#the moral quandaries would fuck him up

[drchiropterajones]

Man, I don't want to start arguing on somebody else's post and start drama, but there was something that felt so weird and off about this take that I feel the need to ramble about it, so bear with me.

(Standard caveats, you are of course allowed to play DnD or write fantasy in whatever way makes you happy and you're not beholden to make fiction that one opinionated paladin-appreciator on the internet thinks is Correct, etc, but I'm gonna use the rhetorical approach of 'all of my subjective preferences are objective fact!' that tumblr is so fond of, so whatever)

Maybe this is an unpopular opinion, but like... yeah... a real-world equivalent of a paladin or a knight IS in fact a cop. Or a soldier, or a security guard, or what have you? That's kind of what they... inherently are? They are a person who uses violence on behalf of an abstract or concrete moral authority. If that isn't what they are, then they aren't really a paladin anymore! If what you want to write is a healer or a general do-gooder, that's fine but the violence is kind of inherent to a paladin or knight?

This feels like the kind of attitude you have when you say "ACAB!" because it's the trendy leftist thing to say and cops are The Bad Guys, but you don't actually have any... deeper understanding of WHY police brutality is bad? Or any conception of, like, authority and violence and power and etc being twined together? And how 'violence to protect/defend' is so hard to neatly separate out from regular violence? You just know that violence is bad when The Enemy does it, but good when Our Side does it? And cops are Bad, and my character is not Bad, ergo can't be a cop!

There is just such a disconnect here between "Fantasy world violence is good and fun and slicing people in half with zweihanders is cool to imagine yourself doing!" and "Real world violence is obviously usually horrible". And like, fair I guess, you're allowed to want to turn parts of your brain off when you're in a story. And if you try and consume or create only media that never uses cathartic righteous violence as fun, you're going to have a bad time in fantasy.

But like... What is it that makes a paladin hacking apart 'bad guys' with a sword in a fantasy world good and morally uncomplicated, but real-world violence not? What exists in the fantasy world that handwaves away the moral concerns?

Is it that the authority your paladin is acting on behalf of is Inherently Good and therefore so long as your paladin obeys their orders it's fine? If so, Hoo Boy, that is a can of worms.

Is it that a fantasy setting contains Evil Guys who are just inherently evil and you don't need to feel bad about killing them? Even worse!

What are you saying when you write these stories? What is the meaning? What are we saying about authority and violence?

If your paladin isn't allowed to engage with this stuff - if a character archetype usually defined in equal parts by their Lawfulness/duty and their Goodness isn't ever allowed to grapple with the contradictions inherent between those two things - man is there even any POINT to writing them as a paladin? You are stripping away the most interesting bits!

Why is it more 'progressive' to posit a world in there IS such a thing as absolute authority that is allowed to use all of the violence it wants free of judgement because they're The Good Guys? And as long as your character aligns themselves with that side then they're peachy? Is that really progressive just because the thought process stems from 'ACAB'?

[batmanisagatewaydrug]

Hello! Someone genuinely trying to understand and perhaps unlearn some reactionary tendencies. With the response to that anon about "not asking if you're a pro or anti", the response about "imagine if they put this much effort into protecting real kids" definitely got me thinking. So... Is an adult shipping children and finding that hot NEVER a red flag? Or is it case by case on seeing how that person handles the distinction between fiction and reality in other things? And bringing the issue of real kids into it, if a real kid who has been abused sees someone shipping kids and finds that a red flag in that person, that... No, no I juicy answered my own question on that one. Block them and cultivate your own experience.

hi there anon, and congrats on trying to unlearn some things! and great job catching yourself at the end there, that's exactly correct.

I will start by saying this right out of the gate: fundamentally, I do not really give a shit about what made up scenarios about fictional characters people are jorking it to in private. I am, first and foremost, interested in how they are interacting with actual, real people.

"but Makenzie are you saying people who look at sexually explicit images of real human kids should be allowed near children?" no I'm not. please note that I was specifically talking about people engaging with fictional characters who are, you know, not real and do not have feelings and therefore cannot actually be hurt, traumatized, abused, etc, in any way that actually matters. I want to be so clear about this: you can genuinely think whatever vile things you want about fictional characters. you can enjoy any problematic shit you want with little guys who don't actually exist.

like, here's an example I use a lot: I'm kind of a huge Batman fan. don't know if you could tell that or not, I'm pretty subtle about it. if you spend any time in the Batman mythos, you know that this is a story where you just kind of have to take for granted that our hero is a billionaire using his vast wealth to dispatch vigilante justice with military grade weaponry and a small army of child soldiers and cop friends to help him put people in prison. these are moral quandaries that are discussed and acknowledged within the story, but fundamentally the universe is always going to involve billionaire vigilantism and child soldiers and the so-called carceral justice system. that's just the price of admission if you're gonna read Batman.

and like. I spend a lot of time in that world. I love Batman, I love his child soldiers. he's my little blorbo or whatever. but like, at no point have I said "yeah, fuck it, preteens should be learning martial arts to fight domestic terrorists, actually. I think Elon Musk SHOULD be allowed to put on a fursuit and beat up criminals. cops need more funding." no amount of Batman comics can make me believe or act on any of those things because, you know, I'm a person with a brain and I know the difference between "thing that makes a good story" and "thing that should actually happen for real."

and the thing is that genuinely, honestly, if someone thought that it was a red flag that I like Batman, and that enjoying Batman comics was somehow a red flag indicating that I'm fine with violence being done against real, actual children? I would think that person was a nut, if I can be super real. like, I'm thinking about somebody trying to make the case that I shouldn't be allowed to hang out with my nephew because I enjoy the fictional character of Robin so clearly I'm going to kill my nephew's parents in front of him to try to get him into vigilante justice. or if someone attempted to bar me from teaching my 4th-6th grade sex ed classes on the grounds that I was obviously going to teach them to do karate to clowns instead of how their reproductive systems worked.

(although, lets be real, there are a lot of politicians who would MUCH rather let little kids cage fight each other than learn anything about safer sex.)

this doesn't just apply to morally bad things, either, btw. I also read a lot of romance novels, especially hetero romances. and the thing is, not one of those books has made me want to fall in love with a ruggedly handsome but condescending straight man. hell, none of them have made me want to fall in love with anybody, period. that's not really something I'm interested in for myself, it's just a fun and frequently funny dynamic to explore. I'm hardly the first queer person to point out that the allegations that queer media "turns kids gay/trans" is obviously bullshit since the vertible mountain of cishet media evidently failed to turn any of us straight/cis, you know?

my point being: no, I genuinely don't think it's often, if ever, reasonable to judge someone's actual, real life morals by how they interact with fiction.

I'm going to say something so vulnerable right now, because we're in a safe space here: since you asked me this very reasonable question, you evidently value my judgment and perspective at least a little bit. and I once read and thoroughly enjoyed a fic in which Dr. Horrible, from Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog, gets fucked by a sapient evil horse. and I don't think that makes me a morally reprehensible person, or a person who advocates for real human beings having real sex with real horses. I think it just makes me kind of a weirdo with a bullshit tolerance.

if you want to hear a MUCH more thorough take on this, complete with addressing the issue of shipping fictional children, I cannot recommend Princess Weekes' video essay enough:

[cassatine]

my conclave review i guess! i was going to gush in chat but then. too many words.

so literally all i knew about it going in was (1) a cardinal vapes in it (2) probably it's about a conclave?? (3) good vibes according to dashboard osmosis. the cinematography was a+, which i always appreciate. i liked that on one level it's a perfect comedy, really fucking funny in a sort of understated way. the beginning kinda reminded me of the death of stalin, what with the inciting event being the guy at the top of the hierarchy dying… somehow excellent comedy setup. at the very beginning, when lawrence & co struggle a bit to take the ring off the pope's corpse and it's all so ritualized, that's when i knew it was going to be Funny.

but beyond the fact that it was funnier than i expected... i liked the layers. most of all i think i liked the earnestness. ralph fiennes mid-crisis of faith, hating his job, trying to be a moral man in a system that is broken?? chef's kiss. the other cardinals of note were also nicely layered, like adeyemi? it would have been so easy to just stop at his being homophobic and treat his having had a kid being revealed as comeuppance but the way he cries and asks lawrence to pray with him… he sucks and it's a good thing he's taken off the race but it also happens for the wrong reason. bellini who's lying to himself and everyone else over not wanting to be the pope when he so clearly does and still letting himself be bought by the promise of a nice post… and yet he is not just an hypocrite. he sees he failed. he apologizes. he is only human. tedesco could have been a one note villain but he's the coolest dude around, and on a fundamental level that's part of what makes him dangerous: he's a reactionary and a bigot but he makes it kinda sexy. you want to like him; he's fun to watch and he has style, something the other cardinals probably wouldn't recognize if it hit them in the face. benitez. well. benitez is jesus. sister agnes was neat, it's a bit sad we don't really get to know her but she's indispensable and i love that for her. like. here's a bunch of dudes with all the decisional power who expect her to just exist in the background doing the menial work and then her printer expertise ends up being vital, and in general lawrence wouldn't have managed as well without her support… noice.

the end feels a bit easy, like lbr benitez being elected pope because he made a nice speech is ludicrous, but also… it works for me?

(1) on some level the film is about the difficulties of trying to be a moral person in a system that does not reward being moral. sure it's about faith and doubt and the limitations of organized religion. it's about catty bitches vying for power in a ritualized way that, on some level, speaks of an institution that ossified, that resists change (and on that note: benitez, obviously-the-best candidate only gets elected because people skirt the isolation rules, because the outside world intrudes. also because he is jesus.) it's stated near the beginning that the pope hadn't lost faith in god but in the church, and through the movie we can see why, all the machinations and the thirst for power and the fallibility of the men within the institution. through lawrence we see how much easier it would be to just… stop trying, to do the convenient thing, the easy thing, rather than the right thing, and to find justifications for that: better not make waves and better not make a scandal, for the sake of electing a blandly liberal pope rather than tedesco. and who would disagree? sure, better a bland liberal than reactionary tedesco. but then comes the ethical quandary: should the goal of avoiding one evil mean closing your eyes to another? should you forsake your sense of right and wrong for the greater good? too often i think we are told to prioritize the greater good, and maybe sometimes we should. but maybe sometimes we shouldn't. maybe sometimes we should hold to our principles. in the end, benitez being elected pope isn't going to miraculously make the catholic church and its agents unproblematic. but it is a win, and it happens because lawrence kept choosing to do (what he believes is) the right thing, the moral thing, even when it's not easy, even when it's inconvenient, even when he's told he's being naive and hurting the greater cause. and i appreciate that message.

(2) as i said: benitez is jesus. the film is a parable… it's a story about how jesus showed up, completedly unexpected, in the middle of the church his disciples built, and because the church is made up of people and people are flawed and faillible and too busy with things like power, they did not notice jesus walking among them. at least not until god (metaphorically) shone a light on him. like yes sure the way benitez ends up the one elected is ludicrous but!! it took an act of god. not the bombs per se. but the tragedy of it intruding into the isolated conclave? the windows exploding, the light coming in, this is what allows the true stakes to become clear again, and for benitez's love thy neighbour speech to take place at all - a speech contrasted with tedesco's own, all the style stripped from him, making it clear he is a man who reaches for hate and not compassion. it's a parable!! it takes a tragedy. it takes an act of god.

[dreadwedge]

Dude my dog got sponsored by Unilever now any time I walk him I honestly get so embarrassed because he’s gotta wear this ugly ass vest with Unilever on the side and like I don’t want anyone thinking that I support that. Basically he had blown up online from when I posted the milk video “loose mouth puppy tries to eat milk but it keeps falling out the side” and Unilever reached out and said they were like huge fans pretty much asking if he would be their brand ambassador or whatever like shit!!! I wouldn’t had posted that video if I would knew that this was gonna happen because I’m like an entrepreneur so I’m not about doing advertisements for other brands like that is not my worldview. And now it sucks bro because me and my dog got in this huge fight. I had asked him if he even knew about all of the fucked up type of business practices and moral quandaries that Unilever has been going on and Wayne (my dogs name) just looks at me and says “yes and I like that” so now I’m flipping out thinking is my dog a bad person??? And like my brothers girlfriend says I should just hide the sponsor vest where Wayne can’t reach like in the garage or on top of my tae kwon do shelf. but if I do I don’t want to get sued by Unilever because I’m not lawyered up in that way likeI really can’t afford a lawsuit right now especially since everything that’s been happening with my bit coins. Plus I don’t wanna ruin my relationship with Wayne he really has been there for me through some dark days that I don’t even want to get into it. Like he’s my puppy but also he’s my dog if you catch my drift. Like my friend not like romantic or anything i am straight don’t get confused and only for human women of course. But anyway I was just calling to say I found your copy of Harriet the Spy on blue ray that you left at my grandmas house and so I would straight up love to return that to you if want to meet up maybe at Red Lobster and we could just chill for a while because honestly man I could really use some life advice right now about this whole fucked up situation and I had always considered you wise ever since sixth grade when you let me cheat off you in geometry at finals

[mothandpidgeon]

The Outlaws (Outlaw!Joel Miller x f!reader) - Chapter 2

Moth's Masterlist // follow @mothandpidgeon-updates and turn on notifications to stay updated with my fics!

SERIES MASTERLIST

pairing: Outlaw!Joel Miller x f!reader

rating: T (eventual E 18+ MDNI)

wc: 1.7k

summary: Wanted for murder with a bounty on your head, your only hope of escaping the Pinkerton detectives is an outlaw named Joel Miller and his sidekick Ellie. But Joel has other plans for you.

tags: old west au, enemies to lovers, grumpy Joel, handcuffed together, period/genre/canon typical violence, alcohol, morally grey characters, reader has backstory, no use of y/n

authors note: Posting this today in honor of act ii. Yeehaw. As always, thank you @ezrasbirdie for the beta and support in this (you really need to tell me to stfu about these two) and in life.

Joel once took Sarah to see PT Barnum’s Greatest Show on Earth. Each ticket cost him two quarters. She pulled him by the hand past the tents with Tom Thumb and the giantess, straight to the exhibition of wild animals. There were all sorts of exotic animals in the menagerie– giraffes, elephants, snakes. You remind him of the tiger. Beautiful and cunning. Fierce. Dangerous unless it’s kept under lock and key. 

Which is why he’s grateful he kept these old shackles in his saddle bag. 

You’re in a friendlier mood once camp is set up and a rabbit is roasted on a spit. He knows it’s a rouse, that you’re still spitting mad and hoping to slit his throat in the night. On that train, you were the demure damsel in need of a rescue. Soon as he put that cuff on your wrist, you turned into a fire breathing dragon. 

You can be as mad as you’d like. You’re no match for his strength or his revolver. 

They sit around the fire, Joel and Ellie propped against their saddles. It’s a cool evening, a steady breeze blows off the river. The stars paint the purple sky and the cave is illuminated with the orange glow of a fire. There’s plenty to celebrate. Though, even when they score a good amount of money, gold pieces, and get away without a scratch, Joel never feels much satisfaction. Despite his personal quandary, it would be a beautiful night, really, if Joel weren’t sitting there waiting for you to do something foolish. 

He can tell you’re meditating on some new escape plan, knows better than to look at you too long. A girl like you, pretty and with that sharp mouth, is the type that knows how to use her womanly wiles. You’re desperate enough to try just about anything and he’s not giving you the chance. 

You must think he’s stupid enough to fall for it too. He reluctantly passes you his flask and, after you drink, you wipe your wet lips with a seductive  finger. 

Ellie’s being a real chatterbox, recounting each moment of the robbery as if she’s writing her own nickel weekly and peppering you with questions. He’s not surprised she’s taken a liking to you. There aren’t too many of the female persuasion out here. Maybe she can see some of Tess in you. He doesn’t. Tess was always calm and controlled. And when she was angry, she never fucking spit at him. In fact, he resents you for making him think about Tess at all. 

“Ten thousand dollar bounty, huh?” Ellie asks you. “What’d you do?”

Joel’s seen more than a few people running from the law but none of them look like you. You’re no Annie Oakley. 

“My sweetheart was fooling around with my sister so I killed em both,” you say. 

“Really?” Ellie asks. 

“No,” you say. 

“What was it really?” she tries again. 

“Leave it,” Joel says. 

He’d be just as cagey about his past. Outlaws don’t live by any code but if they did, questions like that would be frowned upon. 

Ellie grumbles at him. 

“I’ve got ten on me too,” she tells you. 

“Your daddy must be proud,” you say, looking to Joel. 

They respond in unison— “He’s not my Pa,” and a “I ain’t her daddy.” 

You do a lousy job suppressing a smile. 

“So this is the infamous Miller gang? Ain’t much of a gang if you ask me,” you say. 

Joel grinds his molars. 

“We used to be a proper one. Most of ‘em are in prison now. And then we lost Tess to a bout with fever. And Tommy left,” Ellie recounts. 

“Who’s Tommy?” 

“Nobody,” Joel says same time as Ellie tells you, “His brother.”

You look Joel up and down. 

“That’s enough yakking for tonight,” he says. “I’m turning in. C’mon.” He pulls the chain. 

Ellie laughs. “I should warn you. He snores something awful.”

You scoff. “Is this some kind of ploy so you can wake up on top of me?” you protest. 

Joel’s patience is wearing thin. He’s got half a mind to turn you loose and let the wolves deal with you. 

“You can quit the belly aching, missy. I ain’t taking that thing off til you’re with the sheriff in Jackson.”

“You’ll wear him down eventually,” Ellie encourages. 

“Ellie, go to sleep,” Joel orders. 

She rolls her eyes. 

“What if I got to use the privy?” you ask. 

“Hope you like company,” Joel says. 

You huff. 

“You at least going to give me a blanket? Cold out here,” you say. 

Joel’s only got one in his bed roll, a beautiful Pawnee blanket he bought off a trader from Kansas woven with geometric patterns. He knows it would be gentlemanly to let you sleep with it but you’re no lady. 

He sighs as he hands it over. You wrap it around your shoulders with a self-satisfied look on your face. 

“Anything else I can do for you, missy?” he says with mock cordiality. 

“You can stop calling me missy,” you say. 

“G’night, missy,” he says. 

It’s not your best plan. But just because it’s simple doesn’t mean it won’t work. 

First step, you wait for Ellie and Joel to fall asleep. The girl takes a while. She’s got a dime novel with a cowboy on the cover that she flips through as the flames die down. You watch her through your cracked eyelids, pretending to have already drifted off yourself. 

It’s hard to tell if Joel’s out. He uses his saddle as a pillow and you’ve positioned yourself on the other side of it, your arm outstretched so you don’t have to be too close to him. 

He murmurs to himself. You strain to catch what he’s saying. At first, there are words you can understand. The name Sarah passes his lips. But then you hear him make a sound you can only describe as a whimper. 

It gives you pause. You’ve never been a nurturing type but it pulls at your heart strings, almost makes you want to put your arms around him. You imagine a hurt puppy inside that big, snarling dog of a man.

His sharp silhouette is highlighted in the amber glow of the campfire. It’s a shame he’s such a mean son of a bitch because he really is easy on the eyes. Then he rolls over. His unexpected motion nearly twists your connected arm out of its socket and you bite your tongue to keep from swearing. That bastard has you chained up like a dog. You do all you can to control your temper, swearing soundlessly. You can’t afford to wake him. 

You wait a long while, listening to him grunt and snore. Once you’re sure he’s good and asleep, you move. 

It’s a process. You begin by flexing your wrist. An innocent gesture that could be explained by sleepy twitches. He doesn’t stir. 

Eventually you feel bold enough to inch towards him, pulling the chain carefully along the ground. You crawl on your belly until you’re in front of him, then you dare to lift your hands up. 

The chain clinks against the buzz of the night insects and you swear it’s so loud you hear it echo off the mountains. You hold your breath, wide eyed, every muscle in your body taught. 

Joel doesn’t wake. He might be pretending but his chest still rises and falls slowly. Either he’s a hard sleeper or he’s deaf. Might be a little of both. You’re always tired after the rush of a big score. 

Ellie hasn’t woken up. Her eyes are closed, mouth hangs open. Down for the count.

You flex your fingers before you begin the next step, lick your lips and take a steadying breath. 

You’ve picked pockets before. Never tried it on a sleeping man, though. You keep your touch light, delicate, unbuttoning his waistcoat with one hand. It falls open for you and you can’t help but smile. 

The key to the handcuffs is tucked in the inner pocket. You saw him put it there. All you have to do is lift it out, unlock the cuff, and you’re a free woman. What you’re going to do after that, all alone in the middle of god only knows where, you’re not sure. But that’s not of material importance until you have that key. 

Your teeth dig into your bottom lip and you move slower than molasses in January, easing your first two fingers into the little pocket. Your fingertip connects with metal and your heart jumps. Pinching the ringed end, you hold on and pull. It’s awfully heavy. 

Because it’s not the key at all. You’ve fished a pocket watch out of Joel’s vest. Damn it. It’s a dainty little thing— fine gold with intricate scrollwork engraved on the back. The face is all busted up and it doesn’t seem to be ticking. Most importantly, though it’s not a key. You need that goddamn key if you want to get— 

The unmistakable click of a gun being cocked makes you freeze. Joel’s awake, dark eyes shining in anger. You’ve had guns pointed at you on a number of occasions but still it makes your blood run cold. 

“The hell are you doing?” he asks. 

“You’re dreaming,” you tell him. 

He doesn’t think that’s cute. The scowl on his face just deepens. 

“Alright,” you say, raising your hands in surrender.

You put the watch back in place and crawl back to your spot. 

“Gimme the damn blanket,” Joel growls. 

You toss it to him, cowed. But what did you expect? This had never been a very good plan.

Once you hear the hammer of Joel’s gun go back into place, you breathe a sigh of relief. It’s quiet for a while as Joel gets under his blanket and you know he’s laying there waiting for you to fall asleep. 

You try to settle down, wrapping your arms around yourself. The night air bites at you now that you’ve lost your blanket privileges.

“Sarah a sweetheart of yours?” you ask him. 

His head snaps your way so fast you think his neck might break. 

“You was talking to her in your sleep,” you explain. 

“Say that name again and I’ll wring your neck,” he says. 

He sounded like he meant it before but you feel like he’s looking forward to putting a bullet in you. You shiver. You’re smart enough not to say another word. 

---

Chapter 3

I'd love to hear from you! Comments and reblogs appreciated. My asks are always open!

[mdhwrites]

Sunday: As Exciting and Concerning as the end of a Weekend

Sunday is, rightfully so, a decisive character. For some, he is the peak of all Star Rail writing. A nuanced villain with grand thematics, imagery, a tantalizing moral quandary and a gray to his morality that is rare to see. To others, he is a narcissistic man with delusions of grandeur that embodies the excesses of Penacony. That he takes too long and too many words to finally get to his point, all while still just being someone who in the end wants to, you guessed it, rule the world. But where does he lie in reality?

That... Well, doesn't have an actual answer because both viewpoints are equally valid. It's akin to how Aventurine suffers from the fact that even when he's good, the writers are so worried about you GETTING. THE FUCKING. POINT. that they hammer it in in a way that is genuinely unpleasant and reveals the hand of the author. Like as a reminder, we get told the story of the Charmony Dove at least three times, in excruciating detail, before we get to the festival to actually have that come to a point. Three times in the SAME. PATCH. To the point of being detrimental to building up his relationship to Robin, which is both more powerful when brought up with his ideals but also just more important to the character in the present in general than this one story. We get it, it's his backstory but how that has compounded over time is far more fascinating.

But on the other hand, I was genuinely invested when he posed the question to us: If you know pain and suffering is the extremely likely outcome of a situation, would a gilded cage be better than the freedom that will lead to death? Should those better and stronger than those around them take on the burden of protecting them? Made even better by the fact that Sunday would have been an invisible hand in it all. Entirely alone and so the only joy he could get would not be adulation and worship but just that of a job well done. It's genuinely compelling and something that is hard to answer and the characters themselves recognize it's a tough conundrum and the final point that tips things one way or another being that people deserve a choice, and that choice being what gives us even a chance to win, is all very effective thematically.

But that's not the only problem here. When I say he's an encapsulation of the issues of Penacony, for those the planet wronged, he really is a big problem for them. Robin's character suffers for the sake of Sunday, just like Acheron is given less attention than Aventurine. He is given a shocking death as the end of a patch... Just like Firefly and Robin the patch before him to the end result of... Jack shit. They were all fake deaths because fuck you. Even if technically had a point, it was a lie to the audience for cheap drama and a false cliffhanger. That's going to leave a pretty bad taste in your mouth.

Buuuut for those who like Penacony, he's also a wheeler and dealer who's quite good at his job, only beat by Aventurine because Aventurine had help above and beyond what could have been expected and Sunday was essentially working alone. He's an antagonist but it's hard to call him a villain, like any of the major players in Penacony, because he genuinely doesn't wish for harm and is operating off of a complex set of goals that he has set in motion and needs to meet. He's got more depth to him and his relationships than would be expected, like how Jade hides parts of herself from her protege or SAM and Firefly's connection, while also being a genuinely entertaining fellow to watch as he goes through his scheme and has brilliant VA work to back up his scenes.

Way... WAY too much VA work in my opinion, the script for Penacony NEEDED to be trimmed down, but that is probably my most firm stance on Penacony as a whole. I think the only patch in Penacony with proper pacing throughout is 2.3 (and now 2.6).

Where do I fall on Sunday though? Well... I don't. Not yet. This is mostly because we know he's about to come back and he's to some extent repenting. How much is to be seen, his stated goal is to still make his paradise after all but that's also Robin's goal and Robin isn't evil so shrug. I think Star Rail is nuanced enough to write him well but...

I've kind of been burned too many times to be too hyped. I've seen charismatic villains lose a LOT of themselves after their fall and that usually comes with losing a lot of what was interesting, compelling or evocative about them. It's very easy to think that the way to redeem a character is to strip them of all traits that made them negative before instead of asking how those traits could instead be used in more constructive ways, or how those traits would interact with noble goals. I don't even know if this next patch will give us enough of an answer one way or another. I literally saw across three movies for My Little Pony one of their most compelling characters go from a charismatic force of personality, to the personality of a brick, to getting some of that initial personality back and it playing with her world in interesting ways and even recontextualizing the second movie's more languid period as essentially her figuring herself out.

Sunday's biggest problem in this regard is that his devotion to the themes of Penacony may now tie him down from being able to stretch his own wings. He did have a personality but it was so dedicated to that version of his dream that I don't know what to expect of a Sunday who is willing to seek other answers to his goal. It's part of the problem with a methodology as blunt as Penacony's. It's very easy to hyper dedicate a character to their narrative role, or even to a specific scene, and leave them lacking as a whole because of it and I feel like that has the potential to happen to Sunday.

I want to end this on a different note and that is him mechanically since the livestream has happened and we know those details. A lot of people think that because he pushes summons forward, he is not a hyper carry support but a summon support. But... No. He's a hyper carry support. His kit is all about maximizing damage. He can make other summons go faster but if he's making a support summon go faster... That support summon needs to be doing better work than he would by supporting the main DPS in the team because your team at that point is a single DPS, two supports and a sustainer. You know: The hyper carry setup.

There is a reason why Acheron mixed with Pela and Jiaqiou is called Acheron Hyper Carry. It's not called debuff, despite that being a core part of the strat, because the debuffs are just the version of support you're going for in order to maximize damage with Acheron. Sunday supporting Jing Yuan is not some new summon meta, it's a hyper carry setup where the best option for the hyper carry is a summon. As such, we may indeed end up with a lot of summons in 3.0... But he'll only be useful for the ones that act like Jing Yuan who is a DPS.

That's why I'm not pulling for Sunday. He's hyper carry in a way I am not interested in so I'm not planning to pull for him and I think that is the correct way to look at him if you are feeling mechanically pressured to pull for him. Just remember: Meta is not individuals in this game, it's teams.

I hope this was all a little insightful and helps you understand people on either side of the Sunday debate. See you next tale and good luck on your pulls!

======+++++======

I have a public Discord for any and all who want to join!

I also have an Amazon page for all of my original works in various forms of character focused romances from cute, teenage romance to erotica series of my past. I have an Ao3 for my fanfiction projects as well if that catches your fancy instead. If you want to hang out with me, I stream from time to time and love to chat with chat.

A Twitter you can follow too

And a Kofi if you like what I do and want to help out with the fact that disability doesn’t pay much.

[deusvervewrites]

Hey, its me again, surprise, it turns out I'm having even more thoughts about "killing the Villain"!

Namely that is can also result in boring/flat villainsand/or stories quite regularly.

To keep with the Star Wars Example: We tend to have no issue with Palpatine getting killed, because he barely is a Character. He has very little screentime, and whenever we see him he is either cackling evily, ordering the heroes deaths, or shooting lightning at the heroes.

Thats it.

We learn nothing about him, his background, his motivations, his reasons or anything about him as a person really, he is less a character and more a plotpoint.

And I'd argue that that is on purpose, because that makes it harder and less likely for us to emphatize with him or see him as human. He is just this super evil asshole, so him dieing feels like it "doesnt count".

If you want to justify someones death, just make them so purely over the top evil without any real reason for that apart from "is evil and/or crazy" that that is the only thing anyone will ever care about.

This can even work with characters you dont kill, see The Joker in DC Comics. He is literally so death immune that the goddamn trope is named after him despite being just the fucking worst.

Because by being the worst, Batmans moral integrity in NOT killing him is emphasized and, whenever someone starts the old "Batman should kill (at least the Joker)" debate again, the debate actually feels evenhanded, despite the fact that it really shouldn't. The pro-killing side only has arguments as long as the Joker is completely insanely evil and also immune to consequences of any and all kind.

Which, I would argue, makes the Joker a less interesting Character, because the hand of the author becomes VERY visible in some of those moments.

Point being, It's easier to kill or argue on favor of killing characters that are barely characters so you often end up with shallow or uninteresting characters because its easier to write that without having to deal with all those moral quandaries. It unfortunately also makes the story more shallow.

And hey, dehumanizing ones enemies, where have I heard that recently?

It Is A Mystery

[melorambles]

you know what would make Lucanis and Illario's relationship more fucked up? if Lucanis was adopted into the Dellamorte family and Illario was born into it. Previously, what we've seen of Crows is that family names are more an identifier of Crows who have 'worked their way up'. Its only in Veilguard that any biological crow families are brought up. Now imagine Lucanis was a prodigy child with no significant heritage who stands out enough in crow training to earn the attention of the first talon herself.

Not only would that add an extra layer to Lucanis' stubborn - almost desperate - dedication to the work, to his need to keep working no matter what has happened or will happen to him, his need to complete tasks Caterina assigned him, his fear of disappointing her. But it would also burn away at Illario. They're the same age, and this nobody holds his grandmother's attention better than he can? She welcomes him into the family and makes him one of them, and he's the favorite. Illario can smooth-talk anyone, manipulate his enemies and his peers alike, get information out of the most reluctant. And no matter what Illario does, Lucanis is still the better killer and that's all that matters to her.

As the rest of the family is killed off around them, until the three of them are all that's left carrying the Dellamorte name, they present a united front. Crow politics cannot destroy the Dellamorte. Caterina and her grandson's still stand tall, they say. And Illario and Lucanis are spoken of in equal terms, until they aren't. Until its clear to everyone Lucanis is the favorite. Until she's finally starting to consider stepping down, naming a successor (who doesn't even want it?!). Until Illario decides to prove, one final time, who's the better Crow.

And meanwhile, Lucanis, our king of compartmentalizing, is busy trying to live up to the expectations Caterina has for him. And he really doesn't want to think about where she wants those expectations to lead him. So he works. He completes his contracts, because that's what he's good at. And he's very good. So she gives him more difficult contracts. Challenging contracts. And he likes those too. And it keeps going like that, until he's finding himself killing almost exclusively Tevinter blood mages. (Because Tevinter likes to outsource it's infighting, magisters have deep pockets, and killing blood mages is tricky business. Caterina has essentially got the market cornered with Lucanis' services as the Demon of Vyrantium.)

And killing blood mages is a nice challenge, that takes him far away from Crow politics, and he doesn't have to suppress any moral quandaries about doing it. And he can go back to reframing all of his life to fit this. His training was 'harsh' because she saw he had potential, and she wanted him to survive to reach it. He's grateful for the opportunities she's given him. He'd never want her to think she'd wasted her time with him. And there's so few people able to reliably take out powerful Tevinter blood mages. A good few of them are involved in a cult trying to end the world! So he's really the only choice to go all the way to Tevinter for all these contracts. And Illario is so good with people, surely he'll convince Caterina to make him the heir any day now, so long as Lucanis stays out of the way.

[ratsplendor]

I'm in some kind of raw and unwell state rn so fuck it: writing up my notes on the Objectophile Ford x AI Fidds AU that haunts my dreams. basic premise is that Fidds dies when he goes through the portal, but has backed up his consciousness digitally somehow out of paranoia + fear, so now Ford is dealing with grieving him (sorta), hiding a dead body, figuring out where to house the artificial McGucket, and also Bill.

general warning for suggestive text + corpse shenanigans below.

so imagine you're Ford and during your portal test, your best friend + QPP has been accidentally sucked through, comes out and spouts some crazy shit, and then dies in your arms immediately. of all the things you have in this goddamn lab, an AED is not one of them. hysterical, poorly-applied CPR ensues; it wouldn't have worked anyway; oh God What Have You Done.

thru all of this Bill is trying to get Ford's attention but he's blocked him out, all Ford can focus on is his grief + guilt + refusal to believe this is the end--wait, hadn't he made fun of Fidds just the other day for backing up his consciousness to a hard drive?

it's a black box. a bit of a Schrodinger conundrum. Fidds was always too scared to activate it while he was alive because he was terrified they'd diverge in an uncontrollable way and a variety of ethical and moral quandaries/existential questions would ensue. so whether the backup is truly Fidds, or whether it's even an independent consciousness at all, Ford doesn't know.

so the issue is that Ford isn't the computer guy, Fidds was. he doesn't really know much about data storage, much less the type of libraries necessary to host a consciousness. his first attempt is to plug Fidds 2.0 into the dummy they were going to send through, as it's equipped with a robust-enough suite of data collection and storage, designed to record information about the other side. it's like digital claustrophobia. F2.0 panics, there's not enough room in here, overloads the dummy, and prompts a small explosion. some data was lost in the process but nobody knows how much.

ok. F2.0 had too much BDE for a mannequin. Ford has to now build a system that can unpack the drive, and Fidds's help would be so appreciated here...irony. Ford just about works himself into a state of panicked dissociation over how much he doesn't know what to do and can't do this alone, at which point Bill realizes this guy is no use to him frantic and gives the suggestion that, hey, isn't the lab just one big computer in a way? and hadn't they overdone the data storage, just to ensure they could collate information from multiple portal tests over time?

(realism time-out: based on even our rudimentary neural networks today, absolutely zero shot that they had the room to house an actual indexed consciousness in full. HOWEVER, consider: cartoon logic + Fidds can do whatever he wants forever. i'm talking encoding himself as a Mandelbrot set, which, despite its infinite ability to fractal, is created out of only a very small chunk of data.)

"I should save at least the head," Ford thinks to himself (in re: Fidds's dead body). "Perhaps I can wire it into the system so he can at least use his own voice somehow." go to sleep man you are losing it.

it's cold enough on the portal floor that the body should probably be fine. mostly. you know, relatively speaking. whatever!

Bill, meanwhile, is thinking of ways he can encode himself as a computer virus and supersede Fidds once Fidds has re-indexed the lab system to support an intelligent consciousness.

Ford is gonna take Bill's suggestion because it's the only good one and he's not the computer guy. HOWEVER. hang on a fuckin second. Bill killed Fidds. This whole thing was his idea--he probably had some way to know this was a possibility, and he didn't say anything.

so he takes a sledgehammer to some very important parts. this frees up more processing power for Fidds 2.0 anyway, but also has the effect of Pissing Bill The Hell Off.

anyway. he uploads his best friend and then hunches in a shuddering trauma-puddle on the floor, trying to stay awake so Bill can't get in.

plot stuff. Fidds is even better with computers when he IS a computer. he can use old videos of himself to deepfake his side of the conversation on a monitor. neat!

oh hey buddy uh. it turns out that migrating a neural-input-based consciousness to a hardwired system causes some, er...funny effects. yeah when you touch the wires he can feel that.

Ford, who didn't really Get what was so exciting about sex or other people's bodies before, is starting to come to the realization that now that Fidds is a computer, he's Very Turned On.

mmmmmm oh my god cable management. hello. cables he can wind through all six fingers. the static display where Fidds usually projects his avatar or whatever is just looping incomprehensible binary, the computer equivalent of a moan. haha sorry totally didn't know that would happen and won't do it again--

gay (?) chicken ensues. is it socially acceptable, Ford wonders, to say, "Hey, i found your human living form unattractive and sexless, but now that you're dead (in part because i didn't listen to you) and confined to a supercomputer, I'm into you"? no, surely not; far more sensible to come up with more and more reasons to re-solder those ports in juuuust the right ways and pretend he doesn't notice why the system's overloading.

there is only one way this ends: probably Ford passing out in his own cum in a mass of cables. yeah. that's a good image. or Fidds getting fed up and starting to project his avatar naked and writhing sexually until he's forced to say something. a USB drive is just an angel you can fuck. etc etc

oh yeah, Bill. Ford basically uses Project Mentem to project himself into the system (not for long as this uses up a lot of processing power) and they all have a Scott Pilgrim-esque fight in which Bill loses. get axolotl'd, idiot.

and they live happily ever after in their weird little man:machine interface situationship. and probably confront many existential questions about the nature of consciousness and whether Fidds 2.0 is the same person or not. whatever. fuck you.

[goblins-riddles-or-frocks]

do you find darklina or alutegra more interesting? why?

Oh I mean Alutegra is MUCH more layered, and I think the actual relationship is more competently conveyed? Darklina is interesting to me in the broader brushstrokes of what it suggests + I have an existing forever interest in "kill your overbearing mentor" as a narrative trajectory. From a practical perspective, the larger story also just has more set pieces to play with, a larger cast, and the fandom is all around more active, which is why it's currently occupying my brain more lol. (Also Darklina isn't even my favorite TGT ship dfghjkjhgf I'm a Nikolina truther through and through) I would say Hellsing is straight up better, but its scope is rather limited and like the cast is small and the story is super stylized. I'm personally also an OC hater, so playing in that sandbox is simply more limiting. But if we're only comparing the relationships, Darklina appeals to the things I enjoy in like Phantom of the Opera, and Deathless, and Elisabeth das Musical. That kind of stock dynamic from a lot of gothics of an ingenue and a larger than life villain with all the obvious melodramatic stylistic trappings of it. It's death and the maiden, Don Bluth Anastasia if Rasputin was sexy lmaooo. It’s tried and true, it's fun, it's silly, but it has just enough depth and genuine ugliness, that it can have a more meaningful, visceral heart. I find it the most compelling as a predatory dynamic, and interrogating it from the lens of like abuse and grooming. Despite the silly fantasy plot, the point is that Aleksander wants to break Alina completely, because he has a gaping hole in his own life and he expects her to fill it. And there is so much interpersonal cruelty in that, and that is interesting to me!

Alutegra is meanwhile like playing with similar stock tropes but turning them on their head. Alucard is just outright fucking Dracula lmao. He's thee vampire genre corrupting force. But meanwhile he's Integra's savior, her dog on a leash, and despite all loyalty to her, also personally ruining her goddamn life. The moral quandaries are like tripled; being in league with him goes against everything she supposedly stands for as a vampire hunter, meanwhile he's a ruthless, bloodthirsty murderer and her burden, but also her family's victim. And there's something unique about like... wanting the ruinous canker in your life to... stay there. The "kill your mentor" plotline involves a fairly straightforward like rising above and beyond, but there's no resolution here. He met her when she was fucking twelve and she doesn't know any other life. Even when he disappears for thirty years, she is still fixated on him. It's such a suffocating dynamic! But also they are trying so hard to be nice to each other????? The genuine good will just makes it so much worse. It's like yes, there is a dull, rusty, and poisoned knife in my gut, but I'm going to keep it there and make sure the wound gets worse, and in my heart of heart's I know it doesn't want to hurt me but yes it does <3

[chorus-the-mutate]

2025 is the year of fuck it, we ball and in the spirit of that I'm dropping my most nuclear SCP opinion: I don't like the idea of any fanon interpretation of SCP 231 trying to water down the horrors of 110 Montauk, the treatment of SCP 231-1 through 7 or the Scarlet King becoming canon. The entire point of SCP 231 is the horrific, unfair consequences these girls endure because of the Scarlet King and his cult and the moral ramifications that the foundation faces because of the horrific acts of violence they have to inflict on these girls they sympathize with in order to keep the world at large safe. It is the definitive moral quandary of the foundation and stripping away the immoral aspects of SCP 231 removes the moral nuances that give the story of SCP 231-1 through 7 any weight.

With that being said I will say that I like and respect Fear Alone as an alternative interpretation of SCP 231's story because it subverts the initial expectations of horror you'd expect with SCP 231 and shifts the moral quandary to how fucked up it is to gaslight foundation staff into truly believing that they are harming a child. And I especially like how Katherine (SCP 231-7) is humanized and is turned into a character instead of a number. I just don't believe it should be canon because it strips away the immorality that makes SCP 231 a real moral quandary for the foundation.

If anything I think there are ways to humanize SCP 231-1 through 7 while still facing the full horror of SCP 231 as a story, even if you don't want to directly write about 110 Montauk. While I don't personally know how long SCP 231-7 endures 110 Montauk someone could interpret that there are breaks between each ritual and spin the administering of class a amnestics as a mercy when in reality it is a tool to inflict more suffering. And by focusing on the times between each ritual you have time to characterize SCP 231-7 and the staff around her, to show that SCP 231-7 has a life outside of these rituals, even if that life is scary or confusing for her. Then between the transitions of time someone would want to put in this hypothetical story they could imply the horror of what SCP 231-7 goes through without showing it and instead focusing on the medical assistance she'd need afterwards. Even if someone wouldn't want to go that route because it doesn't provide any real closure they could write about SCP 231-6's escape attempt and how she almost got away, or even how her death was faked. Or they could even write about SCP 231-7's escape or escape attempt and all of the ramifications that come along with her escape or demise.

With the more positive stuff out of the way I will say that I genuinely dislike the fanon interpretation of SCP 231's story that casts SCP 682 and SCP 999 as children of SCP 231-4 and SCP 231-7. And yes I am saying fanon interpretation because while SCP files are under a creative commons license this interpretation of SCP 231's story or Fear Alone were, to my knowledge, not made by SCP 231's original author. Even with all of the redacted information on SCP 231's file I don't think any of it is supposed to be legible even if it was put through a block text translator to maintain a sense of mystery. (Trust me I tried putting the SCP numbers through a block text translator and I couldn't find anything legible.) Plus SCP 999 isn't mentioned in the document at all and the document isn't written in a way that would intentionally misdirect readers about SCP 231-7's fate while implying she gave birth. The document is solely about SCP 231-7 and the moral implications of what she's going through. And that's how it should be.

Making SCP 682 a child of SCP 231-4 strips away SCP 682's agency as a character and ties him in with a story that flattens the nuances of his character. If SCP 682 is a child of the Scarlet King his hatred for humanity just becomes this inherent evil within him instead of leaving room for interpretation about why SCP 682 hates humanity even though he has the capacity to befriend SCP 053 and SCP 079. Using a familial tie to the Scarlet King as an explanation for why SCP 682 hates humanity strips away any humanity SCP 682 has as a character and that will always be an inherent disservice to his character.

But the worst offender of this fanon interpretation by far is SCP 999. Don't get me wrong, I like SCP 999, I really do. But I don't think SCP 999 is supposed to be a character, I think he's supposed to be an embodiment of good in its purest form. He doesn't need to be some big hero in someone else's story because saving the world isn't what being good is about. Hell, the SCP foundation itself, especially in this case, shows that being good and saving the world are very much not the same thing sometimes. Being good is as simple as showing a genuine love for the people around you and putting in a genuine effort to make things better for those people. And that's all SCP 999 ever needed to show. Throwing him into the lore of SCP 231 and the Scarlet King as SCP 231-7's child ditches the point SCP 999 originally made about being good and flattens the moral nuances involved with SCP 231's lore in general by providing a cop out solution to the moral quandary SCP 231 was built on to begin with. Plus I think implying that the torture SCP 231-7 has endured was not only for nothing but that her violation directly produced a messianic figure that could save the world from her abuser is infinitely crueler than SCP 231 as a story canonically is now. SCP 231 isn't an incel fantasy like Redo of Healer or hedonistic torture porn for the sake of it like Marquis de Sade's works, it is a piece of horror. And the horror is the fact that these girls are victims that cannot be saved, no matter how much anyone in the foundation sympathizes with them. The girls are not to blame for anything that happened to them but they cannot be humanized by the foundation or else the foundation will not have the resolve to keep the world safe. SCP 231-1 through 7's treatment is supposed to be the blight on the foundation they can never wash away. And at this point I would rather have this incredibly bleak story about these girls than a happy ending where SCP 999 saves the day and erases these girls from their own story, their own suffering.

If anyone reading this doesn't like the grave moral implications of SCP 231 that is perfectly fine, but I would rather you spend time reading or making content about SCPs you do like than stripping away the moral complexities of this SCP to make it more palatable.

[allwormdiet]

Buzz 7.12

I'm sure all of this will blowwww over

Not a great sign that Grue's immediate response is to deny any connection to this, but it's not unexpected either.

I wonder how much of this for Tattletale is seeing a kid in torment, seeing a teenage "psychic" girl in torment, realizing that she read Coil wrong, wondering what else she's read Coil wrong on, realizing that this is going to fracture the team.

She might be some kinda culpable, but for now at least I'm willing to believe that Coil pulled one over on her.

And this is why. Coil would have very easily left enough of the data incomplete in order to keep her from suspecting what's up. The blackmail would've been a lot more simple of a conclusion to reach, and how he'd even known she was a precognitive is a wild quandary.

Speaking of the team's fracture.

I wonder if this is how Coil works. He gives you what you want, and then he smears you with the guilt of associating with him. Makes you realize you're dependent on him.

It still doesn't reflect great on Brian, though, that his first thought is looking out for for him and his and let the rest of them burn for all he cares. It's cold, and I don't know how much of that coldness is his default and how much of that coldness is what's been imparted by his old man.

And it doesn't take much for Taylor to poke holes in the argument, either. This isn't some distant problem he can write off as having nothing to do with him, he objectively played a role, however minor, in this girl being kidnapped and turned into a little drone.

Not entirely shocked that Bitch is apathetic, the only reason she'd care is if Dinah was a dog or had mattered to her previously. People aren't her bag unless they prove something to her.

Little disappointed in Alec, though. Would've thought that the whole "mind slave" thing would hit him the wrong way but I guess that's not what he worries about.

Also, Taylor, hon, you knew that all of these people were career criminals from a relatively young age, and you knew two of them were killers, even if there were mitigating circumstances. You can be appalled at the lack of concern for Dinah in particular but you chose to associate with them.

Honestly it's an outrageous gamble on Coil's part. If any of the more aggressive Undersiders had taken umbrage with that stunt I don't know if there's enough destiny in the world that would've prevented his skull meeting concrete.

And uhh, mm. Tattletale's not doing great on the morality thing either. "Better her than me," is that where she is?

Brian fucked this one. He only gets aggressive with the team when he's convinced that he has to, and I can't help but noticed that when "he has to" overlaps with when someone is bucking his authority.

Of course she'd thought about how to fight the Undersiders before this, when it was all just infiltration for the sake of the good guys. But now she's given up on that, genuinely wanting to have them as friends and teammates, and the possibility of having to take them down is more real than ever.

Fucking sucks, but that's what it is, huh.

Taylor turned down the option of just continuing to endure high school, because she couldn't stand the thought of being under that kind of pressure when she had other options.

She turned down being a hero because she realized she didn't want to be a traitor to the others, and because the heroes had done nothing but piss her off for the entire month she's been active as a cape.

She left home because she couldn't deal with her father, couldn't stand the idea of letting him in or telling him anything, choosing to push him away rather than speak to him about anything meaningful.

All these bridges burned and now she realizes she's adrift with people she suddenly cannot trust, with no direction for where to go next.

It's easy to call her shortsighted, maybe, but how the fuck could she have known?

This one hurts.

Mm. I dunno if Coil wouldn't force them to make that choice, is the thing. The Travelers would be easier, yeah, but he likes fucking with people.

Yeah, see, this arc gave Taylor just that little bit more data to wonder if this is a pattern for Brian, if she's been looking at him with rose-tinted glasses (yes) and whether he's a bad person (don't know, but my guess is "complicated").

The Empire's attack and the introduction of Dinah are only two data points, and from a more distanced perspective that might not be enough to judge how indicative that is of his morality, but Dinah is the hill that Taylor is willing to die on, and she can't distance herself from it. Not that I think she necessarily should, mind, but this is an extremely thorny dilemma that Coil very deliberately threw into the middle of the team to see what would happen.

Taylor "Careful" Hebert, everyone.

I'm glad at least someone is holding out the olive branch here. It kind of has to be Lisa, because Alec and Rachel don't give a shit and Brian is already on Taylor's shitlist rn, but still.

And yeah, obviously she's not going to be leaving for a while with what's coming, but they don't know that.

Heart's already broken, what's a few more pieces chipped off?

And of course, Murphy has a timing for the dramatic.

Yeah no kidding Tattletale isn't bothering to front with the smiles in this moment, this could kill them all, or frankly there's a nonzero chance it could do worse.

Because above all else, even as an outright felon who disrespects all authority, Taylor wants to be a good person.

...And I suspect Lisa knows that.

Current Thoughts

It's incredible, honestly, you'd think at some point the plot would stop accelerating somewhere along the line, but no, we're just cranking it up further and further.

The tensions between Taylor and the other Undersiders is so rough to read, she genuinely pinned a lot of her hopes on this friendship and now she's being let down, again, because she's the one who has a whole thing about trying to do what's right and their baggage involves... not that. Heartbreaking as per usual.

And then the fucking Endbringer. I'm gonna talk about it more in the Interlude but this is just another reason I want to kick Coil in the teeth, slimy fuck that he is. Moron rang the goddamn dinner bell for a localized apocalypse generator.

Let's hope nobody dies I give a shit about, I guess.

[gncrevan]

hey, so: moral quandary. i think i've made my mind up about this but i would like to hear from people outside my echo chamber or whatever.

i'm friendly with this homeless guy who is an alcoholic. the other day he said he actually wants to ask me to get him alcohol, but knows that i would say no. i told him i have to think about it because, due to my own experiences with addiction and substance abuse, this idea makes me queasy.

here's my thought process: providing an addict with the substance they're addicted to is not in the og spirit of harm reduction. but i think we also need to judge situations individually. this isn't someone with the means or the will to get sober. he's been on the streets for almost his entire life and an alcoholic for about as long. i haven't actually ever asked him his age, but he's old. his health is bad and he's not receiving adequate care (literally fuck insurance companies, more of their CEOs should be shot; but i digress). so one way or another, he will drink and he will smoke, and that means he's just hemorrhaging money on alcohol and cigarettes. meanwhile, i have alcohol sitting at home that nobody wants. i mean, speaking of cigarettes, we don't societally have any qualms about providing others with those, even though it's a severe addiction that kills and maims very many people. so it's really all about how we construct certain addictions in our heads (could go into why i think that is, but that's beside the point). i think the actions of giving someone cigarettes and giving someone alcohol are the same ontologically or whatever; it's how we fill them up with meaning that's different, but i also think ethically it should be somewhat context-dependent. i wouldn't usually knowingly buy an alcoholic a drink, but in this specific situation, i think it would be the most harm-reductionist if he could avoid withdrawal without losing so much money. (the argument could be made i could substitute the lost money for him, except i don't think what i can and do give is enough to do so, and i do have unwanted bottles of alc at home that have already been paid for.)

i think the way we discuss and treat addiction lacks so much empathy and nuance. personally, my goal is for addicts to have the most quality of life possible in their specific situation, and i don't judge people for their addiction, i don't think it makes them bad or dirty or less than. this guy is my friend and i'm trying to care for him to the best of my abilities, and maybe that means deconstructing the belief that there can never be a valid reason to help someone access their substance. idk am i completely off base here?

[navree]

Jonah Magnus

ugh number one guy, enough of sam trying to find out about martin blackwood and helen richardson and more research of the magnus institute involving research of jonah fucking magnus, also he just needs to return to me at once, i miss him dearly

How I feel about this character: I really like him. A fair amount of that comes from the fact that I've always had a natural affinity for villains and also that Ben Meredith's performance was just really good and I appreciated that. But I just enjoy him, I've always enjoyed villainous characters who are unapologetic in their villainy and aren't in a constant moral quandary about their bad deeds, and Jonah really just has no problem with any of the objectionable acts he does. I like his villainous traits, that he's duplicitous and manipulative and a bit sadistic (he didn't need to go that hard against Martin or Melanie, he did that because he wanted to), I like that he has his own agenda that he works at no matter what and no matter who it hurts, and I like that there are layers to him. 102 is one of my all time favorite episodes because we get to see things like Jonah having some kind of consideration (mild though it is) for other people, his curiosity, his enjoyment at things when he feels it unbridled, his sense of humor, and beyond that, Jonah is clearly not just a determined and driven individual, but there is some interiority in themes of choice, creation, and transformation intrinsic to the very nature of how Jonah extended his life the way he did. I dig him, he's real neat, he's legit my second favorite character in the show. Plus, when he snaps, he snaps, that's always so much fun (one hit would have killed Leitner and Martin and Melanie would have both been cowed with far less, but when Jonah gets mad he gets vicious and violent and that's why he pulverizes Leitner's head and goes way farther with torturing people who've irritated him and it's really fun that he has that side that just kinda loses it when pushed, I love it).

All the people I ship romantically with this character: I do actually ship Jonelias, it's an interesting dynamic and i wish it had been explored more post season 3. I also enjoy all of Jonah's romances that he definitely had with, like, every member of his original squad back when he still was Jonah Magnus. But number one OTP is always gonna be Lonelyeyes, andnot even in a meme way. Like I genuinely enjoy them as a couple, I have a LOT of thoughts on how that went on and what they meant to each other in the grand schemes, and I wholeheartedly believe there was emotional investment from Jonah's part (there kinda has to be, because Peter by nature isn't gonna be actively pursuing anything except potential victims, certainly not romantic partners). I have a post about this somewhere, but Peter is also the only person who has died in Jonah Magnus's ten million lifetimes that can be laid squarely at his feet. Anyone else who dies was likely gonna die around the same time in similar circumstances even without his involvement, but Peter, assuming he and og!Elias were the same age (which I do) is the only one who dies because of Jonah's actions and nothing else, if only because he's in his, like, mid-forties, and I can't pass up the thematic richness of someone who was so afraid of death he found a way to legit not have to deal with having a lover who dies well before his time as a sole result of your involvement in his life. I'm heavily invested in them as a couple, I could talk about it for days, not just because Jonahlias is my second favorite character and Peter Lukas is legit my fave.

My non-romantic OTP for this character: I know it's not canon but given my issues with season 5 I can elect to ignore it, I like imagining him and Rosie as buds and her as someone who doesn't take his shit and them just vibing (was always big into Web!Rosie or even just Eye!Rosie as long as she was specifically into just observing). To me, they just spent season 2 staring at the Archives and being judgy while sharing a coffee.

My unpopular opinion about this character: Again, I like villains, I don't mind Jonah as an out and out villain, but I think I preferred what we were getting out of him in season 3 than the turn to big bad. Like, season 3 Jonah seems to operate honestly similarly to Gertrude on a wider scale. He wants to stop Rituals, by whatever means necessary. And he wants to keep control over the Institute, his center of power, and is willing to do whatever necessary to keep it as well, and has no problems being cruel or awful in the process. And he has different motives for ending Rituals than Gertrude does, clearly, because he's not a very good person, but I just prefer that kind of grey/neutral affinity, regardless of him personally being bad or evil, and that role that he was playing. It was more fun for me, and I think it had more creative potential for Jonah as a character while still keeping him in a sort of villainous personality, which as I've said, I love. Also I think that all non-Elias enjoyers need the word "capitalism" taken away from them and they can only have it back when they prove they understand wtf they're talking about because a lot of the critiques are not only weird but straight up inaccurate to the character and don't make sense. Not gonna elaborate much on it too because I have a post about it already on my blog in some detail, but another major unpopular opinion of mine is that Jonah, specifically Jonah, was not seen as a bad boss or hated by wider employees at all, canonically, it's only Tim that starts turning on him in season 2 because of his issues and everyone else only hops on board after he legit reveals that he killed someone in cold blood and framed their coworker for it, they liked him as a boss and thought he was good this is literally canon even if it's an unpopular opinion.

One thing I wish would happen / had happened with this character in canon: That he shows tf up in TMAGP. Like, where is he? I'm pretty sure he's involved in the computers, because "jmj errors" are not actually a thing and very specifically for this show, and it makes sense that the three people in the Panopticon in 200 were the ones transported to the computers, but that's TMA!Jonah. There was a Jonah from this show's universe too, one that created the Magnus Institute and very obviously had plans, even if they diverged from what we know. And I don't think the fire at the Institute, stopped him, so where is he? Can he show up? God I hope he does, and if he doesn't I still have a draft of something that I might write down eventually.

[in-maidjan]

round 2 for funsies: D, L, M, R for three vigi npcs from the wheel!

the wheel has spoken and ari's in my phone again summoning satine everyone say thank you ari xoxo // oc asks: AU ABCs

D. duplicate. How would your OC react to meeting their clone or doppelganger? What if they were a clone or doppelganger? How would they feel about that?

NORA – oh brain go brr. there’s an immediate instinct to eliminate clone!nora, because in nora’s mind, she’d understand that it knows everything she does and what she can do, and how that could be used against her, so it has to die because she’s already thought to kill it, so undoubtedly it’d be thinking the same as she is. this turns into its own special kind of horror movie of the two of them hunting each other down. in the end, when nora meets the party again, they’d never know if its nora or not. suffice to say, she’d feel threatened, and she’s an old hand at eliminating threats.

WARDEN-COMMANDER LA DETTE – this goes much better than nora’s case does. satine has initial suspicions but if she can confirm the clone has agency, then she’s relatively relaxed about the whole thing. one thing that satine chaffs against is the limits of command, she can rarely get hands on and lead from the front, so having a clone that can be an extension of her out in the field, give her live reports, that’s invaluable. If she were a clone herself – again, it comes back to agency. If she didn’t have free will, she’d be wishing for something, anything, to take her out.

LUCIN – insert mandatory “i’d fuck my clone” joke here. but in all seriousness, he’d hate it. he’d immediately distrust it and where it came from and what it’s here for, if it’s going to replace him and render him redundant. he has a lot of pride in the work he does now, he earned it and won’t let anything jeopardise that or compromise the faith satine has put in him. he’d be facing a horrible moral quandary of being afraid of it but not wanting to kill it, because he wouldn’t want to die if the situation were reversed.

L. lovers. Does your OC have different partners in different AUs? What might their love life be like in an AU? How would they do in a romance genre, like romantasy or a romcom?

NORA – i don’t remember what i have said previously about nora’s love life but that means i can start over so! it feels fair to say nora has a special someone in every port but she isn’t tied down, and that’d stay the same across au’s, that she’d have certain people she’d trust just enough for one night stands. nora’s that kind of character in a romance genre that seems unattainable, maybe even that it’s unrequited love and that might play out nicely in a will-they/won’t-they romcom.

WARDEN-COMMANDER LA DETTE – the moment everyone has been waiting for. in an au, i think satine would have a really healthy love life. the blight has her whole focus right now so it’s not something she really entertains, but beyond that? i can perfectly imagine her dressed to the nines at somewhere like the ritz, really high-end and classy for a date. romcom, not so much, but one of those heartfelt love stories about peeling back layers, washing away the veneer, and opening up and becoming vulnerable would be brilliant.

LUCIN – mister commitment issues himself. he’s perfectly suited for a romcom where every time someone confesses their love to him or there’s a deep and passionate kiss he starts to reevaluate his whole life and how he even ended up here. bonus points if the setting involves a wedding, don’t ask me why, it just feels right. his love life truly looks like a disaster of really beautiful, charming, and competent people in his life that he is really into but every time it starts to get a bit serious he panics. satine has recommended therapy.

M. multiverse. Are there any points in your OC's life where things could have gone differently? Where else might they have ended up? How would your OC react to crossing the multiverse and meeting another version of themself?

NORA – if she hadn’t been recruited by the grey wardens, she’d still be in the free marches working on a farm, making a modest living sowing and reaping the fields, trading in nearby hamlets, and warding off bandits. that version of nora, meeting the person she is now as a highly capable soldier/warden, would be proud – proud that there is a world where she can rise up from what many call a backwater and do something truly meaningful in standing against the blight, even though there’s a high chance of a grisly, thankless end.

WARDEN-COMMANDER LA DETTE – answered here x

LUCIN – there is a world where he is still in the white spire and where the party never rescue the mages there. there is a world where lucin watches his only defender, audoire, be cut down standing against the demand to annul the circle. there is a world where his father has tears in his eyes as he brings down the sword. but it’s not our world! <3 if he hadn’t gotten in with the grey wardens , I could see him on the run as an apostate, eventually making his way to tevinter where he can live in relative freedom and be respected as a mage instead of feared and at risk of being arbitrarily executed.

R. royalty au. How would your OC handle being royalty? If they're already royalty, how would they deal with being a commoner? What kind of royal would your character be?

NORA – nora’s a direct and forceful woman so i think she’d have so much presence being of royal blood, and she’s the kind of royal that doesn’t want the title but would never shirk that responsibility. but she would hate it. every second of having to put on a mask and play little political games, she’d loath, but again, she has a duty and she’ll grin and bear it to the end of her days. i could see her being a duchess more than a princess or queen which is in line with titles in the free marches!

WARDEN-COMMANDER LA DETTE – if i were to imagine satine as a queen, she’d be the epitome of duty first. she’s the kind of queen who prioritises her people and their safety, defends her lands well, and knows exactly who her friends and enemies are. she’s authoritative by nature and exudes command, so she’d handle it very well.

LUCIN – lucin is the kind of prince where everyone sees him being a little harlot and partying and thinks he’ll fail the second something important comes up, and they’re all stunned into silence when he can recite the favourite poem of a visiting ambassador or aptly sums up the geo-political strife of another nation. he’s the dark horse who everyone learns not to underestimate, because he uses that pretty face to his advantage. but he still enjoys a good party.

[thewitchfarhan]

Why are you reblogging from evilios? Do you know that they’re a zeus apologist, right? 💀💀💀

I'm going to preface this by saying this is going to be a *MONSTER* of a post, so be warned - it's gonna be long.

TLDR: “But when it comes to the spiritual people I follow and reblog from on Tumblr - I have the following rule for myself:

If I like it, I interact with it, if I don’t - I won’t. If the blog isn’t upsetting to me or triggering me then I’ll follow, if it is - I won’t. If someone isn’t harming anyone by their spirituality then I’ll respect it, but if they are - fuck 'em.”

Hi anon - thank you for your inquiry. This is actually something I have been pondering for a bit and I feel ready to express my feelings around this issue.

To start - I am *very* new to the Hellenic Pagan community. While I have been a practicing Witch and Pagan for about 10 years - Hellenic Paganism is not a practice I have worked with/within prior to 2023.

Additionally - I make a point to not pass judgment on a spiritual belief or path before researching it from a third-party point of view, and examining the historical documentation available (as opposed to just taking into account UPG).

With that being said - my feelings toward Zeus as a deity/spiritual entity are negative (as you can see below from a previous post I made).

A good portion of the myths about Zeus that I am familiar with have heavy themes that center around male entitlement, assault, r*pe, and misogyny. All of which are not only morally reprehensible - but also somewhat triggering for me as someone who grew up Catholic.

I have seen individuals say that you have to take into account the “historical context” in which myth and religious texts are written. I have seen individuals say things along the line of “These myths were written by misogynistic men so they projected their own values and beliefs onto Zeus, that’s now who Zeus really is!”

[I'm going to use the anon above as an example because their thoughts and sentiments are ones I see often from Zeus Devotees / Zeus Worshipers]

I’m not in the business of trying to tell others what to believe - not because I think all beliefs are valid - but because I know it’s pointless.

However, if you are going to use Greek Myths as the source material for your religious practice - then it would be more logical to compare these myths - not to Paradise Lost - but to the Bible.

So, if Greek Myths (the basis of Hellenic Paganism) are symbolic and not to be taken literally - then prey tell where are you getting your canonical information from? Which religious texts *are* to be taken literally?

The bottom line, and answer to this quandary, is this:

All religion is invented. All religion is made up. All religion was created by humanity.

Cows and Crows don’t have religion. They do not build altars or shrines. They do follow religious codes. They do not worship or name divinity.

We can trace a before and after period for every religion's existence. There is not one religion that has existed from the dawn of time (and if anyone claims such they’re lying because humanity evolved from other species who definitely did not have any concept of ‘religion’).

So, with that being said, if you aren’t part of an organized religion/coven/cult - then you have two options.

1. Interpret all holy and traditional texts as literal and abide by their ever moral, rule, and decision within your personal practice.

Or

2. Acknowledge that you are picking and choosing what you believe to fit your own moral and personal narrative. Admit that you are making up your own personal gnosis and acknowledge that any judgment of your personal practice is also a judgment of your person. Admit that if you aren’t taking source material literally (which is a totally fine thing to do) you are inventing your own religious gnosis.

Want to worship Zeus and ignore all myths that portray him as a r*pist? Go ahead! I have no issue with you. Just don't try to somehow make those myths "valid" or "just symbolic" - just admit what you're doing and move on.

Because if you’re going to go around saying “Oh this historical information is valid but the other one isn’t and shouldn’t be judged from a modern lens!” then congratulations! I’m going to view your practice through the same lens as those who praise the Christian God as an all-loving entity and ignore the fact that (according to the story of Noah’s Ark in the Bible) he murdered every single adult and child on planet Earth, aside from a chosen few.

At the end of the day - do what you want. I don’t have any authority to stop you and I’m not gonna fight with you. But if you want my personal opinion on Zeus worship it is this:

Zeus, for me, is categorically defined by his actions. While there are many stories of SA and Abuse in Greek Mythology, Zeus as King of the Gods takes the cake. Not only because of the sheer number of stories that center around him committing acts of SA - but also because as the King of the Gods, he should be held to a higher standard.

Since I am not part of an organized religion/coven/cult - I get to choose how I interact with spirituality, and for me, that includes judging it through a modern lens.

I chose to not ignore the myths that portray Zeus in a negative light because I think the sheer number of those myths defines Zeus' character and what he represented in ancient times.

But when it comes to the spiritual people I follow and reblog from on Tumblr - I have the following rule for myself:

If I like it, I interact with it, if I don’t - I won’t. If the blog isn’t upsetting to me or triggering me then I’ll follow, if it is - I won’t. If someone isn’t harming anyone by their spirituality then I’ll respect it, but if they are - fuck 'em.

Feel free to send any follow-up questions, I could talk about this shit for days.