in The Well which seems to be the "river" under Wuthering Heights being some kind of unique area that connects to it hence the ghosts and apparitions from other worlds. It makes me wonder even more about the state of the Library and Angela's ultimate goal in the true ending is finding a way to dismantle The Head, since now it means Dante is not just connected to Carmen but The Library.

I wouldn't be surprised if Limbus and N Corp are in some kind of race to recreate the Seed of Light but with their own purposes, mainly Limbus taking in count what you just said and the fact that the path layed out for the Sinners to reach their own "awakenings" is awfully similar to how the Sephirah were used in the original Seed of Light, though not as calculated and controlled as Ayin's plan and prone to failure since we technically only had 4 out of 6 attempted boughs collected with Heathcliff's burnt one and only 2 of the 6 missions resulted in an EGO realization/self-actualization in Yi Sang and Ishmael. Sinclair made some progress at least while Gregor and Rodion stayed the same but Heathcliff....feels like he got worse, really. Bodysack stayed the same and the one time it's "awakened" it's used in the Canto it's as an act of self-hatred and once everything is over it stays the same symbol of death, just now with a new obsession driving him forward in bringing back Catherine somehow which is definitely not going to turn out well in the future.

Somehow I didn't catch up on the 'Pigritia' part, it's interesting that it uses a different term from the actual Sloth Peccatula, since Acediae would be more accurately translated as "apathy", but the fact that it all connects to Gregor again and he acknowledges Hermann again and stops calling her "mother" is also an intruguing development. Hell, it's actually most likely that the Bough Hermann gave to Nelly and Catherine is the very same one they took from Gregor in Canto I.

As always thanks for your asks I love reading people's observations and analysis.

[greatqueenanna]

So, with this tiny drama with Hans and sociopathy, I decided to ask a friend of mine, who has ASPD, what he thought of this whole situation with Hans. A bit of history - as you all know, I like Helsa, so back in 2014 when it was revealed that Hans was a sociopath, I went into research mode to try and discover more about this. That is where discovered Sociopath World, a website made for sociopaths to discuss how they navigate the world and to give advice to 'empaths'.

This is where I met my friend - we'll call him BG. BG is a clinical psychologist, film buff, and, as said, diagnosed with ASPD. Now, I didn't directly ask him about Hans at the time, I just asked him about the Hans - Elsa dynamic a lot without using their names (cuz, you know - I'm a shipper lol) we've been friends ever since, and I ask him all the time about film characters.

When I started talking about Hans and sociopathy more recently, I got an anon where someone questioned if I should be talking about this, so I decided to finally ask BG about Hans. I shared with him Jennifer Lee's comments, some posts within the Hans/Helsa tags, and of course recommended he watch the movie. To my surprise, he did it fairly quickly and sent me a reply today.

Few things to keep in mind - BG is very blunt, so sorry if you find some things he says a bit offensive or accusatory. Also, keep in mind (something he mentions as well) that he doesn't speak for everyone who has ASPD. Also, don't worry, he knows I'm posting his response here. I did edit a few things for privacy purposes. He knows this too.

Now, I originally wanted to include his response in my Hans and Sociopathy post, but to make sure that the post didn't end up being too long, I decided to place it here instead. His response is under the read more.

Thanks for contacting me, I always like evaluating people’s fascinations with ASPD. This is a unique one, a cartoon character. I’m usually asked to evaluate Elsa (spoiler, she’s not a sociopath) from this movie, so it’s a nice change of pace. Prince Hans is a sociopath. Let’s get into it.

So what we first have to establish about anyone trying to defend those with ASPD are their motivations. No one defends those with ASPD just for kindness's sake, not unless they have a positive experience with someone in their life (which is exceedingly rare with ASPD). Here, we’re talking about a cartoon character that was first established as a ‘good’ and then turns ‘evil’ for a shocking twist.

From what I’ve seen from this character’s fans, is that they focus heavily on the ‘tragic’ backstory of said character and the end-game motivations they have for him. Which in this case is the fact that they want to pair him up with other characters with their morality not being questioned. From what I’ve seen, that’s all they care about. They see an attractive character that they think has the potential to be paired with another, and they are upset that this attractive character has traits and behaviors that they are opposed to. Look, I know it sounds mean, but none of these fans would really care if the character was not attractive, charming, and easily paired with the female leads. That is the main motivation here.

I’m not saying they are not interested based on the character’s own merits and intrigue, they like to speculate about his past and childhood. But given the most popular depiction is him is with the female leads in a romantic sense, it is very obvious where the fans stand and why they are defensive of him. He’s attractive, he’s charming, he was really nice and chivalrous at first. But the reality here is that they are in love with who he is pretending to be. It honestly looks like the cases I deal with every day with real ASPD and Empath couples. The empath in the relationship is always making excuses for the sociopath, and I have indeed had cases where the empath denies the diagnosis. It’s really interesting to see this in behavior in fan spaces as well.  

Now, here’s the thing. I don’t really care about film representation. Most people I know who also have ASPD don’t care either. We don’t really care about the things that empaths place on a pedestal. We don’t care about role models or feeling accepted and represented. Empaths always make us out to be villains or funny anti-heroes because they can’t fathom our behaviors being used for good. It's a reality we face, especially in this day and age when feelings and being empathetic dominate the social world. There is no easy way to showcase a sociopath being a hero within empath standards. Our definition of a sociopath being a hero is getting what they want. Hans would be a great representation if he got what he wanted. Do I speak for everyone? No. But honestly, I question anyone who claims to be a sociopath and actually cares about empath’s feelings towards us, or bases their value on fictional characters like what empaths do. Especially since most people who have ASPD are not even diagnosed, they can’t exactly question a representation of something they don’t know that they have.

Let’s change gears towards the comments the director made. The critique you got was that there isn’t enough evidence to support a diagnosis of ASPD with Hans because the narrative doesn’t explicitly state it and we don’t know a lot about his past; so can’t make a genuine diagnosis. In most cases, that would be correct. However, the director makes it very clear that her intentions for the character was for him to be a sociopath. She wrote him with this intention and made sure to depict him in that way. Thus, we don’t need to see his childhood or even make a diagnosis based on his behavior. He is written and labeled as a sociopath, so he is one. End of story. Sure, we can critique how the depiction was handled, and even the motivations behind making him a sociopath, but it doesn’t change the facts of the character.

I went a little off track here, but I feel this needed to be said first and foremost. Let’s get back to the actual comments. She states that she has a sociopathic mind and that she was writing him based on these traits. She also stated later that Hans being sociopathic was more interesting. You can even see the excitement she has when the person she’s talking to says “he’s a talented Scoiopath” and she says “He’s very talented!” She loves this aspect of him. It's her pride and joy. She obviously thinks sociopaths are interesting and cool, to the point where she thinks she may have some traits. Here, we know her intention behind it was romanticization. Is it a bit weird? Yea. It’s weird. She's romanticizing a disorder so it's always weird. However, the depiction was still fairly accurate. Cartoony and villainized, but accurate.

Which I guess leads us to the actual depiction. He’s a very typical Sociopath. Not much else to say. He has the sociopath stare, he mirrors behavior, he hates that his brothers dared to ignore him, he jumps into danger without a second thought, and smiles when he’s about to commit murder on Elsa. It's kind of funny how accurate he is. It’s like watching a comedy show where they say something relatable and you can’t help but laugh. The director says that her stand-out moment for him was when he questions Anna’s comment of being ‘just her’. For me, it’s when he stands up after being knocked out by the blast, without even acknowledging that he’s in deep shit, and just says ‘but, she froze your heart!” I laughed so hard. Only sociopaths would do this shit. “Anna, how dare you. You should be dead.”

And that’s all I have to say. Thanks for reaching out, it was definitely entertaining and a nice break. Have a great day.

[roundearthsociety]

This is going to be a tad personal but how do you manage to be trans and catholic? Some of the biggest anti trans voices like Matt Walsh, Michael Knowles and Desantis base their views off that religion. Many trans people on here, Reddit and IRL have nothing but disdain for Catholicism because of the Vatican’s statements and how they’ve been treated. Likewise, a lot of Catholics I’ve seen on tumblr, Reddit and various forums view it as a sin, mental illness or pedophilia and oppose affirming care as well as IVF.

I’m an American exvangelical, who does have some conservative Catholic family members, and I’m trying to broaden my perspective a bit rather than writing Catholicism off as an irredeemable, hateful colonizer ideology and viewing paganism and Reform Judaism as the only valid religions like most Tumblr users do. How do you put up with it when many refuse to affirm it, including the pope who’s still very conservative? I’m not asking to attack your beliefs but are simply curious whether there’s more nuance than people will claim.

This is something that's a bit hard to answer, as someone who's not that good a theologian nor that good at theory. Plus, I'm not side A, so I wouldn't be all that good at discussing Catholicism While Queer with you I suspect. Anyway I will be assuming you, the reader, have got some level of legitimate Christian faith. Because otherwise I'm not sure how to like. Give you that.

So let me preface all of this by recommending you look into queer Catholic organizations such as New Ways Ministry, or especially DignityUSA which I've heard good things about. There are also some Tumblr bloggers on the more affirming side of things, most of them aren't really doing all that much advocacy work either but you might find it interesting to scroll through, idk, and-her-saints or shoutsofmybones's blogs for example, and take a look.

Also: you don't have to give up on Christianity entirely if you can't / would rather not be Catholic! Even if the specific ritual and community aspect is especially important to you, the Episcopal Church is probably decently well implanted where you live and is worth looking into, especially since it doesn't have the embedded political elements that the US Catholic Church tends to have.

As for my own personal answer below - please don't bother to get mad at me for this, it's like 4AM and I'm not too interested in writing a thesis here.

Gender-wise it's honestly pretty straightforward. I know I function better being generally recognized as another sex than I was assigned at birth, with characteristics to match; everything else in terms of gender roles names etc is really just getting a lil silly with it ngl. This is neither especially uncommon nor especially new, and the generally recognized way to deal with this has long been to just let people do their thing. While there are issues with the way that's being done (hey! you should freeze your gametes if that's available to you! don't count on never wanting kids, especially if you're a teenager! trust me on this one.), a lot of the modern discourse around it boils down to "this is disgusting to me so it must be morally wrong". And like, I'm a biologist, I can't really find it in myself to be grossed out by this stuff anymore.

Anyway the Church is far from a monolith. Even at the institutional level there's plenty of tolerance; my home diocese is based in a large and ancient Mediterranean city so God knows it's had ages to get used to the weird shit, not counting the handful of trad strongholds. My understanding of the situation in the US is that it's Kind Of Really Not That though, so I'd strongly recommend heavily looking into your local Catholic diocese and parishes before making any moves, because Catholic faith and practice are a very community-bound thing and it's not really something you can do at a distance. Thankfully though, once you start avoiding the political activists trying to use faith as a means to an end (as is the case for most of the people you cite in your ask), you'll find that it's relatively more chill than you'd think. Let me elaborate.

My own case is complicated enough that I can't reasonably apply any of the details to this, but ultimately what's important to note here is that Christianity is functionally about how everyone is flawed, and everyone fucks up, and sure you'll be forgiven but you've got to own up to it first. The members of the Church, even the Pope, even (most of) the Saints in their earthly lives, are no exception. They can be misguided, fearful, or just plain hateful; in such circumstances, it's on them to do better, not on you to adapt to their flaws, and they know this if they're honest to themselves. This, in turn, must apply just as much to you and me; as a Christian, you (generic) have everything you need to do better, and to know anything that prevents you from loving other people is probably not the way to go.

But anyway yeah. I'm trans and Catholic because both of those are just kinda who I am, and I don't intend to stop being either because I'm not interested in replacing myself with the cop in my head. So the Church can have fun with that.

[theeccentricraven]

Writer's Questionnaire

Thank you @poethill for the tag! I'm glad I finally found a window of time to get down to this.

About Me

When did you start writing?

When I was six years old, I wrote my first stories. My first story was called "Puppy's Birthday". It was about a puppy named Puppy.

Are the general themes you read similar to the ones you write? 

Good question. The books I read often deal with similar themes that I like to dive into, especially Dystopian fiction. The themes I write are inspired more by my personal experiences in life and philosophies I’ve formed. I like to deal with themes that other writers might have not considered before. 

Is there an author you’d like to emulate or be compared to? 

I hope to be like Brandon Sanderson, a writer with exquisite writing skills who produces highly entertaining stories.

Can you tell us about your writing space? 

Wherever I can bring and set my laptop.

How do you motivate yourself to write?

Thinking about the prize at the end - a published book that says, “Created by a good writer.”

Does your childhood influence the characters and places you write?

Yes, a lot. Many of my stories, like Columbus Day and The Star House Club, take place in my home state of Oregon. The fantasy world of The Keeper of Maralla is largely based on Oregon. My characters in The Star House Club were based on characters I created when I was a kid. Some characters are based on friends and enemies alike. 

Are there any recurring themes in your writing?

Self-esteem. The fight for liberty and opposing oppression. The exploitation of children. Humility in recognizing we are not as advanced or erudite as we think we are. The quest for redemption. Finding faith when surrounded by secularism. The disgust I have for hatred toward both sexes, misandry and misogyny alike. These themes matter a lot to me on a personal level based on my life experiences.    

My Characters

Who is your favorite character and why?

Hard to choose. Probably Jorem because he is so book smart, handsome, and rebellious. I could also say the same about Justin who is street smart, handsome, and rebellious. 

Which of your characters would you be friends with in real life? 

Probably Maralla because she is the ideal comfort character.

Which of your characters would you most dislike irl?

Most of my villains, especially President Fidel who is a master gas lighter and manipulator. 

What is your process with creating characters? 

I come up with characters in the same way that I come up with story ideas in general. When I get an idea, it starts with “What if…” or “How about…” I often think of the MC who is the driving force of the idea. The Blood Cleaners resulted from my thinking, “What if there was an occupation for people who had the sole responsibility to clean up blood?” I quickly imagined the MC who made this story possible - Justin, a street cleaner who wants to be a blood cleaner more than anything. Columbus Day resulted from me wanting to write a first contact story where Avatar meets Pocahontas on earth. I immediately thought of my two protagonists - the human girl and the alien whose friendship would be the center of the story. Sanctuary Calling resulted from my wondering, “What if the human race abandoned earth but left behind primitive societies like some Native American, African, and Middle Eastern tribes, as well as the Amish?” I quickly thought up the MC who would be a girl that made the dangerous trip back to earth and would meet someone from one of the societies left on earth - an Amish boy.

Much as I like my characters, I confess I’m still struggling with flat character development. I’m still learning. My current strategy is to make profiles using Gail Carson Levine’s character dossier sheet that she provided in “Writing Magic”. I then cherry pick from various character sheets I find from various resources. I don’t make full profiles for all characters. I try to think of how a character would react to a situation and what they would say that defines their personality. I love to use the Tumblr writing prompts where characters rephrase a line in their own way. This is just all part of the preparation phase. I’m drafting, I often end up pansting or discovery writing a lot of my characters.

Do you have recurring themes/traits in your characters? 

Again, I struggle too much with flat character development. I often have characters who are shy and insecure, which describes me. I try as much as possible to have characters be different from me. I also have to be careful of Mary Sues as many of my characters are smarter than me, but I know I shouldn’t go overboard. 

How do you picture them? 

I used various pics I found on the web. Origins are linked in the photos.

Justin

Joselyn

Clarice

Jorem

Maralla

Juva

Julie

Nari

Abe

My Writing

What is your reason for writing?

Throughout my life, I’ve come up with thousands of ideas that can’t leave my head. I have to get them on paper where I can mold them and craft them to a shape readers will enjoy. 

Is there a specific type of comment that you find motivating coming from your readers? 

I haven’t shared much of my work, but it’s motivated me when I share snippets that make fellow Writeblrs curious. It makes me want to finish my book and send it to beta readers as well as publish it so that the curiosity will be satisfied.  

How do you want to be thought of by those that read your work? 

I want them to love my characters and consider my writing to be good. I don’t feel I’m at that level yet, but am working hard to earn the compliment, “I love the characters! The writing is superb!”

What is your greatest strength as a writer?

Coming up with imaginative stories and settings. I go into extensive brainstorming that mixes ideas in a soup to form a fascinating story.

What have you been told is your greatest strength?

Much as I lack confidence in my character development skills, I have been well complimented when I have my characters say something proactive and in character. 

How do you feel about your writing? 

I’m not a master, but more than an apprentice. I’m a journeyman. I’ve significantly improved my writing. I am only fairly decent at writing for now. 

If you knew no one would ever read what you wrote, would you still write? 

Yes with 110% confidence.

Are you influenced more by what the reader might like or what you like? 

Good question because I struggle with this. To name one example, I want to have a love triangle in my current WIP. However, all throughout social media, readers and writers say they hate love triangles. The love triangle serves a significant purpose in my WIP. I’d hate to cut it. The best I can do is try to play out the love triangle the right way, not the badly done way that angers readers. In the end, I try to write the type of book that I would like to read, believing there must be readers out there with similar likes.

Tagging (sorry I don't know for sure who has already been tagged for this one): @buffythevampirelover @rickie-the-storyteller @happypup-kitcat24 @jay-avian @leahnardo-da-veggie @pluppsauthor @oliolioxenfreewrites @tildeathiwillwrite

[russanogreenstripe]

I've been playing Owlcat's adaptation of Pathfinder: Kingmaker and have some thoughts

There's a choices they made when designing their game that I think are really interesting from a design perspective, even if I don't fully understand or even agree with them in all cases, but they are useful intellectual exercises. Perhaps the most interesting to me is how they handle Neutral alignments.

I'm going to assume most people finding this know about the 3x3 Alignment grid used in Dungeons and Dragons and other games descended from it, including the 1e version of Pathfinder that the video game is based on. The classic Lawful vs Chaotic and Good vs Evil. Countless gallons of ink and terabytes of text have been spilled over this very basic system, but it's usually the ends of those axes that get the attention. Neutral rarely gets as much detail or analysis about it compared to Good/Evil/Chaos/Law, and it's usually in one of three modes. If I had to come up with names or descriptors for them, I'd go with something like Unaligned, Not Opted In, and Balance, and versions of these exist for both axes. Unaligned is when these opposing forces don't register for you at all, usually due to a lack of cognitive capability. Simple constructs, plants, and animals often fall in the Unaligned category, and I've heard this approach to Neutral basically described as "Neutral Hungry" - what does a bear think about moral debates? It doesn't, it only cares about whether it's hungry or not. Most people don't expect complex philosophical thinking out of a pitcher plant. Not Opted In is when a person has enough cognitive capacity that they could make principled decisions regarding the two axes, but for whatever reason simply don't or haven't. Most people aren't saints or devils, paragons or chameleons. They're just... normal. They're not concerned with cosmic struggles for Freedom versus Order, or pledged to uphold the tenets of Kindness or the debasements of Sin. They just kinda go about doing their thing without needing a big picture. When they make decisions, alignment isn't their primary factor - other things like practicality, culture, needs, and other mundane forces are more important to them. Balance is when a person does have cognitive capacity to recognize these dynamics, and intentionally chooses none of them. This is the classic Druid alignment, the middle way between the extremes. It is a choice and a firm principle, but not in a Lawful or Chaotic way, but in a way that is simultaneously both and neither.

There are certain universal dialogue options in Kingmaker that are tagged with alignments. Any character can choose those options, and doing so will shift your alignment meter towards that alignment very slightly. Then there are some that are tagged with "Requires Good/Evil/Law/Chaos/Neutral" - for those ones, only characters who have that alignment can select it, and also gives a bump towards that alignment. Pretty straightforward, and a fairly representative way to handle these systems in a rigid video game. The universal Neutral options (whether that's True Neutral, Neutral Good, Neutral Evil, Chaotic Neutral, or Lawful Neutral) tend to be somewhere around Unaligned or Not Opted In. Where things get interesting is when we look at the "Requires Neutral" options - all the examples I can think of are written intentionally from a Balance perspective. They come up when two independent groups or forces are in opposition, and these options allow you to either choose no side, or choose BOTH sides as a mediator. And when you choose those options, there truly is an opportunity for reconciliation that prevents otherwise inevitable division and even bloodshed. If you asked me out of the blue "Hey, where on the alignment grid do you find brokering a peace agreement between two opposed factions that stops a civil war?" I'd probably guess either Good or Lawful. Owlcat Games says, "No, that's True Neutral." And the opposing forces don't need to be different halves of an alignment axis - there's a section early on where the only way to not take a side between two Lawful Evil groups and prevent escalation to full-blown conflict is to take an option that Requires Neutral. There's scenarios later that let you act a mediator between two very different people, and two opposed nations, and if you want to truly be able to bring both sides to the table in those scenarios, you have to be Neutral. Even if your intended outcomes are things like "Foster understanding" or "Avert a civil war," things I would categorize as Good, the game makes them Neutral. My current playthrough is mostly Chaotic Good, and I've been pretty satisfied with those options. But when there is deep, deep opposition between two groups in the Stolen Lands, Good won't always bridge a gap between them, but Neutral can. This makes Neutral options an actual Choice instead of just the thing you pick when there's not a Good/Lawful/Chaotic/Evil option - it is a principled position on its own, just as nuanced and effective as the extremes of the chart, and not just the weird ugly grey color in the middle of the alignment chart, and I think that's neat. That's different than the way I thought about it before, and that's cool to analyze.

[professorspork]

THE BIG RWBY BASEBALL POST

(previously on Leah Combines RWBY With Sports That Had Peak Popularity in The Early 20th Century: 2021 Kentucky Derby Horse Names as RWBY Weapons, Ranked)

Friends, it's that time of year again.

"Baseball season?" you ask. And I say: yes, but also.

"Oh. RWBY hiatus?" you groan, realizing I'm about to do something slightly unhinged.

Bingo.

To make a very long story short, I love these two things, and wanted to combine these two things, and have very strong opinions about these two things, so here we are: a post that makes a functional baseball team out of RWBY characters. True, the Venn diagram of people who like both these things as much as I do to serve as my audience is probably small. True, baseball positions aren't astrological signs and anyone of any personality can play anywhere, but lord knows there are Tropes and I plan to indulge.

SO. I give you the starting nine (plus some bullpen depth) of the Beacon Huntresses:

Pitcher: Weiss Schnee. Among several decisions that are no-brainers, this one is probably the no-brainiest. Weiss is a lefty (always highly in demand for pitchers) and her balletic combat movement style translates perfectly to a distinct delivery mechanic. Weiss is a high velocity, high strikeout pitcher who induces a lot of swings and misses with nasty breaking stuff that dances through the air and paints the corners. Because it brings me joy to think about, I'm going to say that Remnant uses old NL rules so Weiss has to bat, and I'll rank her at like a Cole Hamels-level "hey, that's not embarrassing for a pitcher!" career .400 OPS. Not afraid to sac bunt when she has to, but beats out the throw more often than you'd think.

Catcher: Jaune Arc. Yes yes get in your "White Knight real" jokes while you can about Weiss and Jaune playing as the regular battery. This one was also an easy selection; catchers are valued most highly for their strategic minds and defensive capabilities, with any offense added seen as a bonus. As the latest kerfuffle with the Cardinals blaming Willson Contreras for *checks notes* not being Yadi Molina shows, having trust in your catcher to call the game and be thoughtful in his pitch selection in high-leverage situations is paramount. That's Jaune all over. Probably not much of a power guy but has pop when it counts and is excellent at pitch framing.

First Base: Yang Xiao Long. Okay I promise I'll stop calling every decision a no-brainer but THIS ONE REALLY IS. Yang is your classic slugging first baseman, of whom there are literally too many examples to name-- including many righties YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE LEFTY TO PLAY FIRST OKAY. Yang's a Vladdy. Hits for serious power, but more than that embodies the quality that the best first basemen have: she's The Mayor. Truly iconic first basemen are fun to chat with! They are friendly to all their visitors as opposing players stop over on their way around the diamond; this is Yang to a T. Yang probably used to play center field in high school and got converted to 1B in the minors. Most likely on the team to induce very silly rundowns with goofy, clever, self-sacrificial baserunning. Has a penchant for always hitting homers the next time she faces a pitcher after she's been hit by a pitch.

Second Base: Blake Belladonna. She is all about those scrappy diving catches, and flipping to Ruby quickly so they can turn two (but I'm getting ahead of myself). Blake's a utility infielder who'd be comfortable anywhere but let's be real she likes playing the right field side because she gets sad when she can't easily make smirky meaningful eye contact with Yang at all times, so they keep her at second so she won't pout. Probably hits high average but low slugging. Most likely to volunteer to be a position player pitching during a blowout and then, like. Unexpectedly throw 93 with movement. Definitely steals a lot.

Shortstop: Ruby Rose. Ruby has the brains to be a catcher but to waste/ruin her speed on catcher's legs would be a crime; she's got zippy athleticism written all over her. She bats leadoff because she has excellent plate discipline; she's a hard out and gets on base a ton. Think a DJ LeMahieu or Bryson Stott at his best-- sprays to all fields, and sees pitches in the double digits like every other at-bat because she's happy to stand there and keep fouling it off with an infuriating smile on her face until the pitcher makes a mistake. Steals even more often than Blake does, but specifically is a tricksy little imp on the basepaths like Anthony Volpe-- like she would definitely induce a throw when she was already back at the bag because she dances around. (I s2g there's video of this but I cannot find it anywhere sry.)

Third Base: Penny Polendina. Fast hands, Gold Glove-level defense. Unfortunately she's built in the mold of an Adalberto Mondesi or Byron Buxton where it's like "no better player on earth when she's healthy but she's NEVER HEALTHY;" she's got glass bones and has had multiple weeks-long trips to the Injury List or needed season-ending surgery because something popped or snapped. The sort of player where it's like "god no you don't understand, the game is so much better when she's playing" and it's a heartbreaker because SHE KEEPS GETTING TAKEN AWAY FROM YOU. Once did a bat flip after a home run because Ruby encouraged her to and, like, the bat shattered on the grass somehow because she's that strong.

Left Field: Emerald Sustrai. Because if you ask her, her face turn was... out of left field! Eh? Eh??? Okay yeah sorry. To me Emerald is a 2022 Oswaldo Cabrera situation where they threw her in left because they had nowhere else to put her even though she'd never played it before in the minors but she was just. Instantly extremely good at it. Has great range for tracking down fly balls in foul territory. Very streaky hitter who either runs super hot and super cold with no in-between. Steals a lot but also gets caught stealing a lot because she's impatient (see also: streaky hitter, probably chases out of the zone and has really poor plate discipline). But she's getting better! Most likely to come up with cute home run celebration ideas and then absolutely refuse to take credit for them.

Center Field: Pyrrha Nikos. This is the last of the extremely obvious no-brainers. Pyrrha is your star franchise player in center field; she is your Aaron Judge, your Mike Trout. Hits for average and for power, pure athleticism and grace, the player everyone's heard of even when they don't give a shit about baseball. Also now I'm just thinking about how Mike Trout would 100% be like "actually that cereal isn't very good for you" and Pyrrha would 100% stay up all night riveted to the Weather Channel and then call in to compliment the meteorologist they are the same person. Her catches at the fence are so spectacular, you could swear her glove's magnetized.

Right Field: Nora Valkyrie. Is there a very obvious "designated hitter" joke to be made about Nora "be strong and hit stuff" Valkyrie? Yes, of course. But I already said Remnant doesn't have the DH and let's be real, Nora's got a CANNON for an arm and thus belongs in right. Like I'm talking throws like this beaut from Hunter Renfroe the other day-- you do not run on Nora, because she WILL get you out on what you think is a routine double. Bats cleanup and probably has a whole Bash Brothers routine with Yang, including special handshakes. Definitely a pull hitter.

Regular starting lineup is most likely:

Ruby

Pyrrha

Yang

Nora

Blake

Penny

Jaune

Emerald

Weiss

Rounding out the team in the bullpen are:

Long relief: Lie Ren. When your starter melts down and you need someone to keep things calm and give you like four quality innings without giving up more runs, Ren's your guy. Also very happy to play setup man. Throws a knuckleball, says Nora taught him how, and refuses to give more details when people ask.

Closer: Oscar Pine. Admittedly probably more of a ground ball pitcher than a strikeout guy; he induces weak contact and is always going for the double play. I see him as a David Robertson or Kenley Jansen type who gets himself into jams and then gets out of them and like. Yes more often than not he gets the job done but sometimes he'll give you a damn heart attack about it. OSCAR WHY ARE YOU LIKE THIS.

In the process of writing this post Helen asked me who the manager would be and noted Qrow would give absolutely adorable A League Of Their Own vibes. She also suggested that Ozpin (well, Ozma) probably invented baseball in the first place, so... more proof that she's funnier than me.

okay I've been thinking about and then writing this for almost five hours now I have to stop. should I have put some of this behind a cut? probably! but I think it's beautiful, so... sorry but not sorry to all your dashboards <3 I want you to know this included way more specific baseball player comps at one point but I took some of them out so you might have a chance of understanding this <3