#people make bad choices and then they suffer the consequences

[succumbed-to-the-void]

Everyone has their own theology but you may be interested in "When Bad Things Happen To Good People" by Harold Kushner. He basically gets around the problem of evil by saying that he doesn't think God is all-powerful and there there are some things even He can't prevent.

I'm sure many Jews would see this as heresy, but it was written by a (liberal) rabbi and I think it is a valuable voice in the conversation demonstrating that there's a wide range of beliefs within Judaism. I personally consider myself to believe in God because I feel a strong emotional connection to God, but I have very little intellectual understanding of what that actually means and I'm okay with that.

I do find some resonance in the idea that God made a choice to step back so that human beings could have freedom, and that necessarily meant withdrawing His presence from this world in such a way that suffering was a necessary consequence. However, I think the answer that resonates with me most is this: If there were an answer for why suffering exists, then we humans were never meant to know it; if we did, then the reason would seem to justify the suffering and we wouldn't be able to be present for others in their pain. In my personal view, some suffering is so great that it could never really be justified. So I don't personally find solace in the idea of God having a great plan, but I do find a lot of solace in the idea that God is on the side of the oppressed and the brokenhearted. It gives me a lot of comfort to think that God supports me and cares about me, even if for whatever reason He won't (or can't) intervene. Anyway, I think all your feelings make complete sense and I wish you the best in wherever you go with your Judaism. It's such a personal thing and there really is no one right answer about what to believe or practice.

Sorry this is kind of a heavier question, but. Religious/theistic Jews, how do you still believe in G-d? I desperately want to believe, but it's getting harder lately. My grandfather became an atheist when he saw what happened in the camps. My mother was religious until she started dating my dad, who apparently logic'd so hard he ruined religion for her. Most of my friends are atheists. It seems like I'm the only one that isn't, but I don't know. The idea that G-d has a plan is really comforting, but it seems impossible. How could He let all these things happen? I feel like G-d either doesn't exist, or He abandoned us. And yet, I still pray and thank Him and it feels so wrong to *not* do any Jewish rituals. Do any of you ever feel like this?

.

[silk-o]

You see, I can handle a well written morally grey character. The thing is... Caitlyn isn't well written

[marzipanandminutiae]

You posted about getting married young, and I just wanna say thank you? I got really lucky and met THE woman when we were 17, and engagement is in the horizon for us at 22, 23. Sometimes it gets to me when people say we're wasting our youth, it's nice having someone batting for us

Also love the pfp, carmilla fans are still alive and well and if you've got any fanfic recs lmk

Congrats! I hope it works out for you. (I would say "girl" at 17, not "woman," but I assume it's just a random word choice since it sounds like you're the same age, so not a big deal.)

While I of course don't advocate for child marriage- ie marriage below age 18, and really I think 20+ is wiser -the whole "date around or you're Wasting Your Youth!!!" narrative pisses me off, like I said. I grew up with that shoved down my throat to the point where I believed my own desires to just meet the right girl and stay with her forever were just youthful romanticism; that I'd "mature" and want to date more people instead of wanting to settle down. (And for some people that is the trajectory! And that's fine! Just...not everyone.)

When your mother got so lost in the Swinging Sixties sauce during her own teen years that she goes too far the opposite way of most parents, I guess?

Yeah, someone might regret a young marriage. But they might regret ANY marriage- that's just a risk you take when you get married. Trusting people to know their own minds in relationships that present no actual red flags is important, even for teenagers. Teaching young people not to trust their own (harmless) emotions and desires for their lives because it doesn't match what you'd have them do seems horribly backwards to me. It's a dangerous precedent to set for them.

When I was 16, I thought I'd be perfectly happy if I married a girl I met at that age- when we were older, of course. Now I'm 30, and guess what? I still think that. I would have been satisfied. Hell, I wish that had happened. It's not right for everybody, but it would have been right for me.

I hope things work out for you two!

[trekkele]

Actually, i think Lucifer (tv) season 4 was a good ending and a thematically interesting place to end the story.

[klarolinexluv]

I know the tag said anti jegulus and while I am definitely 100% FOR jegulus. I agree with this assessment.

Let me see Morally Grey/Dark Regulus.

Regulus from what I understand (as I’m still reading the books - don’t judge me) was always and has always been supportive of the pureblood regime.

I don’t mind reading the fics where he never agreed and just played along but I also want to see the fics that Regulus DID agree and then proceeded to agree until confronted with the fact that his beliefs aren’t all correct.

Idk if it’s ever stated in canon about culture but the purebloods are right to want to have their culture preserved, but they go about it the wrong way.

The muggleborns are right to want to share their culture but then they go about (not all, this is mostly what I’ve read in fanon but also sort of backed up with what I’ve read in canon) ignoring most pureblood and wizarding culture because purebloods are mostly seen as evil and hateful and death eaters when like some of them aren’t even close to that rhetoric.

ANYWAY- the pureblood extremists are extremists for a reason. Idk if JKR ever explored this side in her writing and face real backstory for why the wizards are like this but I can understand how after the Salaam witch trails and the witch hunts would have scared the purebloods and the fact that their numbers were decreasing.

Anyway this is off topic.

But I wish this was explored more. The reasons behind their hatred for muggles and muggleborns, the rift between the two cultures and then the merging and how ‘blood traitors’ were helping the influence of muggle culture over wizarding culture. (This is not a bad thing because culture changes over time, I’m just saying that I understand why the purebloods began to resent muggles and muggleborns more fiercely over time and obviously this was all accelerated by wizards like Grindelwald and Riddle).

Like, I wish it was explored, the toxic cycle of hatred and how this affected the characters and their beliefs.

Sirius for exampled, op said that Sirius changed his views the moment he stepped on the train (idk if that’s canon) but that makes very little sense to me because Sirius would have believed the stuff his parents were saying for years and it should be explored how hard Sirius would have had to work to unlearn some of the things that he thought were normal.

And then Regulus. I want to know and explore his POV. Sirius was surrounded by Gryffindors and people who helped him unlearn his parents teachings whilst Regulus was a Slytherin who was only surrounded by other Slytherins who had the same views his parents had because of their parents (at least the majority anyway).

If we talk Jegulus, Regulus would have his beliefs reconstructed sooner because James would not let Regulus go on believing those things and then date him. Honestly, I love Jegulus but Hogwarts aged James was very firm in his own beliefs and he hasn’t personally been affected by the war to understand the world isn’t black and white. James would help Regulus unlearn things.

If we don’t talk Jegulus, Regulus’ beliefs would have been reconstructed by himself when he finds out what Riddle had done to himself.

I also don’t think all of his beliefs would be reconstructed in either scenario.

Let characters be bad. Let characters be evil.

But also let them change. Also let them grow as character (whether that is upwards and downwards).

But if we are being fr.

We couldn’t even handle Bellatrix, Narcissa and Lucius. So…

Since I got back into the Marauders recently, I noticed a huge shift from what the fandom used to be.

(Yeah I am one of those ‘back in the old days’ people.)

Well essentially I noticed a huge shift into focusing on Slytherin canon Death Eater characters and erasing their backgrounds and characters and just making them one dimensional dolls and then making them kiss each other. Essentially there is not character development just new romantic relationships.

I think it is a disservice to ourselves and to writing and fanon for characters to be limited by sexuality and romantic relationships.

Taking Regulus for example (one of the most, imo, fleshed out least fleshed out character). He is a year younger than Sirius (canonically), so where does the difference in ideology between them come from (Sirius was against his family from the train ride). If we are switching canon to make it so that Regulus was only pretending to agree with his family, then what do we reason for him to become a DE (Walburga and Orion weren’t and not all DE’s were marked). If we are taking that away then is that even Regulus anymore or an OC.

What I am trying to say is that Regulus exists as a character, and by changing critical aspects of him (naive, obsessive, possessive and malleable) just to make him fit a ship we effectively change Regulus to Reggie and at that point it would be better to just create an OC so that actual Regulus is there for canon compliant (even tertiary) exploration.

(Before someone says ‘why don’t you just make your own headcanons and let people do what they want’ I want to remind that we work in a community and the popular hcs are what I personally have to interact with even if I don’t want to)

If you disagree please feel free to interact in a calm and civil manner :)

[weisscreamcake]

former coworker/friend hasn’t talked to me since i posted on ig saying if you voted trump delete me and never speak to me again which. hmm.

[somethingswrongwithowen]

Happy Thanksgiving! Can’t wait to get all the comments on my weight and berated for not eating as much as they want to cram down my throat!

[theeroins]

If I say that I'm not used to people misinterpreting my favorite characters, I'd be lying. But the way they get so many things wrong about Inho's character is kinda pissing me off because you KNOW that most of them do it to cancel out the possibility of InHun being *something* more than what's shown so far. You don't ship them, that's fair, frankly I don't care. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion UNTIL your opinion is wrong.

Let's talk about a couple of things I've seen being talked about on tiktok (🙄)

“Inho joined the games because ilnam said that it'd basically be more fun to play than to watch so he followed his example." loud incorrect buzzer ! Inho has joined the games before, and not only that, he's also a previous winner, so therefore he's very much aware of what it's like to be a part of it, he's experienced them first hand, just like he's experienced the atrocities of it. they've changed him for the worst and possibly caused him a huge trauma —they're the reason he's lost faith in humanity after all— so, why would he crave to relive it just for the thrill of it? i, personally doubt he even enjoys watching the game.

“Inho didn't look at Gihun with love, he likes to watch him suffer” Short answer is no. He doesn't like to watch him suffer, neither he looked at him with love, not the pure kind of love at least. Two things can be true at once. Inho spent half the season staring at Gihun because everything about the man intrigued him; His determination, his stubbornness, his kindness, his hope, his heart that's full of love despite the pain he suffered, even the pain in his eyes every time someone got eliminated in front of him as if it was the first time it had happened, as if the cruelty of it all surprised him every damn time. How can someone, who's been through the same things Inho has been through, be the polar opposite of him?

now, the reason(s) that I think Inho actually joined the games for..

(yes I am an Inhun shipper, does that make my opinion a little biased? maybe. do i still believe I'm right? absofuckinglutely.)

Let me clarify this: Inho is NOT a good man, no matter the redemption arc he might get in s3, he'll continue to be a terrible person because nothing will ever erase the blood he's spilled and the evil men he's worked for. BUT at the same time, he's not ALL bad, not like the VIPS and ilnam. See, Inhun are the average "yin-yang" trope in fictional romance, (which I eat up every time and I find it very interesting when it's done the right way, don't get me wrong) Inho is bad but there's some goodness somewhere deep inside him. And the only person who's brought it to the surface is Gihun. Sure, he does think Gihun is naive, but he's also the only person who's actually challenged him, who's "forced" him to get his stupid head out of the dirt and look around him, even for a short while and Inho definitely liked what he saw. Honestly, it wasn't even that hard for Gihun to do so because the goodness in Inho wanted and waited for someone to pull him out of the dirt, he wished for someone, something to give him hope for humanity or.. anything. Anything that'll help him escape from his misery.

You can definitely argue that he joined the games to befriend Gihun, to gain his trust and stop his plans when the time comes, which is half true. But keep in mind that he needed to justify his choice to join the games. He's not a VIP nor the mastermind to simply get to do that without consequences. He's the frontman, the one who controls and manages everything. He's needed for the games to work and go by smoothly and successfully without unnecessary losses and problems. Gihun would only cause problems, Inho knew that very well and yet he chose to put him in it once again. He recklessly made that choice, risking pretty much everything because of his inner conflict. A part of him wanted Gihun to prove himself to him, that there's indeed good that'll save the world and the rest of him wanted to prove to Gihun that everything he so strongly believes in is merely a fantasy.

Joining the games and befriending Gihun was the only way for Inho to see the real him, without the heroic mask he puts on every time he faces the frontman. I think he believed that someone as extraordinary as Gihun will either break in front of him and he will end up disappointed by the human kind once again, or Gihun will change everything about the way he thinks for the better. But the problem is that Inho hopes for both of those things at the same time.

And that was Inho's arc in season 2. His inner conflict and how it will affect him, the game and Gihun later on.

[astral-herald]

Viktor's (subverted) Aristotelian Tragedy

A common sentiment I’m seeing throughout post-finale Viktor discourse is an understandable concern or distaste for the element of choice lost throughout his story. I know a lot of us – myself included – expected more time spent on his transformation, along with emphasis on the anger/rage/betrayal fueling it. But seeing him allow Singed to “begin the process” in episode 8 reminded me of Arcane’s origins – tragedy. Bear with me for another long analysis :)

Aristotle wrote the following on the tragedy: “A tragedy is the imitation of an action that is serious and also, as having magnitude, complete in itself…with incidents arousing pity and fear, wherewith to accomplish a catharsis of these emotions.” He also emphasized that the true tragic hero couldn’t be perfect, and his downfall into such catharsis-inducing circumstances was reliant on a fatal flaw, oftentimes pride.

Viktor fits this mold, as do many Arcane characters, and it stands to reason that this was intentional since the writing team has reiterated that the show is a tragedy, at its core.

Regarding Viktor’s fatal flaw, I’d argue it’s pride, but it manifests very uniquely. He never makes any grand declarations about his success and doesn’t draw attention to himself in any clear way throughout season one (“Progress Day” comes to mind). Instead, his pride manifests as staunch independence and self-reliance that lead to his downfall; his unwillingness to break his stoic mold arguably led to his use of the Hexcore…so it goes.

Fascinating caveat: Viktor’s pride is a defense mechanism, a necessary tool he built in order to survive and succeed in a hostile environment to people of his station. His self-reliance is increasingly desperate as his illness worsens. He’s cornered by fate but banks on the sanctity of choice at every turn – in season one, Viktor is bound by the conviction that we all have a choice. It’s why he’s so distressed when Jayce makes the wrong one regarding weaponizing Hextech.

“There is always a choice.”

Viktor’s choice to fuse with the Hexcore is the classic Aristotelian fatal flaw moment, the singular incident that opens the flood gates for eventual catharsis. We watch Viktor make an irreparable choice, one that we know to be bad, and endure the repercussions. He then makes the choice to abandon the Hexcore, and end his life, but audiences can’t shake the feeling that those consequences aren’t leaving anytime soon.

So why is Viktor so anti-choice in his final season 2, act 3 form?

Choice is Viktor’s weapon. Pride is what leads him to abusing it. Despite how uncomfortable and depressing it is to watch, Viktor’s slow descent into the Herald is a perfect twist of fate. The Arcane is even so insidious that it meshes with his original intent, to help those suffering in the undercity, while convincing him that their subservience is healing. He becomes responsible for their choices. He knows what’s best because he’s relieving the Gloriously Evolved of their suffering, right? The utopia is for the greater good, yes?

Admittedly, it was really hard watching act 3 Viktor descend fully into his choiceless ethos. But we can still relate it to his tragic flaw – his pride has mushroomed into coldhearted omniscience; not only does he know what’s best for everyone, evolution, but he also has the sense to make the choice for them to supersede their “baser instincts.” The grief we feel upon seeing this perverted, violent version of himself, as far removed from Viktor as possible, is the culmination of Aristotle’s treatise on tragedy. The catharsis is the rock-bottom Machine Herald.

"Choice is false."

But then Arcane decided to basically make Jayvik canon (get out of here, Christian Linke) and destroyed the early drafts of this post. I’m going to rapid-fire this next bit:

Jayce forces Viktor back to life. Viktor has no agency in his season 2 inciting incident. Again, it’s distressing when we mourn his agency, but it remains in accordance with Aristotelian tragedy.

Viktor clings to humanity as long as he possibly can. When Jayce calls out Viktor’s trajectory, alleging that his old partner had died in the Council chamber, whatever is left of Viktor gives way to the Arcane because his last tether has been snapped.

Jayce knows the game – Old Man Jenkins Mage Viktor told him so. Jayce becomes the linchpin in subverting Viktor’s tragedy. He knows what must happen. He understands now.

Machine Herald Viktor is given the chance to undo his fatal flaw, to reverse the catharsis, when he sees Old Man Jenkins Mage Viktor. With Jayce’s help, he takes it.

Given that it’s a version of Viktor who ultimately frees him from himself by empowering Jayce, we can gather that Viktor has liberated himself from his tragedy.

Aristotle’s catharsis is rapidly transformed from something based in release to something healing – Viktor’s tether to humanity returns. He grasps it. The walls of his pride and self-reliance collapse. He accepts Jayce’s help, finally being seen as the full individual he is. Catharsis ensues, for sure, but I don’t think it’s based in the typical tragedy genre.

All this to say, I think Viktor’s arc was, in fact, carefully constructed. He represents the Aristotelian descent into a fatal flaw and that’s very distressing to see unfold, especially since he embodied the tragic hero archetype so well from day one. However, Jayce undoes this narrative and we’re given an incredibly subversive ending that I, personally, never saw coming.

I’m sure that Mage Viktor has a much larger bearing on this analysis than I’m accounting for. But for now, suffice to say that he is Viktor’s way out of the tragedy. TALK ABOUT CHOICE!

This doesn’t erase anyone’s discomfort for Viktor having less and less agency, but I’d like to emphasize the logic and literary precedent behind the story decisions.

PS: here's a quick source I looked at about Aristotelian tragedies. I hope to re-up on Greek tragedies so I can get more specific about the parallels Arcane draws from them.

[thebaldursmouthgazette]

Okay back on the topic of video games letting you be evil I think the issue is people are forgetting that has consequences, and not just a ten point approval hit and a bit of a talking to. And these consequences just would not mesh with the sort of game veilguard is at all.

Varric and Harding recruit you because you do the right thing. If you’re an evil person who wouldn’t do the right thing then they wouldn’t recruit you. There is no game.

If they did recruit you anyway, the characterisation and plot will suffer for it. And then you have to be the sort of person who’d be willing to fight a god to save the world. And if you’re not then there’s no game.

If they recruited you and you want to save the world, the plot suffers for forcing an evil character into that position and into having that opinion. And THEN you have to be the sort of person who would risk your life to protect a city. Who would be willing to distract a god so your people can get into place. Who wouldn’t sacrifice your allies on a whim.

And if you’re not those things, and the game continues anyway, the game is weaker for it.

And then you have to be the sort of person who has acted with the good intentions needed and can do the self reflection required to escape the fade prison. And there is no work around for this. If you’re a bad person that’s game over. You’re trapped in the fade prison forever while the world ends around you.

And even if somehow you DO get out, you have to be the sort of person who would risk their life to fight multiple tyrant gods for absolutely nothing in return. And if you aren’t that person, the plot is weaker for allowing it.

This game would not work with an evil protagonist. It would not start in a strong way, it would constantly be making up excuses as to why this asshole is doing good for the sake of the world, and it would be an incredibly unsatisfying game over at the end of act 2.

And I’ve seen the sentiment that you need the option to be evil to make being good worth something, but that option is available to rook in universe. Rook could have been evil. It’s just that they aren’t. You’re presented with a character who’s already made that choice to be a good person despite evil being an option.

[a-very-tired-jew]

Had a student try and get into politics with me (prior to going in for surgery) the other week and it has stayed with me. If you're unaware, Professors are not supposed to push, espouse, or support any particular political party or rhetoric. We have major policies about it with very considerable consequences. Even courses where things might have a political nature, that are not polisci because they're different, have to be touched upon very carefully lest there be some blowback (e.g. a professor at Texas A&M was talking about Texas's drug laws in a criminology course and how they were ineffective and got in trouble because someone who knew Paxton was a student and felt offended because their "uncle" couldn't be bad).

So of course I didn't say anything. My policy is just to go "yeah, I'm gonna vote" and leave it at that.

Said student went on a mini-tirade though about how Kamala is obviously the better choice, but that they might vote for Trump because Biden and Kamala have been "facilitating a genocide". Said student then had the self awareness to admit that a Trump presidency wouldn't be better, more people would suffer, and it wouldn't "stop the genocide", but they wanted to "punish the Democrats".

My TA and I looked at each other a little wide eyed and the student came out of their fugue state to realize what they'd just said in front of their Professor and TA, gathered their things, and then mumbled something before hurrying out the room.

It's clear they care about the I/P conflict, but also about domestic and foreign policies that would result from this presidency. But their behavior is so quintessential college age activist that I had to highlight it here.

Being passionate about something doesn't mean burning everything down because you don't have the perfect response, especially if you are fully aware that your burning everything would actually make it worse.

Why do that?

It's a completely juvenile and immature response that really shows the quality of the person in that moment, where they are in life, and their intellectual and emotional development.

At least they became cognizant of how unhinged they sounded by the time they were done.

[valtsv]

i really will never forget or forgive the tma fanon consignment of the entire concept of avatars to the hellish fires of the 'perfect victim/irredeemable abuser' dichotomy. i cannot even begin to understand how you could listen to five seasons of the podcast about how living and working within corrupt systems and institutions will lead you to face difficult, sometimes even seemingly impossible, choices where there are no good outcomes, no conclusions where everyone gets a happy ending and nobody has to suffer for it, but nonetheless both those choices and the consequences of those choices still matter, in fact if anything they matter even more in a world like that, and ultimately no one is exempt from having to make decisions that will affect them and the people around them and seriously consider those consequences, and come away from that thinking 'okay so these are the Good Guys Who Did Nothing Wrong Ever and these are the Bad Guys Who Ruined Everything And If We Just Get Rid Of All These Bad People Everything Will Be Okay.'

[naamahdarling]

Maybe it isn't that I actually hate medical professionals? They just suck and are weird sometimes, and a lot of them shouldn't be practicing, but I don't hate them as a group, like, personally.

What I hate is their ability to make my life harder in ways that are often completely opaque to me, and a lot of the crap things they do are not really possible to challenge. And I hate the fact that holding them responsible fort dogshit behavior in any way that will actually benefit me is almost always impossible.

And I also hate the fact that they have to do stupid things sometimes because that's how the system is set up, and those things sometimes mean patients actually get harmed. They aren't fond of that part either! They don't want the system to be the way it is! But they don't have a choice, so sometimes people like me get forced by bureaucracy into doing things that are re-traumatizing. And I can't imagine that feels good for them at all, knowing that their patients are sometimes only "consenting" because that bureaucracy will not let them be helped in any other way. Which isn't consent at all. I imagine that must be pretty traumatizing for them, too, sometimes.

If it were easier to actually access medical care without tremendous delays in this country right now I would have much less trouble finding providers who are good at what they do and are not horrible people, and who have clinic staff who can do their fucking job.

Oh and I also don't appreciate how evasive and unwilling to commit they are out of fear of being held to an answer that turns out to be inaccurate, but I can't make an informed decision about my own care unless they give me at least some information about probabilities and trajectories and typicalities. Genuinely, how the fuck am I supposed to navigate that shit. I get that some patients are really fucking difficult, but I should be able to get a special stamp on my file or something that says I understand that sometimes medicine isn't an exact science and the best answers that my doctors can give may not always prove to be accurate in the long term. I know they don't like being in that situation either.

A lot of medical professionals are fucking assholes, and unfortunately the ones who are not are still hamstrung by a system set up to actively prevent people from getting care.

I miss my old doctor. He gave no shits about anything that wasn't the patient. He prescribed scheduled meds based on what the patient needed and not based on fear of consequences potentially being imposed on him by the punitive patient-hostile drugs-are-bad moral panic machine developed to force suffering people into buying more dangerous drugs off the street in order to prevent far fewer people from maybe getting high off of drugs that at least weren't laced with lethal substances. (The purpose of a system is what it does.) Did he get sanctioned and become locally unhireable? Unfortunately yes he did. Does he now provide concierge care to rich people? Yes he does. He found a way to make it work, God bless him.

Everything about the medical system in this country is fucked. Hospitals, doctors, nurses, pharmacies, pharmacists, pharmacy techs, phlebotomists, clinic administrative staff, insurance companies, medical schools and schooling, licensing boards, drug advertising to both providers and patients, pharmaceutical reps, researchers, research, publishing, medical trials, pharmaceutical companies, manufacturers and distributors, medical equipment, charting software, billing and billing codes, diagnostic criteria, charity and low income services, accessible transportation, home care, the lack of independent individual patient advocates, dietitians and nutritionists, access to physical and occupational therapy and physical and occupational therapists, the massive bigotry of every kind rampant in every corner of the medical field, social work, senior care and assisted living, deprioritization of informed consent and harm reduction, disability applications, inaccessibility of medical records, especially psychiatric notes which are specifically allowed to be withheld from patients, lack of continuity of care for disadvantaged people, care that is equitably accessible to disabled people, telemedicine, patient portals, phone systems, clinic hours, every single aspect of inpatient and outpatient psychiatry, facility security, all sorts of things going on with therapists who are nevertheless probably the least malicious group of people in this entire charade, aaaaaand patients themselves.

Also hospital toilets that are too tall and make it literally physically impossible for me to poop while I'm there waiting for somebody to come out of surgery. I just needed to take a crap, guys. You didn't need to make the toilets so tall that my feet didn't even touch the floor. It is very clean but there is no shitting for short people at St Francis.

[stickandthorn]

As I’ve already said before, the main thing that’s made Bells Hells really fall flat for me as a campaign is the lack of consequences. My desire for consequences is not because I want the characters to be “punished” or anything like that. Consequences are not inherently good nor bad, they are the world responding to the character’s choices, they are what give the characters true agency in a story. Consequences are what A) makes a setting feel alive, and B) initiate character growth.

When the characters face no repercussions for their actions, it makes the story feel dead. It makes the character’s choices meaningless, because nothing is lost if they fail. It also makes victories meaningless, because once again, if they had failed, nothing would have gone wrong. In fact, it takes failure completely off the table. An example from the finale, Bells Hells couldn’t have failed at convincing Vasselheim they did the right thing, because the Raven a Queen swooped in and protected them. So why even go to Vasselheim? Why even try if it was always going to work out? It makes it feel like the world around them isn’t a setting they live in, but extension of their story that bends to their whims, which makes the characters feel uninteresting and the story one track. The setting isn’t alive.

It also make character’s individual stories feel one track. Characters don’t grow without consequences, because there is no outside force pushing them to change their status quo. What was the consequences for Delilah being inside of Laudna? In the end, net 0, because every time she started acting up, they were able to reverse back to the status quo. So Laudna never had to change. People die? Just bring them back- the only exception being FCG, and that was for real life reasons. There is no motivation to change, so the characters become stagnant, and the stakes don’t feel real.

If Bells Hells had suffered consequences, at all, their victories would have felt so much more earned, and their characters would have felt alive. But instead, everything roughly worked out for all of them, despite moments where it feels like they should’ve failed, and so the story feels untethered and somewhat meaningless. No choice could’ve been wrong, so therefore none were really right. If no failure could’ve kept them from reaching this destination, why did they start the journey in the first place?

[oddyseye]

Let's talk about Polites in EPIC: The Musical...and Eurylochus.

I do not get the hype for Polites. Yes, he’s supposed to be this sweet, trusting, “open arms” guy who exists to show Odysseus the value of kindness, but he’s an actual walking disaster. He’s a hypocrite through and through. This man fought in the Trojan War — there’s no way his hands are clean — so his sudden push for peace and “let’s all trust each other” feels completely illogical. You don’t get to be a warrior and then act shocked when the world bites back. Here’s what gets me: Polites doesn’t even suffer the consequences of his own idiocy. He dies immediately, leaving the rest of the crew (especially Odysseus) to clean up the mess. His naive, sunshine-and-rainbows approach literally causes everything to fall apart. It’s because of his influence that Odysseus shows mercy to the Cyclops. Look, Polyphemus wasn’t just some big guy with sheep; he was a monster who ate people alive. Odysseus could have stuck to what he does best — being clever, ruthless, and surviving — but instead, Polites’ “let’s be kind and reasonable” act softened him. What did that get them? Poseidon’s rage, storms that killed dozens of men, and an endless chain of suffering. I don’t even feel bad for him because he’s the one who got them into that situation. He got bludgeoned to death, and Odysseus was left holding the guilt and the trauma. Polites did more harm to Odysseus than any monster, god, or storm combined. His naive “open arms” nonsense shattered everything Odysseus built.

His “open arms” philosophy doesn’t even fit the world they live in. This isn’t some cozy, peaceful land — it’s a brutal, war-torn reality where gods toy with humans for sport and monsters eat you for dinner. Odysseus knows this. He’s been through ten years of war, and his leadership is built on cleverness, caution, and yes, ruthlessness when necessary. Polites telling Odysseus to just trust people is like handing a lamb to a lion and acting shocked when it gets eaten. It’s ridiculous. And for all the praise he gets for his ideals, what do they actually accomplish? Nothing. They just put everyone in danger. I care about the impact he had on Odysseus, of course, but not him as a person — because his ideals were dangerous, and his death came way too soon for it to feel meaningful. He was a plot device, not a hero. Meanwhile, Eurylochus gets called selfish, but at least he wasn’t stupid enough to greet the Cyclops or a pretty witch with open arms (and legs).

And keep in mind that, in the original epic, Polites is barely even a footnote — a guy who gets name-dropped once or twice and that’s it. He wasn’t Odysseus’ best friend, he wasn’t some great philosopher of peace, and he definitely didn’t have this huge impact on Odysseus’ leadership. He was just another member of the crew. Yet, for some reason, Jorge decided to pluck him out of obscurity, slap on some manufactured “kind soul” personality, and act like he’s this beacon of morality who changes everything. And for what? Polites’ entire presence in Epic feels like a forced excuse to make Odysseus feel bad about everything. Polites wasn’t important in The Odyssey, so why does Epic act like losing him broke Odysseus? If the story wanted to explore Odysseus’ guilt, fine — but why pin it all on some guy who didn’t even matter in the original myth? At least Eurylochus had a real role in the Odyssey. He was Odysseus’ second-in-command, brother-in-law, and actually did stuff. Speaking of Eurylochus, my man deserves some credit for being an actual human character. Eurylochus makes bad decisions, but at least his choices feel human. Polites, on the other hand, is just...there. A one-note plot device designed to give Odysseus trauma.

I call Polites a hypocrite, while everyone slaps that title onto Eurylochus. But honestly, if anything, Eurylochus is the only crew member who shows consistent growth throughout the story. Eurylochus doesn’t just blindly follow Odysseus or cling to pretty ideals like Polites. Instead, he’s pragmatic, deeply flawed, and painfully human — exactly the kind of person you’d expect to survive years of war and suffering. And honestly? He’s the only one who sees through Odysseus’ contradictions and calls him out when it matters most. Let’s start with the wind bag incident. People love to blame Eurylochus for this, but let’s look at what really happened. Odysseus did tell the crew what was in the bag — he made it clear: “This bag has the storm inside, we cannot let the treasure rumor fly!”

But by that point, the crew was exhausted, starving, and suspicious of their leader. It didn’t help that the Winions planted the idea that the bag contained treasure. That’s what drove the crew to act — greed and distrust, born out of their suffering. And despite the fact Eurylochus didn’t act alone, he often gets singled out as the scapegoat. But reminder that Odysseus refused to let anyone carry the bag, didn’t share its burden, and still kept himself separate from the crew. The men were barely hanging on, and their captain’s secrecy — however well-intentioned — made it easy for paranoia to fester. Was opening the bag a mistake? Absolutely. But it wasn’t just Eurylochus’ fault. It was the natural result of a crew pushed to their breaking point, fueled by mistrust. And when everything blew up — literally — who carried the blame? Eurylochus. Because that’s the role he always ends up in: the fall guy for everyone else’s failures. Then there’s Circe’s island — another moment where Eurylochus’ actions get unfairly criticized. When the men are turned into pigs, Eurylochus does something incredibly human: he panics. He doesn’t want to rush back into danger, and his instinct is to survive. And thus, he suggests abandoning the men and sailing away with Odysseus, which is a harsh and selfish choice. But when he suggests leaving the men, it’s because the situation with Circe is impossible, and the men are trapped. He doesn’t want to abandon them out of cruelty. And let’s not forget that Odysseus’ response is pivotal here. He tells Eurylochus this:

“There’s no length I wouldn’t go if it was you I had to save. I can only hope you’d do the same.” This line changes everything. It plants a seed in Eurylochus that will shape his future actions and, more importantly, his expectations of Odysseus. From that moment on, Eurylochus believes in the idea of loyalty — of never leaving a man behind. He takes Odysseus’ words to heart and learns from him. That’s why what happens later, at Scylla, feels like such a betrayal. When Odysseus sacrifices six men to Scylla to save the rest of the crew, Eurylochus is furious, and rightfully so. From Eurylochus’ perspective, this is hypocrisy of the highest order. Odysseus, who taught him to value every life, now coldly sacrifices six of their men without even warning them. He plans their deaths. “If you want all the power, you must carry all the blame!” This line hits hard, because it exposes the truth about Odysseus’ leadership. Odysseus demands loyalty, respect, and obedience, but he doesn’t want to share the weight of his failures. Eurylochus’ anger isn’t hypocrisy — it’s justified. He held Odysseus to the same standard Odysseus set for him on Circe’s island, and when Odysseus fell short, Eurylochus refused to stay silent. This moment is a turning point: Eurylochus transforms from the scared, self-serving man on Circe’s island to someone who believes in loyalty and accountability. He learned from Odysseus, only to realize that Odysseus doesn’t always live up to his own ideals (hmmmm who does that sound like, oh I wonder).

And to make matters worse — because of course Polites' chaos wasn't enough — we have the cattle situation, which is basically Eurylochus and Odysseus reaching their absolute breaking points. Let’s get one thing clear: what happens with the cattle of Helios? That’s not Eurylochus being weak or selfish — it’s Eurylochus being human. By the time they get to the island, the crew is starving, hopeless, and barely hanging on. Odysseus’ guilt, Poseidon’s fury, everything else, it broke everyone, including Eurylochus. So when he sees those cattle, he cracks. It’s not just about hunger. It’s about everything that’s led them there: the death, the constant danger, the years of being dragged across the seas because of Odysseus’ mistakes and gods playing games. This is where the lyrics hit like a gut punch. Look at the difference in lyrics: “I need to get home!” “How much longer must I go about my life like this, when people die like this?” And that right there? That’s the heart of it.

Odysseus is fixated on his goal, on getting home, because that’s what keeps him going. But Eurylochus? He’s stuck in the present. He’s surrounded by death and misery every single day. Polites’ naive optimism is long gone, and what’s left is the harsh reality of survival. Eurylochus isn’t wrong for saying “enough is enough.” They’ve been starved, cursed, and hunted; the gods have abandoned them. Why wouldn’t he break? And Odysseus loses it. “You’ve doomed us all, Eurylochus!” And yeah, it’s easy to say that when you’re the one in charge (since Odysseus did not kill the cattle, he holds none of the blame). But Eurylochus was broken by everything that’s happened. The way Odysseus says “I need to get home” feels so disconnected from everything Eurylochus has been going through. Odysseus still sees home as the end goal, while Eurylochus has already seen how much it costs to get there. And when Eurylochus calls him “Captain” instead of “Ody” at the end, it shows that everything between them has changed. There’s no more camaraderie. There’s no more brotherhood. He knows what he’s done, but he also knows that Odysseus will never be the same after this. That shift in how he addresses Odysseus shows how much their relationship has deteriorated — and how much Eurylochus has lost. And let us not forget, Odysseus was doomed from the start.

Polites set the curse in motion. Poseidon was already out for blood. The gods were never going to let them off easy, no matter what Eurylochus did. So let’s stop blaming him for one moment of desperation when he was already broken. People always point out Eurylochus’ flaws, but they forget one key thing: he’s the only one who really gets it. He’s the one who challenges Odysseus when he sees his leader making reckless choices. He’s the one who has the courage to question Odysseus, even when everyone else is too afraid to speak up. If you ask me, Polites represents the idealistic lie — this idea that kindness and trust will save you in a world ruled by cruelty and chaos. Eurylochus, on the other hand, represents the harsh truth of what it means to survive. He’s messy, flawed, and emotional, but he’s real. And unlike Polites, who dies early and leaves everyone else to clean up his mess, Eurylochus stays until the bitter end. He bears the burden of Odysseus’ choices, and when he breaks, he does so in a way that makes you feel for him, not judge him.

Eurylochus never gets the credit he deserves because everyone’s too busy crying over Polites. Polites, who gets to die early and leave Odysseus saddled with guilt. Polites, who delivers one cheesy song about “kindness” and then gets bludgeoned in a cave. I’m supposed to feel bad for him? Sure, his death is sad, but the impact he left on Odysseus and the crew? Utter chaos. He’s the reason Odysseus showed mercy to Polyphemus, which kicked off Poseidon’s revenge. Without that storm, they could’ve sailed back home after the cyclops incident. No Circe, no gravity killing Elpenor, no Scylla, no Zeus obliterating the last of them with his thunderbolt. Polites may as well have killed the 599 men himself. Eurylochus deserved his place in the story. He earned it, and he deserves more credit than anyone is willing to give him. Polites was just a naive dreamer who died too early, leaving everyone to deal with the mess he made.

[sketching-shark]

One thing I'd love to hear more analysis about wrt Journey to the West is that no matter where the pilgrims go and what they do they always encounter more violence and abuse of power, even from characters positioned as being entitled to their positions of authority.

And don't get me wrong, the pilgrims do a lot to alleviate pain and their own stories end on a note of success and triumph. But in every land they go to if it's not a yaoguai warlord eating people then it's bandits wanting to rob and kill them or a king deciding to murder like a 1000 kids to extend his own life or even the supreme ruler of heaven doling out death sentences over what can easily be read as very minor infractions against his commands.

It can make for a pretty disheartening portrayal of JTTW's world. Honestly, I'm not even surprised that it's inspired a number of grimdark retellings. Yet there's something pretty refreshing too in how in addition to the explicit portrayal of the universal capacity for shitty and selfish behavior, there's no Main Bad Guy here that you defeat and then everything is fixed forever.

I know that in a lot of ways this is a story about a silly little monkey and his friends going on goofy adventures, but it's just so neat to me that there's this constant underlying emphasis on choice and consequence and the capacity to cause both suffering and solace applying to EVERYONE.