#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

[pamela-lntt]

The bell rings, and, suddenly, we're in Senior Year !

idk what else to say other than uuh hermie (accidental) trans shoes

Like my art? Consider buying me a coffee (kofi) !

Like these sketches? Get one for yourself (commissions) !

Notes (lore wise) about each character below the cut

Okay, I lied, I DO have things to say...

So, of course, every design is based on some of my own ideas of how they'd be in Senior Year, especially with the whole aspect of graduation approaching and them having to go to college pretty soon (I projected a bit since the feelings I had in that time of my life are still clear as day even though I'm a year away from graduating from college myself)

I'll go in order of how I lined them up in the post:

Link:

Part of the Teen High Soccer Team. Still dedicated to becoming a Professional Soccer Player and hoping to get a Sports Scholarship (He, unfortunately, won’t. This will lead him to becoming a P.E. teacher and High School Soccer Coach). Senior Year is also when He and Scary start developing feelings for each other, but they don't confess and become official until their 2nd year of college.

Scary:

Going mainly by Terry again (Scary is now her stage name). Part of the Teen High Soccer Team and torn between studying Arts (writing or music) and Sports (exercise science / sports study); leaning towards Arts. Still making Music, but as a Soloist opposed to a band (she starts gaining fame in her last year of college).

Taylor:

Tech Bro phase that will lead him down the path of trying (and failing) to become a Tech Genius & Inventor. Ends up dropping out of college to focus on that tech aspect (was studying robotics, funnily enough). He's still on his Main Protagonist Syndrome thing and got a proper mobility aid cane as opposed to his secretly-a-Katana cane, lmao. Obviously still into anime, but his whole craze on robotics came out of watching more mecha and sci-fi anime.

Normal (favoritism incoming):

Scared of the unknown of the future & at his lowest. Wants to get as far away from San Dimas as possible (emotional gut reaction that’ll be followed through).

Normal is on a real slump. It’s his final year of high school, and he has no idea what he’s going to do. The future is scary, it’s hard to live in the present and now, more than ever, the past haunts him; the person he used to be who knew exactly what he wanted. Only one thing is clear in his mind: he needs to get as far away from San Dimas as possible. He loves his friends, don’t get him wrong, but they remind him too much of the scars left on him at only 15. What he hates the most, is how he can tell Hermie cares and is trying to help… but no matter what, he can’t help seeing Hermie 1.0… how can you look at someone in the eye when all you can see are the eyes of another?

Normal leaves San Dimas the day after graduation, travelling to the other side of the country (New York). The only people who knew of this were his Family, who support him by paying the bills of his new apartment.

Erica:

Secretly debating whether to follow her parents’ set plan (Becoming a Dentist) or her own dreams (Becoming a Veterinarian with an expertise in horses). She’ll eventually get a bachelor's degree in Biology and enroll in Dental School for 2 years before switching to Vet School. She's also more friendly with the main teens, even considering them good friends, especially Scary, who is the one that supports her in this internal debate of profession.

Margherita:

Youngest Graduate. Plans on studying Theatre and becoming an Actress (focused on plays). Works part-time at the Library with her mom, trying to get a head start on college expenses. She, too, becomes friendly with the main teens, but she mostly hangs out with Hermie since they're both in the same club and have the goal of studying the same thing in the same place. They become best friends in college.

Hermie (favoritism incoming pt.2):

On the tail end of a ‘Trying to Emulate Hermie 1.0’ Phase. Planning on studying Theatre. Will eventually do so while learning to DJ for an ‘easy’ side gig.

Hermie by senior year, like mentioned above, is on the tail end of a “trying to emulate Hermie 1.0” phase and starting the journey he’ll go through in college of self discovery and separating himself from Hermie 1.0 and becoming something fully his own… he can’t seem to let go of Normal though. The feelings Hermie 1.0 had for normal that reside within him are still there, throbbing like a heart beat in the back of his mind. He wants to help him, he has always wanted to help him, but he doesn’t know how. Hopefully being there is enough.

In the end, it wasn't. Normal stays the night the day of the graduation, but when Hermie awakes, he's no longer there. Only two days too late does he learn that their dear friend left San Dimas for good.

Thanks for reading !! As a treat, I'll reveal some things:

I'm working on and wrapping up a small, about 10 second Oakworthy animation that I've shown of a bit over on Twitter

I really really really want to make an animation to the song Lonely Gift by Kevin Atwater exploring Normal and Hermie's relationship in Senior Year and that "want" was the main inspiration for me doing these designs (and now that they're done, I can start storyboarding !!)

That comic I posted a few nights ago, "Escape", takes place during Senior Year and the "Teeny" and "Joker" are sort of daydreams Normal has in his head very commonly when he's by himself. (here's another doodle of them i posted on Twitter)

That's all!! Back to the void I go...

[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

[saessenach]

Thinking many thoughts about Miss Andarateia Cantori tonight because what do you mean we get to be in her house for the entire game, in which she and her boyfriend/partner-in-crime run a gambling den, assassin guild ANd find the time to argue with the public administration while opposing a military occupation?? who does it like her??

Joke aside, I think she's an incredibly fun character, and I'm really happy that hers was the lens through which we saw the Crows this game. Whenever I see random posts and critiques commenting that the Crows were too "sanitised" or "found-family", I want to yell a bit, because DATV never claims that to be the case!! Obviously everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but what we see is anchored in a very specific context: not just Treviso under Antaam occupation, but also the Cantori Diamond, which falls under Teia's jurisdiction.

She's an elven orphan turned Guildmaster and Talon, who desperately wanted to find family in the Crows! While the other Talons resisted her attempts at every step (some more succesfully than others ksks), that implies 1) her approach towards her own House was probably not dissimilar and 2) it got her the Talon position in her 20s. Ergo, her modus operandi was probably fairly successful.

For all that she threatens to evict anyone who treats her like a landlord (lol), the Diamond is very much a reflection of her as a character. It's all completely in line with both her general characterisation in 8 Little Talons and with the point she reaches at the end of that story when confronting Emil. I don't think it's a coincidence that out of our two POVs in 8LT, she's the one discussing Crow ideology with their would-be-murderer:

and

and

Following this particular set-up, of course orphans like Jacobus are treated kindly; of course fledglings have time to gossip in quiet corners while training; of course she helps the Dellamortes however she can?? She decided these people are family to her, and she wants to do better by them than what she got. This is wildly compelling to me personally, because she's such a delightful mix of idealism and disillusionment, honesty and manipulation, compassion and retribution - and she's so fucking obstinate about it!!!

There's also the little connection with the Crows' beginnings, specifically in Treviso. Iirc, it's mentioned in 8LT that her base is Rialto (she's also got gardens there), so a part of me wonders whether the Diamond was an inherited property from a previous Cantori Talon, or whether she got it up and running between then and the events of the game. I think that between that little tibdbit and with Lucanis being named First Talon at the end of the game, it's pretty obvious that the theme of rebirth is very much the point in the Crows' plotline - a messy, hopeful and spiteful rebirth.

All of this is to say, what we get doesn't at all negate the other aspects we've seen from the Crows in previous games, but rather puts them into perspective. The game just goes on to ask - isn't there another way to do this? what else is there room for us to be? is there any chance we might find some kindness in this world? and one of the ways these answers are explored is through Teia's character (we start this series with Zevran's story within the Antivan Crows - an elven orphan bought from a brothel, who doesn't have the power to change this guild, and end with Lucanis, Viago and Teia, who is, specifically, an elven orphan picked up (?) from the streets, who remains one of the powerhouses of the organisation. I love a bit of narrative symmetry ✨)

And honestly, I find this entire thing delightful - it's cheeky and dramatic and a lot of fun, and it makes sense for these characters, if you only sit with it for a second and give it a bit of thought!

(PS the way she draws Viago into her orbit and the way their partnership works is another rant entirely, and they drive me absolutely insane nghhh)

[shadowsofdread]

inspired by the poll about theron shan's romantic chemistry with each of the origin classes, i wanna pose a somewhat similar question because i love thinking about it. it's a big thing in the swtor fandom that people tend to write relationships between their mains of each of the origin stories, and certain trends/combinations tend to be common - namely, sith warrior & jedi knight, jedi knight & jedi consular, sith warrior & sith inquisitor, etc.

so an open question i'm putting forward for anyone to reply to is what are your favorite pairings of classes - platonically, romantically, secret third thing, antagonistically, etc. you don't have to name an "underrated" one, but my question is based more on the chemistry between the classes, like, in general as opposed to specific iterations of that class. i.e., by all means use your OCs as an example of why you like that pairing, but like. i am talking more broadly about archetypes than specific characters. does this make sense. anyway, some of mine:

sith warrior & jedi knight

you knew this one was coming. i think the SW and JK are positioned pretty well to act as foils to one another, and there's something very interesting about how the transitions between Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 of each campaign mirror each other, with the finales of their respective campaigns leaving them on opposite sides of a current or future antagonist - with the SW ending up on that same side as the JK by ziost. i've interpreted this as a shared sense of personal responsibility - through their actions, one way or another, they make the most sense for being the emperor's number one enemy, which may lead to a sort of alliance between the two characters, depending how you spin it. or, hey, maybe your sith warrior is actually loyal to the emperor even still, at least until they are ultimately betrayed by valkorion. in which case, lifelong, bitter enemies. where maybe they should've had a common cause, maybe the pieces should've been there all along for them to fight together, but against all sanity and reason, the SW chooses again and again to stand by vitiate/valkorion.

sith warrior & imperial agent

next to SW&JK, this is the dynamic i keep coming back to over and over again - there's a reason why taizi's met most of @tiredassmage's agents. it's also the one i have the hardest time explaining why i like so much. there's the appeal of like ... hypercompetent pairing with vastly different skills but very good at those skills. it's kind of like a variation on what scratches my brain about SW & quinn in that there's a lot of toying around you can do with sith/imperial power dynamics - made even more interesting depending on the type of agent you're playing, and regardless an agent who has had their literal brain fucked with by the dark council, i.e. the castellan restraints.

sith warrior & jedi consular

listen. have i actually gotten to use this one much in the "playing blorbo barbies with my friends" sphere? not exactly. it's a very new one that i'm still rotating, and i don't know how to explain what it is i like about it but i really, really want to see more of it. i think it could be delicious, brent. please let your warriors and your consulars talk to each other more. one thing i will put forward is i think SW & JC scratches a similar itch to SW & JK to me, but in, like, a slightly different font? i dunno, man. i just wanna see it more.

honorable mentions:

jedi consular OR jedi knight & trooper: it's like jedi / clone trooper but without the ethical issues and cognitive dissonance! /lh

sith inquisitor & jedi consular: could be taken so many different ways, i just don't think enough about SI to do much with it

imperial agent & jedi knight: only really seen a few iterations - two of them being my own - but like. something in here's really fucking good.

[notademon10]

UT/DR THEORY: HOW THE HUMAN SHIRTS MARK PURPOSE

.....So, have you ever wondered why Kris wears a Chara shirt ? Some of you might think it's obviously because Kris *IS* Chara. Others might say it's just a red herring or it's to signify how, one way or another, Kris is a fusion of Frisk and Chara. After all, Kris is the Dark World has Frisk's colors, as opposed to the Light World !

The thing is, Kris isn't the only human we're shown in Deltarune, we have another.

The vessel.

And interestingly enough, they have TWO stripes, like Frisk. Making a nice symetry between our vessel and Kris. That's nice !

Actually, it kinda reminds me that the vessel is our puppet, kinda how Frisk was.

Perhaps they may even be the true human hero.

Note that "Kris" isn't called by name.

And Kris seems to be in Chara's shoes.

...but there's more to this than that. Because the vessel isn't somebody we created, at least not fully.

When Gaster asks us to tell him how we feel about our vessel, he notes that it will not hear. Why should be worried about that ? Unless the vessel has a mind of it's own. A mind I very much believe we already met, in a different time.

Time and time again, they will appear.

No matter when.

No matter where.

The demon that comes when we call it's name.

Fun fact: the Vessel specifically has a max letter name of *9*, Chara's favorite number !, While your name can go up to 12 letters.

So, the vessel is the "Chara" of Deltarune. I would go as far to say that they ARE Chara. Why do I think this?, Well, I would like to bring attention towards the RED trait:

If Chara IS the demon that comes when you call it's name, then they are ALWAYS that demon. So when you name the vessel, you are ALWAYS calling Chara. The only way this can happen is if the Vessel is the Deltarune version of Chara.

But the problem is that KRIS already has Chara traits like affinity for knives, chocolate, and the focus of this post: their shirt. And the vessel has a shirt simiar to Frisk as well. . .

These two humans are mixes of Frisk and Chara in one way or another. So.... What traits are with who ?

Well, let's start with the shirts. Because there's something else I want to bring to the table. You see... There's another (?) human that is key to this point, one that most people don't like to talk about.

This THING. "chara", in the files.

Contrary to popular belief, this isn't Kris, as the skin is not similar. At least not Deltarune's incarnation of them. They are ALSO not beta Frisk, given how Frisk already had their design back when the demo released. And this is ALSO not beta Chara, given how Chara's design appeared as a mistake Temmie made early on, when she drew Frisk with one stripe.

This human is not a mistake. In all likelyhood, this was intentionally hidden for people to find in the files, much like Entry 17.

They only appear in debug as a reflection... And have a two striped shirt, like the vessel and Frisk. A literal reflection of them. I believe they are THE VESSEL, and by extention, Deltarune Chara. A younger version of them, pre-gonered. Although, they do seem to have no facial features, much like our goner. The difference in skin color and hair color can very much be explained by the possibility that Chara spent quite a while living in a cave deprived of sunlight, as well as the fact that the way they appeared in geno is supposed to look like a corpse.

This Chara has traits that Frisk has in Undertale, but which?

There's two options here: either these roles are based on their respective routes, and/or their role in UT in general. Let me explain: the only route in which Chara actively appears and interacts with Undertale's world is in genocide, the route where you increase ALL of the stats that Chara represents, and the mirror narration compares you to them with "It's me, Chara", as opposed to "Still just you, Frisk" in pacifist. In geno, Chara erases the world, while in pacifist, you take the role of hero. Do you see where I'm going with this? This could parallel how the Vessel is the hero, and how Kris might just cover the world in darkness one way or another.

There's also the other option, which plays on the role the humans have throught the entire game. Frisk's role was being the player's puppet, and we outright designed the Vessel to be whatever we choose, and to be the main character of the story, before being discarded. As I've already pointed out, there's a good chance our goner is the actual human hero, while Kris is must fulfill whatever role Chara had in UT, although Kris doesn't enjoy the weird route at all, so they don't represent the LV part of Chara. So what OTHER role did Chara have, that would be connected to Frisk's role one way or another?

I think Chara is the Narrator.

(Graph made by the ever brilliant @under-lore)

I understand if this theory sounds flimsy but it's not. As we can see here, the narrator PROGRESSES along with Frisk during the entirety of the game. Why would Toby put a bunch of insults in the narration, only for him to progressivly make them more infrequent until Snowdin, if not for NarraChara?

There's also THIS, in which the narrator DIRECTLY asks Frisk if they didn't laugh, after almost ranting about laughing until tears start forming. Where did this come from, if not from an entity that is neither Frisk nor us ?

The narrator very likely isn't just a representation of the game or smth given how it still shows signs of having it's own personality, like with the fact that the text you get by hitting with hitting the dummy with higher LV stops using "you", and says things like "Feels good" or "Who cares?", as well as the show puff descriptions, ending with the narrator sarcastingly asking us what they even are, or the licorice flavored candy, etc.

A bunch of the stuff Chara shouldn't know already is a thing even without NarraChara, given that you NEED to kill Snowdrake in order for geno to continue, even if you've never encountered him. Or how Chara can still feel how many monsters are left in Waterfall....

So, for the sake of this theory, CHARA is the narrator in UT. But there's a problem, and it's that DR doesn't have a diagetic narrator. So, how DOES this role of Chara's translate into Kris...?

Well, we need to think of something more broad, thematically coherent with Frisk's original role...

What about, let's say, a STORYTELLER ?

Dark fountains are allegories for fiction, so however creates them is, in a way, a writer. With this in mind, it's clear that Kris HAS this role, not just of the creator of chapter 3's dark fountain, but as the ROARING KNIGHT themself.

Now, this DOES bring up an issue. I've said that the VESSEL is our puppet, while Kris has another role. How then, is Kris NOT our puppet ? They even parallel Spamton!

Well, Kris IS our puppet, in a sense, but not our true puppet. This is because we don't have as much control over them as you might think. We can't stop Kris from saving Susie. We can't stop Kris from taking out our SOUL. It's only through Noelle that our choices matter. Everything else has little consequence, and cannot project ourselves into them as much as we'd like.

There's also somethimg very peculiar. The upcoming Twisted Sword LOWERS the Trance effect. The same effect that Noelle had in the weird route. Why ? It doesn't seem as if Kris actually LIKED the massacre at all, so this isn't lowering THEIR trance. In the other hand, if the Vessel DOES represent the LV part of Chara, either because if Kris didn't represent it, then it would, or just because it IS Chara, then you would already have no problem with grinding darkners. Unless, the trance effect lowers for... Us?

Think about it, we are effectivly reduced to spectators in the normal route, having many of our own decisions denied, simply following what others want. Kris is a puppet to us, but we may as well be a puppet to not just Kris, but the world. Perhaps by being in Kris' body we have this effect, and the clashing wills cancel each other.

So the Vessel is Chara in the pupeteer role that Frisk had in UT, and if you couldn't guess it, I believe Kris is Frisk in the storyteller role Chara had in UT.

There's one thing I've HAVE to talk about before I end this post.

This is the description of "Important Person (Kris)'s Shirt"

How could this tie into the theory..?

Perhaps, their love could be referring to the stories they make become yours. In a way, UT no mercy becomes a story in which killing monsters is encouredged, given how the supposedly objective narrator starts going off the rails and counting how many victims are left, even if they have regrets regarding the Dreemurr family.

In Deltarune, the perspective shifts yet again, and the Cyber World starts having frozen traffic lights even before Noelle freezes her first puzzle. The weird route alters Kris' story, to the point Lancer and Roulx Kaard turn to stone much earlier than they're supposed to.

To be blunt, this is the weakest point for the theory, and has stronger connections with the puppet role anyways. Unless the pattern isn't just referring to Chara and Kris, but Frisk and the Vessel as well.

There's also a much simpler explanation: it is tied to their main trait: LOVE. Basically, Papyrus implies in a phone call in Hotland in elevator L3 that Love is a cartoony fiery red human heart, so that makes me think that Love is the Red trait, which as I've already mentioned is associated with being oneself. Therefore, this could be saying that what makes you you, and what makes Kris them, becomes indistinguishible. As well as stating that Kris' relationships become yours.

[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.

[crimsoneveline]

Toukouga Istar is a trans woman

In volume 26 (and 27) of the sword art online light novel we get introduced to a new antagonist:

Toukouga Istar! (who I will choose to address with she/her, since I believe her to be a trans woman. same as using she/her for kirito)

Short recap: Eolyne and Kirito travel to admina (the second planet in the underworld), infiltrate a secret base there, and encounter the person in charge of the facility: "Your Excellency" or rather Toukouga Istar

Recap out of the way, this is her:

Yeah I am calling it, that (upper half) is a trans woman! And I believe she will be vital in cracking Kirito's egg.

Kirito's description of her

richly flowing black hair;sharp, thin bridge of her nose; taller than Kirito and Eolyne:

husky voice:

cold, delicate beauty, fanciful lashes, lipstick, blue eyes with streaks of silver:

reddish highlights:

(plus a bunch more 'beauty' comments from kirito!)

While Kirito can't make out her gender, to us it should be clearer: This is someone presenting heavyly feminine, at least in the aspects she can control. Let's list them with that in mind:

things that are hard to change: her height (bigger then Kirito), her voice (husky)

things that are easy to change/something you do on purpose: long flowing hair, reddish highlights, fanciful lashes, crimson lipstick

So the first category is what leads Kirito to not know how to gender her in one direction and the second one in the other direction! (Well voice being a bit in between)

(It is also deliberate that Kirito does not take these first points to gender her male, compare to Lagi's descritpion of her vol. 27. More to that later in this.) (Kirito at one point called her "perfectly androgynous" but look at the picture at the top: that's a beautiful trans girl!)

Of course it is just as important to note how absolutely entranced Kirito is by Istar's beauty.

But what about the name "Istar"?

"but I doubt there’s a connection" and other lies

So Kirito brings up the similarity's to the "mesopotanian goddess Ishtar":

I'm just gonna quote this little info @gloochi send me:

Ishtar had both feminine and masculine features, and she's also often conflated with the goddess Inana, who had a hymn dedicated to her with this interesting quote: "To turn a man into a woman and a woman into a man are yours, Inana."

So to me is supposed to point us the readers to the conclusion that Toukouga Istar has cracked her egg and is a trans woman! (sure, she could be a "gnc man" but that is the cowards way)

But can you even do that in the underworld? With it's curse of the right eye on the people?

Well...

Toukouga Istar has cracked The seal of the right eye!

So the first indication is the general amount of disobedience necessary to even rebel in the first place.

Then we have the amount of guards placed in the secret base (which usually is not necessary)

But all that pales in the face of this simple line:

"You won’t beat me unless you can overcome." and overcome what? The seal of course!

And Istar is extremely skilled in incarnation, so changing your looks should be easy! And look at this particular instance of Kirito calling her beautiful:

Hmmm, what is special about the beauty of the administrator? She made herself that way! So it is not much of a jump that Istar also made herself beautiful on purpose! (Again, hair,lips, and eyelashes point towards a feminine presentation.)

now for contrast:

Lagi's description in vol 27

Notice how Lagi:

A: does not hesitate to gender Istar male

B: calls her stunningly beautiful, but is much less obsessed then Kirito

C: seems to remember Istar's face, but not enough to map it to someone

Now from A you could deduct that Istar is not a woman. And you would be completely wrong!

To me it makes more sense to read this as someone only seeing the clocky parts of someone early in her transition.

Though from Lagi's description of Istar's lips ("pale lips") it could also be that Istar is boymoding here! (Especially with the hat, as opposed to no hat on the base.)

With point B we have a nice contrast to Kirito's complete obsession with Istar's features. (Which highlights her obsession of course!)

And C points towards Istar having changed her face from the original. Like if you started hrt and someone who knew you long ago kinda recognizes your face!

But we have one more part at the end when Kirito swoops in to save Eolyne:

Lagi calls Kirito enigmatic, just like Kirito called Istar beautiful and enigmatic at the beginning of vol 27:

So with all this I hope my reading of Istar as a trans woman is compelling to you.

And the parallels to Kirito are there either way (enigmatic, the long coat). So I am sure Istar will play a strong role in cracking Kirito's egg!

[morlock-holmes]

I guess my position on Israel is heavily influenced by my position on the Native American nations within the US, which are operated as small ethnostates (They absolutely qualify based on the way most of you use the term ethnostate) which are sovereign but in many ways subordinate to the US federal government.

Unlike these nations, Israel persists partly through force of arms; the Native American nations would not be able to forcibly resist the US Army if the US decided to dissolve them.

Wikipedia tells me that the Cherokee Nation is the largest, with around 455,000 enrolled members, meaning that they make up one tenth of one percent of the US population.

The United States that surround the Cherokee Nation are not operated as an ethnostate; every once and a while a Republican gets a bee in his bonnet about this fact and says we ought to dissolve all these little ethnostates and just absorb everybody into the US as US citizens.

Opposition to this is largely rooted into the fact that Cherokee (Like all native populations) *do* have some collective interests, but they represent such a small part of the population that the practical result of dissolving the Cherokee Nation would be to make them vulnerable to things like, say, gerrymandering. It would be extremely easy for the white majority to override them in all sorts of ways.

Ask the tribes that aren't recognized by the federal government how freeing it is to have the privilege of being a minority diaspora in a non-ethnostate.

Land isn't really fungible. How can I say this... Our attachment to it often goes beyond simple ownership. I don't own Mt Hood, or Wy'East, whichever name you prefer, but I have an attachment to it.

Come to think of it, I actually don't own any land, anywhere. So if suddenly all rents in the city tripled I'd simply be pushed out of the city I have lived in for most of my life, and away from my family.

The take that "individuals can own land, not races" strikes me as not so much wrong as deeply glib and inadequate. Among other things, it suggests that since I don't have the capital to own land, I don't have any social or moral claim to the land I reside on, that to the extent that the forces of capital shift me around, that is just and that I have no basis to object; if I wanted to have a say in where I was or who I was close to it was up to me to buy land.

And I am part of a majority population! If I and a bunch of other people I know are priced out of Portland, that wouldn't represent the scattering of a linguistic group; I could rely on still finding people who speak English, share my religion or lack thereof, etc.

Being part of a minority diaspora creates a lot of issues and I still don't like the sort of glib dismissal of it that I see around.

Also, like, I'm in close proximity to a bunch of little ethnostates that, quite frankly, do not seem to be inherently destructive and I do not think dissolving them would be a great thing. It's hard, in the circumstances, for me to be totally opposed to their existence.

[diminuel]

Headcannon Scenario: How would the alabaster arc have played out if Crocodile had found out Luffy was his son during the arc? Would he be forced to change his 10-year plan? Would he have avoided fighting Luffy and the straw hats altogether, or would he not have given an F and continued the takeover as planned? You seem to understand crocodiles character pretty well.

I wouldn't say that I understand his character all that well, I'm just speculating based on what we saw of him and others probably do it better! But I'm happy to take your confidence in my Croc-analysis skills *lol*

But the outcome of your scenario depends on one main question: how did the separation from Luffy happen - does he know Luffy's name, Dragon's full name, where Luffy grew up? Also, connected to that: is his wish to have enough power to oppose the World Government in any way tied to Luffy (and/or Dragon)?

So it's really difficult to give scenarios with so many variables...!

Some options under the cut. I can expand on things if you let me know what you want me to imagine ;3

Scenario 1: he gave up Luffy because he didn't want to have a child and knows nothing about him. His ambition was too strong, the need for power too great to be held back by something like a child or ineffective dreamers like Dragon. If there's any anger and resentment in him regarding his pregnancy and the child (or its father) then I'm not sure he would have cared. Because this child was nothing to him. An obstacle he had overcome 17 years ago. An obstacle he would overcome again now. Just another hopeless dreamer who was too weak for the Grandline. Just like he had been, before he had turned his eye to real power. Effective power. But I think he would have been disappointed if his own flesh and blood would amount to so little, die too quickly. I think once Luffy has escaped death twice, Crocodile would start being intrigued and he might have recognized himself or Dragon in him during one of the fights. By the time they're in he mausoleum for their last battle, when Crocodile's plans were already starting to crack and fall apart (but not fully, he could still get the throne and figure it out from there), he did acknowledge him and maybe he think it'd be a bit of a shame to put an end to the kid's life here. A shame, but Crocodile's never been the sentimental type. He says but he didn't deal Robin or Luffy a decisive killing blow, missed vital organs, didn't drain him of all life, used poison with a known antidote. (Though maybe he's a bit sentimental because when they meet again he protects him. Might snark to him about the truth which Iva would understand, Luffy probably not. To Luffy it might sound like something along the lines of "you beat me, now I'm yours" as if Crocodile was just another wild animal to tame. *lol* He probably wouldn't get it until quite a bit later.

Scenario 2: he gave up Luffy because he had plans that he couldn't see through if he had to worry about the child. Additionally we might imagine that his plans are in alignment with Dragon's goal but they fundamentally disagree about what they're willing to sacrifice for it and therefore broke off contact. Crocodile didn't look into Dragon's business, Dragon kept his nose out of Alabasta even though - technically - Dragon should have sent people to investigate this kind of rebellion. That's what the RA is there for after all.

So Crocodile doesn't know anything beyond the things he would have known because he was there (day of birth, where he had been born) but due to Dragon's worry about the child being discovered Crocodile expected him to be moved around, hidden better. I'm not entirely sure what information Crocodile gets about Luffy (I vaguely recall him looking at his wanted poster with a "never heard of him" reaction but I can't find it. Must have either been in the anime or a flash back I can't place). But since Luffy appears in Vivi's orbit so close to Crocodile's plans, he might look into him a bit more. And if he gets East Blue, Goa Kingdom, birthday and maybe even just the last name, he'd know who that kid it.

I don't know when he would do that additional research, but even if he does it only once Luffy's in Alabasta I can't really see him stopping what he's doing, but I don't think he'd want to kill Luffy. Even if he personally has no feelings towards this child, this is Dragon's son. I don't think he'd be so at odds with Dragon that he'd want to punish Luffy for it. So he would probably just lock him up and continue his plans (no flooded secret base, just everyone locked up, including Vivi). But Luffy keeps getting out of any time out he puts Luffy in, burning with the desire to kick Crocodile's ass. Clearly, this guy has Dragon's frustrating idealism, and paired with Crocodile's stubbornness and selfishness, he knows Luffy's not going to stay down. The final battle in the mausoleum still happens and Crocodile loses (partially because Luffy was never severely wounded, while Crocodile's abilities to fight him were limited to non lethal attacks. And Crocodile most likely didn't use poison on him, might also just have knocked out Robin instead of hurting her severely).

So I think the only difference would be that Crocodile wouldn't try to kill the kid, but he wouldn't tell him anything and he would still continue his plan because he got so far he's not going to stop now.

Maybe Luffy would have wondered just why Crocodile never fought him with the intention to kill and Crocodile might have also refrained from villain speeches in Luffy's presence. He would probably have been cold and rational in the things he would have said, making him and his motives very hard to grasp. Robin would definitely have recognized a change in demeanor. She had never been upset about his casual cruelty, nor had she opposed to anything because the ends (getting to read the Poneglyph) justified the means, so why was he changing track, so close to the finish line?

I don't know if Crocodile would tell her anything, I doubt it, because he doesn't trust her after all. But Robin might figure out that there's a connection to Luffy based on him gathering more info on Luffy, the uncharacteristically tense reaction he might have had to him as well as the change in demeanor around Luffy. Luffy is somehow a weakness and maybe Robin would see to it that Luffy got out of his prisons because if Crocodile was distracted that gave her a better chance to escape once she saw the Poneglyph.

Luffy would probably be less antagonistic towards Crocodile when he saw him again in Marineford, still puzzled by him and his instant offer to help him escape. Maybe on the way to the battle they'd talk a bit but maybe all Crocodile would say is that he recognized him as Dragon's son and that they were... "friends" once. "No longer" he'd probably hurry to add when Luffy looked like he assumed that meant Dragon was also in the kingdom stealing, making princesses unhappy business. And meanwhile Iva's in the background doing maths and sweating X3

Scenario 3: Crocodile didn't raise Luffy to keep him safe and he's looking for Pluton because he thinks that this is what they need to free the world of the WG's control. He wants his kid to be free, he wants his family back and he's willing to do what it takes.

In this setting it's possible that Dragon and Crocodile have stayed with Luffy for a bit (just not long enough for Luffy to actually remember them) so Crocodile would know his name and what he looked like, at least as a toddler, but he would have said good-bye to him by the time he moved to Alabasta (when Luffy was around 3).

Would Crocodile still have made the same plan? Take over a country to potentially get the location of a weapon? Or would his plan have been different, merely exploiting and exacerbating a problem that already existed (droughts, Cobra's maybe well-meaning but short-sighted dealing with it, tension and frustration turning into rebellions)?

Whatever the case, the moment Crocodile hears that Luffy is not only on the Grandline, but has also met Vivi, knows he's behind BW AND is apparently wanting to help the princess save the kingdom, he's alarmed. He's not sure if he should be relieved or anxious when Robin tells him that they're on route to Little Garden. He doesn't want Vivi anywhere near Alabasta, he also doesn't want his kid there, not now. So he's torn between sending people to distract them and sending them to capture them. And things fail and Luffy suddenly is in the same place as him, for the first time in over 10 years.

And if a part of the reason why Crocodile's trying to get Pluton is to protect his kid, he can't just forge on with his plans if Luffy does actually stand in his way. What's the point of hurting his kid to get a weapon so his kid doesn't get hurt?

If he still has Dragon's number, he might call him. This might be the one scenario where things turn out differently, with Crocodile actually changing his plans. But it won't be easy. These are plans 14 years in the making. He's prepared every little detail, it would have been perfect. Using the distraction of a revolution to grab the king, find the Poneglyph, be the hero of Alabasta one more time by stopping the fighting, bringing back the rain, then find Pluton. (No dance powder, no bomb, no regicide - Dragon might not want him back if he sacrificed too much for his goals.)

But I think Luffy might mess up even Utopia Lite. The kid doesn't stay trapped (as in the scenario above) which means that he might have to fight and throw him into a time out again at least once. Though if Luffy did spend his early childhood with his parents, he might recognize him too once he gets close enough to grab him, to throw a punch through his sands. Maybe not his face or his voice but the warmth, the smell, the feeling of sand trickling through his fingers, the cadence of Crocodile's laugh. It might give him pause too, long enough to be put into another trap to keep him from interfering. Suddenly, kicking Crocodile's ass has become... difficult. In ways a battle hasn't been difficult before. He can't even fully explain why. Nothing's changed, has it? He's still the evil warlord who's going to steal Vivi's country.

I don't think there's any way out of it that doesn't involve Crocodile having to take the fall and getting arrested, losing his Warlord status. Because even if he withdraws his powers and lets it rain, thus stopping the rage of the rebels for long enough for the king or Vivi to give a passionate kingdom unifying speech, he still built up this drama for his own gains. And he won't even have gained anything because Robin won't tell him what's really on the Poneyglyph even though he knows for sure that it contains the directions to Pluton.

They'd make it out without the big fight, with considerably less heartache. Maybe Vivi herself would be surprised that this was not the high stakes take down of an evil monster that has poisoned her kingdom from the inside out for years and years that she had expected. Crocodile was not the kind of evil villain that she had imagined him to be the last two years.

I think this scenario would make it possible for Luffy to be glad to see Crocodile again in Impel Down. Because by then he would have known what the warmth and longing he felt was. Maybe Robin even found an old picture that Crocodile had kept when she raided his base before making her escape and deciding that she should better follow Luffy and see where it takes her.

So yes, those are some options. As mentioned above, I think the reason why he would have left Luffy would change how he would behave and how he would have schemed in the first place.

[nausikaaa]

Six Sentence Sunday

thanks for tagging me @that-disabled-princess @roomwithanopenfire and @artsyunderstudy! i made a pedantic post about the ides of march last year so now my notifications are flooded and i almost missed the tags! people are always surprised, based on my novel, that my actual favourite historical period was the early Roman empire. i'm obsessed with the Julio-Claudians.

i'm still sick, fml, but i got a small flash of inspiration last night and grabbed it by the horns, and managed to wrangle about 4000 words out of it!

here's some Polyxena, with context, under the cut. and lamb photos.

if you don't know, Polyxena was the youngest daughter of Priam and Hecabe, the king and queen of Troy. Achilles fell in love with her (or just wanted to assault her, depending on the telling), so she made sure she was seen entering a temple, and he followed. when he entered, guard down, Paris shot him in the heel, killing him.

after Troy fell, Achilles's ghost demanded that she be sacrificed to him to be his wife in the underworld. despite the fact that he already had a) a living wife, Deidamia, b) another sacrificed child bride, Iphigenia, and c) a war bride, Briseis. greedy git.

interestingly, the person to most strongly oppose this sacrifice was Agamemnon, who most people regard as being the Absolute Worst. maybe having been strongarmed into sacrificing his own daughter (the previously mentioned Iphigenia), he didn't want another parent to suffer the same? it's a surprisingly sympathetic moment for a usually very unsympathetic character.

Polyxena leaned in and kissed her mother's cheek, then stood. She smoothed her dress, ran her fingers through her hair, and stepped forward, the picture of bravery.

Days ago she was a mere child, crying at having witnessed Achilles die. Now she stood like a woman, ready to face her own death, to walk down to Hades and meet the warrior again. Her veil was already charred, her marital bed was a pyre. I did not think she would play the role of meek and obedient wife that Achilles hoped for.

Polyxena went nobly to her sacrifice, saying she preferred death to slavery. here's a short story i love about one possibility of her afterlife.

however, her mother Hecabe (more commonly called Hecuba but that is the roman name, i don't use it) went somewhat mad with grief. after also discovering that her youngest son Polydorus, who had been sent away to his sister's husband's kingdom where he would presumably be safe, had also been killed, she gouged out the eyes of said husband who killed him, and murdered his own two sons (with a different woman so not her grandkids at least) so he would understand what she felt.

later, the gods got sick of hearing her curse her fate and transformed her into a dog. in some accounts Odysseus then killed her (this is the version i go with, my Odysseus is the worst to counteract the apologism i keep seeing for him lmao), but in others she was adopted by Hecate, the goddess of witchcraft (i do also like this one... maybe she swoops in and rescues her at the last second?), and in yet another she travelled with Pyrrhus and Helenus, and when she died of old age was buried at a place known as Bitch's Tomb. because she was a female dog, not because... okay well a bit to be honest, but she went through a lot. i support her.

anyway. lamb blast! we currently have 19 lambs to 9 ewes, so an over 200% success rate, with 7 left to go. most of them are now outside enjoying the less than ideal british weather. i posted a cute video of them here too.

and bonus Lucy, who refuses to indicate to me whether she is even pregnant at all after coming back around in season FOUR TIMES. i suppose i'll found out in June. it was supposed to be may, but there's no scheduling around goats.

tagging @forabeatofadrum @cutestkilla @run-for-chamo-miles @prettygoododds @bookish-bogwitch @youarenevertooold @noblecorgi @orange-peony @larkral @confused-bi-queer @aristocratic-otter @thewholelemon @alexalexinii @hushed-chorus @you-remind-me-of-the-babe @martsonmars @meanjeansjeans @leithillustration @j-trow-95 @blackberrysummerblog @monbons and @bookishbroadwayandblind

[theladyragnell]

Congrats on the novel draft!!! I've come to chum the ask game waters with various off-the-wall Tortall next gen ideas, no pressure to pick up all of them:

Considering you've done so much with Neal, I'd be so curious to know if you'd ever be interested in writing a Jessamine fic? I'm not opposed to AUs where she goes for knighthood either instead of/with Neal, but I almost wonder if it would be more interesting to have her pursue more of a healer's path (Neal takes up his brothers' role, and Jessamine takes up Neal's). The gender play there is perhaps a bit more complicated, since I find magic to be, if anything, female-coded, but not by any means the 'proper' sort of femininity that a noblewoman is supposed to pursue! Especially cool I think if Jessamine doesn't just go the typical university route here.

My other thought is what you might do with any of the, well, sort of "textually missing but quasi-canonically existing" page boys, the sons of people like Gary/Cythera and Corram/Rispah, who really probably should have been at page training with Kel, but never appear on-page. On one hand, they're a blank slate for wholesome brotherly figures, but on the other, it could be cool to explore divergences between the next gen and their parents through them. Which is to say: what if they were bystanders to Kel's bullying? Or worse, what if Joren wasn't from a new fief, but rather Naxen or, irony of ironies, Trebond? The latter is so evil but I do like interplay between new nobles choosing progressivism vs. conservatism to shore up their shaky class standing... Your fics do class-through-marriage-politics it would be interesting to see how that stuff shakes out in other contexts.

Because I'm me, and have no shame about fishing for your lore, Elwene of Tirragen fic? How long can you use femininity to escape the shadow of your uncle before you trip head-first into the Delia of Eldorne trap?

Finally, Conté or Pirate's Swoop kid free space, but honestly I'm low key curious if you would ever write the (inevitable? tragic? legendary) Conté/Pirate's Swoop family romance arc and, if so, with whom? Hang on that's not a premise it's a prompt, so let's go rapid-fire: Lianne/Alan (bog standard love-doomed-by-the-necessity-of-political-marriage narrative), Vania/Thom (mage4mage? but maybe Thom's magical style is much more Conté-coded, builder of the realm, and Vania is a loose canon always trying to do dangerous great workings? you could also go lavender marriage here?), and for a real wildcard... Jasson/Alan (youngest son complex? named after the worst family member out of all our siblings which is saying something complex?).

This got SO long sorry!! Again no pressure to pick up on all of it :)

Tortall next gen messy business is SO fun!

I'd not thought of doing a Jessamine fic before--a healer's path makes sense for her, but I also very much like the thought of, mm, duchies are big and complicated to run, and Baird and now Neal have tangled themselves up with a LOT of other duties and seem to keep their spouses with them, which means probably younger siblings are going to get involved! So Jessamine needs a match with someone who is worthy of a duke's daughter but either isn't going to inherit his own title or doesn't mind splitting time, which is a fun tension in a society based around patrilineal inheritance. (See also part of the reason it's hard to match off Maura.)

If you peek, Jonthair of Trebond is is around a wee bit in one or two of my fics! And truly, I know Pierce wrote herself into corners, but WHERE are all these implied young men. I'm a bit too weenie to write any of them as villains in Kel's story but it really is sad that they aren't around the same way it's sad Maura's not around in Kel's books.

Elwene of Tirragen! I'm not sure what I would do with her (although her marrying Gary's invisible son would certainly be a hell of a thing) but really, I had her for one sentence in the manifesto and had to restrain myself from going down a rabbit hole.

And man, yeah, some Conte/Pirate's Swoop stuff would be fascinating but I've never quite found my way in on it! Like, I imagine Thom Jr. spent some time pining after Kally, but she'd be too smart to encourage that. Alan and Jasson is a VERY fun combination, though, of the options you threw out there I think that's where I'd be most likely to go. I have not introduced enough queerness to Tortall! (Says the woman, in all fairness, who wrote 70k of polyamory.)

[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.

[falloulex]

Can you give us more descriptions about the casino? And mayhaps some headcanons about how our ocs and characters interact with it? <3

Regarding Alex's casino,

I don't have a lot of details or solid plans about how it will look or function in the story,

Right now, I'm calling it the "King's Crown Casino", although I don't know if that's permanent or not yet.

I liked the idea that the color palate is lots of black, and grey, and purple, I think that palate is kind of fitting of the vibe Alex himself would give off.

When Alex delivered Evangeline (@skyrim-crossing) to the Lucky 38, House offered him a reward, and Alex requested that House help rebuild the casino with the aid of the Securitrons

After some arguing about improper utilization of securitron models, House eventually relented at the request of his daughter, and The King's Crown was rebuilt, the top floor renovated into Alex's personal workspace, and the warehouse redesigned (without House's help or knowledge) to serve as the base of operations for Alex's raider activities.

He keeps the raider and casino businesses separate, for all intents and purposes the Casino's work is extremely professional and 'legal' (if legality is even a concept that has any meaning in this new world)

The casino itself sits on the way to Freeside, but far enough away that most caravanners and travelers use it as a rest stop before continuing their journey, as such as it has all the amenities that a good rest stop has - there's restaurants, there's a mall, kind-of, sort-of, it's a small handful of opened shops selling the bare essentials, weapons, ammo, armor, food, chems, so on and so forth, but a vast majority of this mall is closed off and abandoned.

It tends to cater more towards the average wastelander, as opposed to most of the casinos in New Vegas that thrive on glitz and glamour,

The showroom mostly has the same cast of characters, a couple singers and actors doing their own thing mostly unsupervised, but that also means that they lack any true vision in what they are doing, so it's not the most popular aspect of the casino.

As far as security goes, Alex spares no expense, he has automated turrets at every entrance and on every side of the building, and due to his close friendship with The King, that faction oftentimes serves as hired guards, and when the King needs a break from the stresses of Freeside, he has a nice fancy suite in the Casino's hotel.

There's an indoor pool if you don't mind the rads, the purification systems are on their last legs, and until Evangeline eventually takes it upon herself to fix them so she can experience a clean shower again, Alex just kinda leaves em to rot away.

(This requires some context, after the death of Frank Horrigan in Fallout 2, the Chosen One is given a quest to bring his body parts to a merchant to sell as memoribilia. Alex got his hands on Horrigan's helmet, and it is his prized jewel, kept in a heavily guarded display in the game room.

The Casino has an 'inner circle' of people who take care of most of the responsibilities while Alex is away, they're something of a family of their own, with each member having dedicated tasks; one handles the merchants, one handles the gambling, one handles security, and one handles guest services and the hotel.

The showroom also serves as a psuedo-nightclub, when there aren't shows or performances happening, and the VIP booth is reserved pretty much only for Alex and his closest friends, because the price is too high to get in unless you are in the post-wasteland's 1% equivalent.

Alex's fondness of Sunset Sarsaparilla, lead to him distilling and creating an alcoholic moonshine variant of it that is sold exclusively in the Crown, aptly named "Sunshine" (this was inspired by Nukashine from 76, sue me lmao)

There's also a vintage diner right by the front door to the left when you walk in, they sell all kinds of pre-war foods made with post-war ingredients; brahmin burgers, gecko dogs, iguana on a stick (the iguana kind, not the Fallout 1 kind lmao), it's probably the most popular part of the casino, and entirely thanks to Evangeline's pre-war sassy ass being devastated that she couldn't find good burgers anywhere on the Strip.

I might add more to this and expand on the casino later, as time goes on, but for now, this is all I've got to offer,

Thank you for the question, Sugar. Love 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