#the problem is you think me being aware of my flaws means i should be in near constant cringe of them but i wanna ask- wtf does that do?

[snekdood]

woe is me for i am so cringe... *faints*

[prettycottonmouthlamia]

Some time should be spent as we talk about Path of Life of the parallels between Horatia and Gladiia, as well as Aegir and the rest of Terra. I don't believe this is a particularly inspired point of commentary for me to actually discuss, because the game itself juxtaposes them against each other, but I think it's worth talking about and providing my own commentary.

Horatia raised Gladiia by herself despite being told repeatedly she would not be a fit mother to do so. This isn't some triumph either: Horatia raised Gladiia very poorly. Her status, work, and disposition caused her to neglect Gladiia, causing deep emotional scarring, even if Gladiia tries her best to not show it to anyone. She doesn't see Gladiia's rebellions are proof of her lack of ability either. Since Gladiia became a Hunter and put her life on the line for Aegir, Horatia sees herself as ultimately having done the right thing.

This is, essentially, mirrors how Aegir feels about the rest of Terra. Aegir can easily step into the role of worldwide mediator, Heratia feels, despite the best objections of Kal'tsit. They can solve everyone's problems, because they've experienced them all as a nation. A little diplomacy here, a little Collapsal extermination there, Aegir can solve it all. In a way that the land nations themselves couldn't do. You can even still see this in their final message. They'll be the ones leading the new alliance against everything. Over and over again, it is repeated that pride and arrogance are the flaws of the Aegir. To put it a little more aptly, just like the Greek and Roman folklore of our time, their fatal flaw is their hubris. They dramatically underestimated the Seaborn, their capacities against them, and their infiltration by the Church of the Deep. They rejected the idea of getting help from others. Horatia felt she could raise her own daughter just fine. Aegir feel they can effortlessly lead the land nations into the coming threats. They are but mere babes in the eyes of Aegir.

This, ultimately, is contrasted against Kal'tsit. While Aegir have the records of their past struggles, none of them are old enough to remember them directly. They can learn from history, but it is merely that: history. Kal'tsit, on other hand, has the direct experience with the peoples she talking about. She knows about the Ursus, the Bolivarians, and the Sami more than the Aegir possibly could. Kal'tsit, herself, has been humbled time and time again. Made painfully aware of her limitations and the consequences of exceeding past her grasp. What it means to have knowledge and still fall short. Kal'tsit is the voice of reason to the haughty, prideful Aegir, warning them of their obvious mistake.

Is it no real surprise then that Horatia remarks that the only person she's ever seen Gladiia put her full trust is Kal'tsit? Calm, collected, ever careful Kal'tsit? Who never assumes she can plan for every contingency, who understands her own limits? Who, ultimately, puts the life of Gladiia above the potential benefits of the mission? Compared to her mother, who seemingly very quickly declared her own daughter dead? Who deliberately obscured the actual plans?

Kal'tsit, is ultimately, not her mother. She reminds Gladiia of her mother, but Gladiia puts her full trust in her, unlike Horatia.

[siggiedraws]

As someone who considers Silver to be her favorite Sonic character, I had spent a good while wondering why I keep feeling frustrated with him in the IDW comics as compared to Archie and I think you might had put into words why. His lack of a backbone is kind of weakening him in hindsight. I still like him all around and there are parts of IDW that do justice to his character and even expand on it (I will never not be happy for his journey as a gardener cause that is both in line with his love of nature and very refreshing to see for a male character to have unabashedly, especially someone Silver's age). Though I will disagree with you saying that Archie had NO backbone. He was constantly in conflict with Sonic over finding out who the traitor to the Freedom Fighters that lead to his bleak future is and he consistently makes mistakes that make him come off as cocky and bratty, to the point that Sonic eventually grows to hate Silver and even disregard his warnings when he does discover the actual truth until it's too late (that truth of course being that Sally betrayed everyone unintentionally with her Robotinazation, something no one wants to be true until they have to face it after the fact). Archie Silver is still flawed, but he is closer to his game counterpart more than IDW Silver is, at least in my opinion he is.

Thank you for your sharing your opinion and being very polite about it! To clarify something, I did not mean to say Archie Silver had no backbone. I was using him as a point of comparison because I noticed similarities with IDW, in that he is portrayed as more polite/timid than his game counterpart. I understand your interpretation of my previous post because I didn't get into it for the sake of not getting off topic. In the future, I will avoid making points without providing evidence in order to avoid confusing people or derailing my argument.

What I want to argue here is that I think your point arguing that Archie Silver has a backbone is still compatible with my position of both comic Silvers possessing noticeable character differences from game Silver that share the same problem with Silver being portrayed as polite or timid, just to different degrees.

I absolutely do not want to be unreasonable here! I agree with you that he is more similar to his game counterpart than IDW is and I won't deny the examples you just listed. I hope the examples I bring up can help illuminate my perspective a little bit and why Archie Silver is a bit too similar to IDW Silver for my liking.

Sonic the Hedgehog #195 - Silver tries to politely interject in on the fight, to the point of saying "excuse me" and "ma'am."

I am aware that he stops them all directly after this moment, however, it should not have happened in the first place if Archie Silver was aiming to be like Game Silver.

Sonic the Hedgehog #235 - Silver stammering in front of Sonic and allowing himself to get dragged through the dirt by his quills.

I think it's not in-line with the games for Silver to allow himself to be disrespected like this. If the Rivals games teach us anything, he gives back equal if not more aggressive energy when he perceives that someone is disrespecting him. Silver calling Sonic a jerk is really small potatoes.

If Silver reacts this way to being called crazy, how do you think he would react to being dragged through the mud by his quills? Not well, I can tell you that.

Silver's stammering here is also of note because it communicates that he's intimidated by Sonic when he has no reason to be if this were an accurate portrayal to the games.

Sonic Universe #43 - Silver tries to lie.

In the games, Silver is so honest and sincere when he speaks that it could be attributed to a source of his rudeness. Lying and deception is simply not something he ever considers doing. We've been shown in Rivals 2 quite clearly that Silver is honest to a fault. This panel also shows Silver being polite and timid in his mannerisms.

Silver attempting to lie happens to be a trait that is shared with IDW Silver in the 2022 annual.

Sonic Universe #25 - Another example of Silver not defending himself from being disrespected and using the term "sir."

Silver's childlikeness is emphasized here, as he is put in direct contrast with an elderly character who comes across as an authority figure, one he seemingly accepts and calls "sir" to be polite. This is an example of what I meant in my post when I say that Silver's naivety keeps getting conflated with being childish. He even says "b-but he started it" like a child telling on a sibling to their parents.

I acknowledge there is a tiny moment where Silver speaks passive-aggressively in the second to last panel, but Silver listening to the order of "don't sass your elders" directly afterwards quickly negates this moment.

Another moment from the same issue shows Silver becoming timid and lacking in confidence when faced with six enemies.

This directly contradicts the games where Silver is very confident in his abilities when faced with a horde of enemies. In Colours DS, he shows an eager willingness to fight and gets disappointed when Orbot and Cubot flee instead, which is opposite to how Silver attempts to avoid fighting in Archie.

Now, in the Archie example, Silver gets defeated by the enemies, which indicates that his timidness is because he is outmatched. I would argue that this is still not true to Game Silver. In '06, Silver readily and confidently fights Iblis, despite Iblis coming back time and time again and never truly being defeated.

Another example is when he fights Shadow. Despite losing to Shadow, and being told that it's no use fighting Shadow due to his Chaos Control ability, Silver does not start behaving timidly. He is still as determined as ever.

-

Thank you very much for your ask! I hope the examples provided illustrate why I brought up Archie Silver as an example in my previous post about this topic. I agree with you about gardening being a good recent addition to Silver's character, it's very wholesome to see him indulge in his love for the world around him.

[liketwoswansinbalance]

What would you do if you knew you couldn't fall??

Did you mean "fail?" Unless you meant literally falling, I will answer as if you wrote "fail." You can correct me if that is the wrong interpretation, and I could answer the question again.

Assign first-class experts to solve the world's problems... so I wouldn't have to do it all—assuming the technicality is that I start the projects, then they probably would not fail. Would that loophole work? (Realistically, if it didn't work, I don't think I'd actually be altruistic enough to do all that...) Would I have to see the projects through to completion? That's quite a lot of work. But doing this would likely mean I will probably have a clean conscience for the rest of my life, ideally, because, I know I should if I had the power to do so.

In relation to #1, even if this is non-necessary, also assign people to figure out if there's life on other planets. I just want to know. Don't need to contact whatever is out there—I don't want anything to go wrong. I'd just want to possibly spy on them for a little while. The problem is: spying is unethical, so I'd have to convince myself that I'm either doing it for cautionary reasons or as a longitudinal, naturalistic "study." This could be a pandora's jar, so I might take it off the list.

Cure stupidity and herd mentality. (Curing all physical ailments is built into no. 1 already.) Or better yet, get someone else to do it. (At the same time, we could argue that these qualities are part of being human or flawed, and that we shouldn't tamper with our human-ness. In which case, just no. Also, we would lose part of our former connection to literature, pre-cure. For instance, we would no longer comprehend the meaning of the trope: "love causes poor judgment." So, would it be worth it? Even if the world were terraformed and otherwise reshaped in more metaphorical ways to be "perfect," I think we would still manage to invent new problems because it's what we've always done as a species. Thus, there needs to be a reasonable stopping point. And, I'm not sure what that point is, meaning several other items on this list might have to be struck out.)

Have the world's politicians be... better somehow? Ensure they are sane and moral, that they trust science, are scientifically-literate... I feel, perhaps, like we might get better results if we chose science-fiction writers, particularly those who've managed to predict our present and know how to do social commentary. They seem to be aware of and actually care about the state of humanity. (I'm not really well-informed enough to make any decisions, but I know well enough that the world needs people of varied knowledge and skillsets to continue on. So, I'm not completely, intentionally trying to valorize only what I'm interested in. I'm just biased like any other human being is.)

Delegate everything I don't like doing to competent people (like cooking), and reap the benefits of the exact outcomes I'd want every time. If they were successful, I'd never have a problem with dust and no one would ever move my stacks of books and paper, which often collect dust.

Turn myself immortal and gain eternal youth. (This should probably be item no. 1 on the list, actually, to account for how long the first few tasks could potentially take.) Then use those means on others who would want it done. If it's someone I don't like, I could still let them become immortal, and would just tell them after this favor not to cross paths with me again. I would also try to convince anyone I want to keep around to stay.

No. 6 would attract too much publicity. I'd need a way to continue being relatively anonymous, except for what I would selectively want to be recognized for. (If I couldn't fail at it, I'd love to become the next "Shakespeare" or some kind of literary giant... and maybe then have the world forget about me... and be rediscovered and reinterpreted by future generations who use my original and/or revolutionary works as required reading in their syllabi. That'd be striking and cool. I'm not sure how I would stop suffering from belatedness though.)

Find a way to never sleep, never eat, never exercise, and not experience cognitive decline. I would only do the ones I like doing.

Find a way to resurrect people from the dead. (I already know this has too much margin for catastrophe, so there would have to be restrictions on what can and cannot be done. At the same time, I am also aware this would violate nature, so it might have to be removed from the list. Who am I to decree the rules?)

I haven't addressed religion yet. I'd have to find some way to alleviate my guilt, but that's more of a temporary fix and not a real solution. I'd have to find some way to remain a mostly good or at least harmless person, assuming I'm mostly one now. If there's no reason for anyone, any force, or anything to object to my existence, I would hope I would be allowed to continue on with my plans.

If there were some way to affirm what I think my personal beliefs are, that would be great. At the same time, that defeats the point of faith, and so, I'm not sure what to do about this dilemma.

Learn everything I want to learn now that I have infinite time to learn it (and infinite time to procrastinate).

Consume all the media I want to consume and also never miss new installments or works of art because I wouldn't be outlived by creators.

Become some kind of successful writer. I mentioned this before, but to specify: maybe a novelist or maybe an academic critic—why not both?! Sky's the limit!

Eventually, if I could never fail, I might wonder about whether anything could ever be a challenge or worth doing anymore. (Doubt that will happen since I have a fear of failure anyway—and being cured of it would be a wonderful reality to live in!)

And so, I could want to die eventually. (Again, highly doubt that will happen.)

In case: It's not my top priority, but: study philosophy, so I don't become corrupt, apathetic, or suicidal since I know things can happen to the human psyche after too long.

If no. 1 didn't happen, and humans were faced with climate change as well as other problems, then I would want to die before the planet were barren and ruined, so I wouldn't have to live under dystopian conditions.

Some of the above might not happen because I may procrastinate too much. That would suggest that the revised item no. 1 should be: conquer procrastination once and for all, and only then proceed in a rough order.

[miraculouslbcnreactions]

Why do you think they don't show Marinette comforting other characters? It's always been a weird writing decision to me, and I sometimes wondered if I was legit just erasing all the times it happened out of my memory or smth. Like the first character trait established for her is she struggles to say no to people, she is a people-pleaser. And there isn't a better way to make ur mc lovable than showing how they effect the people around them. AND it would make her breakdowns genuinely heartbreaking, because she keeps giving and giving and it's a genuine flaw. Like, she rushed off to comfort Ivan in Origins, right? We should have had more of that. I'm reminded of that one Lady Wifi (i think?) scene where Ladybug is smiling at her adoring fans and the camera while Chat Noir is in the background actually comforting a child lmao. It just feels so weird, because I think Marinette IS actually supposed to be someone who does that, who provides that comfort to her loved ones all the time (even at the cost of her own mental health, boom, an actual thing she can work towards). But we just keep getting the reverse instead. She just kinda feels like a shit friend? Showing that emotional labor would also make her exhaustion work because like, what does the guardian even DO? Tell not show, but they ain't telling shit.

One of the things that drew me to Miraculous is the fact that the show tends to write the characters in non-standard gender roles, so I actually like the fact that Marinette tends to be more of a fixer than a comforter. She drives people to action and wants to solve problems and is very good at taking the weight of the world on her shoulders, but she kind of sucks at emotional vulnerability and comforting people. It's genuinely a good flaw for her character and a lovely thing to see in a show aimed at girls. No, we don't all need to be stereotypically maternal figures. Women can be just as bad as men stereotypically are when it comes to emotions!

The problem is that the show is obsessed with Marinette holding every important role in the story, meaning that we don't get a more emotionally aware character or characters to balance her out. Nor do we get to see her learn that this is a flaw of hers and either improve or just own that she's bad at this and learn to trust someone else with these types of issues. (This is one of the many things I think Adrien should have been allowed to do, btw. Ladybug is the brains, Chat Noir should be the heart.) We also don't get a true sense of Marinette's struggles because the show's formulaic nature rarely allows for those types of problems.

The Lila thing is a good example. Lila says that she's going to destroy Marinette's friendships, but she literally can't do that because that would mean changing the way the characters relate on a massive scale and formula shows can't do that. So instead of seeing Marinette struggle as Lila lies and manipulates everyone into hating Marinette, we get extremely annoying episodes where Lila lies and everyone believes her, but no one gets all that upset at Marinette's constant accusations. They just treat it as a minor quibble which is actually more aggravating than Lila changing the status quo in my opinion.

There's also the issue that you brought up: we don't see Marinette truly struggling to be the guardian, so her new role doesn't feel like a big deal. Not much changes for her save for the kwamis being around now. We don't even know what her relationship with Master Fu was really like because he was barely ever on screen so we really don't feel her loss.

All of this is just another problem to lay at the feat of our ever-present issue: Miraculous does not have the right conflicts and characters for a formula show. Formula shows thrive off of things being lighthearted and the heroes lacking major flaws. Miraculous chose to make things somewhat serious and give everyone flaws that are just begging to be address, but that can't be because this is the wrong format for that type of thing.

In a team show where character arcs were a thing or even just one where character dynamics were a thing and Marinette was allowed to share the screen in a more balanced manner, then everything about her would work fine. She's set up perfectly for that kind of show. She is not set up for a formula show where she's basically the only character that matters outside of the villains. If that's what they wanted to write, then Marinette needed to be limited to minor flaws that never last more than an episode or at least limited to flaws that are purely situational such as being stubborn or the classic sudo-flaw of being clumsy that the show already embraces.

[highfantasy-soul]

I'm loving how complex and flawed both K and Evan are this season - Brennan and Erika bring so much nuance and reality to their portrayals and in that last episode, I genuinely think both characters are right and wrong with what they're doing.

K should never have tried to 'heal' Evan's already healed arm without his permission.

But Evan is wrong when he said "you don't get to tell me what my problems are, I know what my problems are"

I think a lot of people are seeing that as the truth and treating Evan like some perfect person who's magically 100% fully self-aware when like....he's not. No one is. Quite literally, that's why we have community (and interventions) - we don't always see ourselves clearly and friends are there to point it out and try to help us through it.

Evan DOES ignore his own health. Evan DOES ignore his own need for therapy and community. He has convinced himself so thoroughly that no one actually likes him that yeah, it's a problem - and his friends DO get to call that out. [Seriously, Evan reminds me of Goob from Meet the Robinsons where his internal monologue is "Everyone hates me, they all despise me, I have to ostracize myself" while in the background, literally everyone is saying hi to him, inviting him to hang out, etc]

He literally does that to Sam in the previous episode - she tells him he's not awful to be around, that they do love him, and his response? "You're full of shit - you couldn't possibly actually like hanging out with me."

You know how terrible and hurtful that is? It's not just uwu sad boi isn't he so tragic and in need of love!!! That's him treating his friends like shit.

His own self-depreciation reflects back onto the people who care about him and he devalues THEM as people because of it. That's an issue of his he doesn't see. He DOES do things that are harmful for his mental health and when the others encourage him to do things differently, he ignores them and chooses to continue the self-destructive behavior. Is it born of trauma? Yeah. But again, there's an issue of Evan's that he doesn't identify as an issue.

i think Brennan is fully aware of this. I think he's very purposefully playing this character to show that just because a character is riddled with trauma and has been victimized so much in their lives, doesn't mean that it makes them a perfect person. That trauma, ya know, traumatizes them and can lead to them having behaviors that hurt others around them.

K attempting to 'heal' Evan wasn't out of nowhere nor was it them reverting back to their season 1 self (after all, as they pointed out, K wasn't trying to fix him season 1, K fetishized Evan's "brokenness" (*cough cough* just like a big section of the fandom is doing right now *cough*)), that act was the culmination of her loving Evan and him constantly rejecting expressions of that love by saying 'you're faking it - I love you, but you don't actually love me, but I'm going to stay in this relationship for some reason while constantly belittling you and calling you a liar'.

It was K trying to help Evan after seeing his shirt on fire for so many years and Evan being burned alive but continually telling K "no, I don't need to take off this shirt, don't try to pour water on me, I'm fine" all the while his flesh is peeling off and he's suffering and K is getting singed by the fire too.

100% K was wrong to try to heal his already healed arm without his permission, but the sentiment DOES ring true.

Evan isn't perfect and I think Brennan has very carefully crafted him that way. His trauma doesn't excuse the way he treats his friends - and they're perfectly within their rights to call him on it.

[olderthannetfic]

Can I poke the bear for a moment and get angry? Because I'm seeing "posting as activism" more and more in fandom spaces, and tonight I saw a post that made me lose it.

There is a post about (current events) going around that says, "full offense, but in this time, your own comfort doesn't fucking matter, you should be uncomfortable about things that are happening, and I hope you can fucking live with yourselves if you are quiet. It takes five seconds to retweet or reblog, fuck your aesthetic, fuck your anything aesthetic."

And my god. How dare they.

Yes, there is severely fucked up shit happening. Yes, people should be aware that people are being killed. Yes, there are people who are just shrugging about it and pissing off. But how does reblogging a post certify someone as Good or Bad? How does this person know that someone hasn't already helped out meaningfully in some way, or is still helping out, but on other websites? How does this person know that someone isn't barely holding on by the skin of their teeth, and they would have a mental breakdown if they got closer to any more stressful things?

I know a multitude of people, including myself, who have recently either needed to call lines, check into facilities, move back in with their parents, or go on medication because of how insane things have become in their own lives. How does this person not understand that blogging; being on tumblr; engaging in fandom, having a small space that someone can control in its entirety, is a reprieve for people who are already at their wit's end outside of that space? And that's okay.

(We are not doing the relative privation shit in this house. I refuse to entertain that.)

Ironically, by insisting that people participate in sharing posts when they're already stressed and exhausted, that's a surefire way to make their problems worse, and potentially prevent them from acting helpfully in the future because suddenly, their exhaustion turns into full-blown burnout. That's how it works. Professionals tell you to dial things back if you are too overwhelmed. There is a reason for that. There is a limit to how much people can mentally process and handle. Compassion fatigue exists. For a lot of us, we are already at our limit. We need space to relax, and not have arbitrary obligations thrown on us. That is not our fault, it is not a character flaw, it does not mean we are bad people. And just because horrific things are happening elsewhere, it does not mean we can, or should, stop taking care of ourselves first. Yes, it feels shitty to think, "you know what, I can't reblog this". You bet your ass that I and my friends feel guilty about not being able to engage as much as we think we should, but that is how it goes. I can put my head underwater for a bit. But I cannot keep my head underwater forever. I will drown.

Not to mention the obvious part: guilt-tripping people to the extent of implying they are somehow contributing to genocide, just because they won't reblog a post, and implying they should not be able to live with themselves if they do that, is beyond revolting.

I am angry, and I am not sorry.

--

So many of those kinds of posts—and they turn up during every set of horrific real world events—sound like people who are in a country far away from the events, diaspora at most but probably just randos, venting their impotent rage because it's the only way they can feel productive in a situation where nothing they can do is productive.

[ohwolfling]

Gale’s evil ending is out on Youtube now! How do you feel about it and is there any analysis to it?

[goes to YouTube because I have Toy Story disease and know I will never do this myself]

Ooooh boy. The thing is, this is an RPG. If you played the game in such a way that Gale would get here, alright. I don’t wish to yuck anyone’s yum. But for me this feels nigh on impossible. 

-please not, I have not slept right in like a month, this is not as polished as I usually try to make my asks/meta-

Gale at his very worst wants to be worshiped, adored, and praised. He wants to be equal to gods because it’s gods who have made playthings of the little guys. I don’t think that this kind of submission would satisfy Gale, nor do I think that Gale is someone who does direct violence on purpose, even on his worst days. 

Choice One 

As for destroying the heavens, I don’t know, Gale seems aware that being a Chosen is a curse regardless of who the god is and I don’t see Gale focusing his ire on throwing his testament to Mystra and having a crowd beat up a Mystra statue that came from I am not sure where? Sort of echoes my sentiments that while BG3 is some of the best and most varied representation of abuse and trauma on personal and systemic levels I’ve ever seen, it still has it’s little flaws, both because of its commitment at times to DnD lore and the fact that I don’t think that survivors/advocates/educators were consulted so much as we got lucky. I’ve talked about this mostly in regards to how the narrative fails Wyll (not because Wyll should be more important than other companions because he’s literally from Baldur’s Gate, an argument that is just… so dumb, your hearts are in the right place but jfc). 

Choice Two 

I just don’t believe in any version of Gale that wants to lead an army. It made me laugh honestly. 

Choice Three

ILLUSION MAGIC, CONTENTMENT, LOVE (djinn, careful what you wish for, etc, so there’s like… existing lore and stuff for this in the greater pantheon of storytelling)... This one had such potential. Disappears immediately, however.

Does he need a big statue of himself? What is that meant to communicate? I don’t get this. Gale likes pretty things and this world is still hideous for himself. God Gale shows us that Gale’s “Bad” ending is leaning into aesthetics and power-posturing. This is… just not in character to me under any circumstances.

Choice Four

Killing everybody is just plain mean. Gale needs something to gaslight himself about. Frankly, this is too simple for the kind of mental illness this man holds within him. The line says, “this is mercy” but nothing around it actually implies that. Actually kinda pisses me off. A thing doesn’t need to look menacing to be evil and I expect Larian to know better. A power move here would’ve been Gale finding he still feels hopeless after all this and detonating himself against even the Orb’s will! 

Choice Five

Gale could never wish for chaos to rule. He would get IBS. I also don’t think “people are inherently bad” is a Gale thing. That might vibe with Shadowheart and Astarion before their healing journeys or if you play them that way, but even then there’s so much foundational wounding that gets them there. This is just… lol ok. Gale very clearly loves children, at least in the sense that he wants to protect them. If there’s an evil Gale who would turn a child into a little killer, it would be against an abuser of some kind, not a mother protecting them.

Generally,

Let him kill Mystra and have chaos ensue that way, cowards. 

A Gale who would control or limit you would do so leading with pleasure, not cruelty (maybe some Willow erasing Tara’s memories vibes) and even where they did play with this they ultimately failed. It doesn’t serve Gale in any way to create illusory magic for big statue. Some of the language around some of the choices feels… very insecure masculinity? And I don’t particularly associate that with Gale. His problems with Mystra are not based in not feeling like A Man™, but in not feeling enough as Merely A Mortal Man™. That’s a reading that people falsely make of Gale of Waterdeep™ throughout the game, which is good world building and makes sense, as he is a renowned wizard, was a child prodigy, and is a known paramor and Chosen of Mystra. That’s the social dig at his facade. Gale Dekarios, however, doesn’t demonstrate any issues in that flavor?

If you’ve played Gale as a man constantly on the cusp of evil, you may have an insight to this that I don’t. But for me, even where things feel somewhat possible, it’s giving Daenerys burns down King’s Landing because we forgot to write her for four seasons in the middle and are bored now. Which is to say that GRRM has a few books left to make Daenerys accelerate herself and could do it in a way that is beautiful and breaks my heart but that ain’t what happened here today, ya know? 

This is an observation no one asked for but I think part of the perfect storm that led to SO MUCH additional Astarion content (the obvious being casual hornies + Neil Newbon being as accommodating as he is passionate [affectionate][complimentary][in awe]) is that the default setting for how Larian Studios views evil, struggle, grief, trauma, abuse, etc is in these very flashy, edgy tropes of Hurt People Hurt People being very literal. And that is a genuine and beautiful load-bearing wall of Astarion’s belief system. But Hurt People Hurt People doesn’t apply to Gale, at least not in that way. Gale tries every other thing possible before he comes up with the idea to restore elements of the Weave to Mystra through relics and such. And when he gets the orb, he’s moving to be sure his own inevitable detonation doesn’t hurt anyone. Gale’s entire story is about the risk of reaching out, of trying to connect, you literally pull him out of a hole of unstable magic.

As a note - Nothing I say here is too critical of Larian studios. For me personally, multiple endings of the same flavor are not what fuels replayability but for most people who simply play this game and do not examine it as a piece of literature or find community around the discussion of it, it does. Studios are a business and they’ve been through it working on this with WotC/DnD. I totally get it. But I’d really rather more in world characterization than additional endings. 

[aliquistis]

On Mystra and Gale

Okay I gotta say it.

tl;dr: Gale is too old to have been groomed by Mystra (unless you headcanon him as 30 or younger), bc she was dead until 1479 (game year is 1492). I am not defending Mystra. Mystra is a mess. Her (FR) writing is a mess. But for this at least, the timeline doesn't add up.

Disclaimer: there is absolutely nothing wrong with people disregarding/tweaking lore for fan works/fanfic. God knows I do it all the time when I GM. That's your story now and you can do whatever you want with it, including exploring problematic relationships like what if Gale was groomed by Mystra? This is just a post for general information. Write what you want. Explore those dark recesses of the human heart. Fly free, you beautiful butterfly.

Too long but still gonna read explanation under the cut.

Let me preface this again: This is not a post in defense of Mystra. I have, in fact, been very loudly complaining about Mystra since long before Baldur's Gate 3 was even hinted. This is simply pointing out timeline discrepancies that it seems many newcomers to Forgotten Realms aren't aware of (totally understandable! You should not need to ingest 30 years of lore to enjoy a game and I'm not saying you do.) Additionally, FR literally kills Mystra every new edition and it gets dumber every time.

Anyways. It is highly unlikely that Gale was groomed by Mystra. This is not a statement of morality, it's a statement of timeline. Mystra died in 1385. She was in pieces (like bits of her magic were still in artifacts/her Chosen, such as Elminster in lore that I absolutely despise) and that, as far as I can tell, is how magic subsisted until 1479, when she was reconstituted by Elminster (in lore that I absolutely despise) This is a gross oversimplification of an event called the Spellplague. I am open to correction on how magic worked here because I moved to Pathfinder during the 4e era and you could not make me read those Elminster books if you put a gun to my head.

Regardless, from 1385-1479, Mystra was dead/missing/asleep. BG3 takes place in 1492. If Gale is 40 years old, he was born in 1452. This means, if Gale is 40, the youngest he could have been was 27 when Mystra contacted him. This lowers, obviously, if you think Gale is 35 or even 30. If he's 30 then Mystra could have contacted him at 17. Yes, a 17 year-old is a child and this could have led to grooming, but Mystra wasn't at full strength when she first returned and she most likely wasn't seeking new Chosen until the next year, 1480. Regardless, this is the reason I put grooming as Highly Unlikely instead of Impossible. I personally believe Gale is older than 30 (I say this as a person in their 30s), I believe he was written with the intention of being a man older than 30, and I cannot see him being in his 20s. (more power to you if that's your headcanon, he's an archmage, he could be 600 for all we know, fly free, etc)

OKAY THAT SAID. Would she have groomed him? Fucking probably! Mystra is a mess. I have been playing in Forgotten Realms in tabletop and video game settings for going on 25 years now and let me tell you. Mystra is a mess. I could make a whole long ass other post on all the many problems I've had with her writing over the years. Even without the "Mystra banged a minor" angle here, there is a serious power imbalance and very obvious manipulation on her part. And I'm here to tell you Gale isn't even the first wizard she has done this to! She's done much worse! Mystra has a ton of flaws (I could write a BOOK on Mystra's flaws) but it remains highly unlikely that grooming Gale in particular is one of them.

If you'd like more FR lore this person has some amazing lore write-ups that I really enjoyed reading during EA. And here is Mystra's forgotten realms wiki page, already linked to her death and return.

(my friend told me to post this after I kept bitching to them about Lore on discord and They Know Who They Are)

[jackofsometrade]

Gayest House Scenes:

Season 1:

Unfortunately, episodes 1-4 didn’t have quite the quality of gayness I was looking for. We begin at 5:

Season 1, Episode 5: “Damned if You Do”

W: Maybe I'll come to your place.

H: Your wife doesn’t mind being alone on Christmas?

W: I’m a doctor. She’s used to being alone.

H: …

W: I don’t wanna talk about it.

H: Neither do I.

Note: and then Wilson ACTUALLY FUCKING WENT TO HOUSE’S PLACE FOR CHRISTMAS. and House played the piano for him and they ate chinese food because neither of them celebrate christmas at all, actually; they just wanted to be together. They just wanted to be together during the season of love and family. I'm so sick. 

Season 1, Episode 6: “The Socratic Method”

Foreman: I thought he liked rationality.

Wilson: He likes puzzles.

H: You think I’m crazy. 

W: Well, yeah. But that’s not the problem.

Season 1, Episode 7: “Fidelity”

W: Oh. That’s what breasts look like.

H: You love everyone. That’s your pathology.

W: *watches House leave longingly”

Cameron: Did he just turn on the TV?

Wilson: He needs to think.

 

W: That’s all! I mean it. 

H: You always do. It’s part of your charm.

W: I love my wife. 

H: You love saying it.

 

Season 1, Episode 12: “Sports Medicine”

H: You thought I couldn’t handle this news?

W: …

H: You talk to her a lot?

W: No. It’s been a long time. Look, if you don’t want me to see her-

H: What is this, eighth grade? I’m fine.

W: It’s fine if you’re upset!

H: No! It’s- I have no right to be upset. You two are friends. You should see her.

Season 1, Episode 14: “Control”

W: Since when do I need the secret code to talk to you?

H: You value our friendship more than your ethical responsibilities?

W: Our friendship is an ethical responsibility.

Note: that asshole chairman figured out he couldn’t threaten House, so he threatened Wilson's job instead to keep House in line. I’m sick?

Season 1, Episode 17: “Role Model”

W: House, I believe you’re a Romantic.

Season 1, Episode 18: “Babes and Bathwater”

Note: Wilson didn’t vote House out. and the chairman was so offended he decided to fire Wilson instead. Wilson fr put his whole career on the line, knowingly, to make sure House could stay. I'm SO SICK.

 

W: I got sacked.

H: Did you make a pass at Cuddy? I told you, she only has thighs for me.

W: …I voted to keep you.

H: Is he gonna sack everyone who votes to keep me around?

W: Yes. Every one of us.

H: …Just you?

W: Yeah.

W: I have no kids. My marriage is all messed up. I only have two things that work for me: This job and this stupid, screwed up friendship. And neither mattered enough to you to give one lousy speech.

H: They matter. If I could do it all again…

W: You’d do the same thing.

H: Nice job protecting me! You saved my ass by sacking Wilson?

Note: House lets Wilson sit in his chair and doesn’t make him move. He makes everyone else move. He doesn’t make Wilson move.

 

Season 1, Episode 19: “Kids”

W: My advice is much more simple: stop being an ass. You always find some tiny little flaw to push people away.

H: Now it’s people? I thought we were talking about applicants.

W: You have a history of this.

Note: When Wilson tells house he’s “going to end up alone”, House just stares at him. i am WELL AWARE they were discussing women, but they were discussing why House always pushes women away. and then Wilson tells him he’s gonna be alone and House just stares at him???? like stares at him like he just said something both crazy and hurtful???? like he thought he would have Wilson in the end????

 

Season 1, Episode 20: “Love Hurts”

H: He peed on me. I’m not into that.

W: It’s apple juice! Now, go apologize.

Note: House immediately does what he’s told and finds the patient he yelled at.

 

W: I just want to make sure no one gets hurt.

Cameron: I’ll be fine. It’s not like I’m going out with Jack the Ripper.

W: Oh, it’s not… it’s not you I’m worried about. It’s been a long time since he opened up to someone, and I… you better be absolutely sure that you want this, because if he opens up again and gets hurt… I don’t think there’s gonna be a next time.

C: You’re worried I’m gonna break his heart?

W: …

H: This is a mistake. I don’t know how to have a casual conversation.

*Wilson rolls eyes*

Note: Why the literal hell would Wilson be at House’s place helping him get ready? Helping him with his tie? i’m sick.

 

Note: “What I am is what you need. I’m damaged.” HELLLLOOOOOO????????? i’m gonna eat my hands

 

Season 1, Episode 21: “Three Stories”

Note: “I’m not busy. But I’m not sure I want him to live.” HELLO IM GONNA JUMP OUT THE WINDOW??????????

Season 1, Episode 22: “Honeymoon”

Note: “Some part of me hopes that he’ll die. I’m just not sure if it’s because I want to be with her, or if it’s because I want her to suffer.” HELLLLOOOOOOO????????? This line just sniped me from behind.

Note: Stacey and I actually have SO MUCH beef. She better watch her back.

Note: “I thought you were too screwed up to love anyone. I was wrong. You just couldn’t love me.” As wack as I think Cameron’s relationship with House is, this line killed me.

Note: The audacity of Stacey to tell House she’s still in love with him and always will be just to tell him she won’t be with him?? Like what is actually wrong with you. Let my boy catch a BREAK.

[dross-the-fish]

First of all I just really want to say I absolutely LOVE your art and specially the way you draw Erik, Leroux-Erik my beloved 😭💕

Ok ANYWAY. I saw your posts discussing about Erik and how the Phandom portray him and Raou, and I really want to point out some of my views (in the healthiest and most polite way possible!!!)

I'm not trying to deny Erik's flaws nor that I have an obvious bias since he's my favorite character ever AAAND Raoul is a character I dislike a LOT for multiple reasons lol but, I want to adress that: Erik is a person that endured multiple ways of abuse and humiliation in his life, since he was a child. He has multiple scenes of trauma response and, as you pointed out your post, acts impulsively many times and also shows clear remorse for his actions. What I think separates him from Raoul is (aside from the obvious class diference and the fact that Erik has a whole history of trauma and evidences of mental illness) the fact that Erik learns something from his selfish, self-destructive behaviour. He *had* a chance to end up with Christine if he didn't so shitty with her, and this is very impactful in the end specially because Leroux didn't treat him as a villain who deserved punishment, but as a traumatized AND completely abandoned person who fucked up pretty bad

Obviously, despite my personal beef with Raoul, I don't think he's some sort of abusive devil or any shit like that. I just think Christine would be better at her own. Forgetting Erik's flaws for a minute — Raoul *is* very manipulative, childish and uncaring towards Christine. He, unlike Erik, doesn't learn from his mistakes and presents the same behavior until the end of the story. Idk my girl Christine could be better at her own, single, following her career. The fact that Raoul was born in a rich family in the 19th century and didn't face any of the poberty or struggles that lower-classed people like Daroga, Erik and Christine had also make his character waaaay more difficult to like in my point of view. I'm NOT SAYING THAT "being rich makes you evil" (duh) nor that Erik's actions are ok, just to be clear! It just bothers me how so many people treat Raoul like a saint little puppy and Erik as a monster, like COME ON

Now, back to Erik: I'm not saying you intended to mean that, but I have a huge problem with how part of the Phandom thinks Erik had malicious intentions when approaching Christine, or that his feelings for her are fake. The "Erik knew precisely what he was doing since the start" really makes sense considering how his redemption arc went in the novel. Obviously this changes a lot in many adaptations (for example he's clearly much more self-aware and manipulative in the musical). But Leroux-Erik *genuinely* believed he was doing the right thing. Maybe he had an idea of "uuuugh maybe this is pretty bad maybe i should stop" but the self-destructive-fear-of-abandoment-everything-is-fine voice spoke louder. Let's not forget that what turned Erik into having such a violent mental breakdown was not "Christine doesn't love me and I must punish her" bullshit, it was when he heard her speaking not so many cool things about him and his appearance at his back (NOT BLAMING OR HATING HER, I love Christine, I'm talking about Erik's pov). If Erik didn't love Christine, or if he was a monster, he wouldn't feel any guilty for his actions. The most impactful thing in the ending of POTO is that Erik realized he had treated the woman he loved like trash and even still she showed him the compassion he needed

Ok ending this long ass text, I just wanted to state that I agree with a lot of your points specially how the Phandom tends to summarize everything to black and white even though most of the characters are all morally grey. I wanted people to stop dehumanizing a mentally ill abuse survivor like Erik while also stop hating on a poor woman who never asked to be put into Raoul's or Erik's bullshit lol thanks for having the patience to read, I'm really curious to know what your thoughts about this are 💕💕💕

I appreciate your courtesy, I understand where you are coming from but there are a few points i'm not sure I fully agree with. While it is fair to depict Erik as traumatized or mentally ill, I feel these are ultimately reasons for his behavior, not justifications. I agree that he is a sympathetic character and his story is a tragic one, I also agree that Erik had a great capacity for good under better circumstances. Leroux says "he had a heart that could hold empires but had to content himself with a cellar," or something to that effect and I believe that's true. But some of Erik's behavior cannot be written off as impulse or trauma response. He was still an assassin who built torture chambers and even when no longer in Persia he still had a torture chamber in his home that he made use of. He has enough agency that he can still be held responsible for all of the death and destruction he caused even as we acknowledge that he doesn't enjoy killing and feels remorse. How he deals with his remorse in particular is a bit of a sticking point for me. Erik's consistent ability to willfully "forget" what he does or completely deny the severity of his crimes is very likely a product of guilt but the presence of guilt is not a sign of virtue and after awhile it starts to feel like he is first and foremost dodging accountability. He never feels guilty enough to stop and prefers instead to alleviate his internal discomfort by emotionally distance himself from his actions. I also think it's important to acknowledge that Erik is a villainous character and he is violent with Christine. He does try terrorize her and coerce her into marrying him by threatening to kill her and everyone else. To be honest that's why I like his redemption, because he actually NEEDS to be redeemed. You can't redeem a character that never fell from grace. If we can't hold him accountable for his choices and acknowledge the full harm he did then his redemption is hollow. On the subject of Raoul, Leroux tends to write him as being kind of young and stupid and most of his boorish behavior the product of youthful impulse and the older I get the more I'm inclined to agree. This doesn't make Raoul right or even necessarily likeable but if we're giving Erik grace based on the author's sentiments towards the character we should probably give some to Raoul as well. Ultimately I feel Raoul redeems himself by proving he's willing to die for Christine. He throws himself into mortal peril to save her because he does love her. Yes, he has a lot of privilege compared to other characters and it certainly contributes to him coming off spoiled and bratty at times but at the end of the day he and Christine do love each other and he is who she chose. I'll admit I sometimes feel compelled to defend Raoul even if he's not remotely close to my favorite character just because the fandom tends to over inflate his flaws and hold him to the worst faith interpretation while making every excuse under the sun for Erik. The phandom will go to great lengths to see nuance and humanity in Erik's behavior but not in Raoul's and, while I have my own character preferences and Erik is certainly my favorite by a long shot, I try to be fair and empathetic to ALL the characters in the story, whether I actually like them or not.

[wizardsix]

I can't remember who said this but there was this one dev who said that when making romanceable characters they have to be attractive in some way (personality, looks, not too morally fucked up etc). and since I read that, the statement hasn't left my mind and I'm very aware now of whenever outside influence and modern discourse get to me or other writers. like just yesterday I found myself rewriting a scene to be more "comfortable" to witness, even though the point was to be emotionally charged and face a difficult topic the character had been actively lying about. but some things can't be glossed over. sometimes it's good when media grabs you by the shoulders and makes you face horrible shit. it's good when media makes you uncomfortable even if it's coming from a ~romanceable companion~. that means it's working. if you remain comfortable forever you learn nothing.

I bring this up bc the veilguard companions are the perfect example and victims of the "romanceable characters need to be attractive" mindset. they don't have ugly sides, they don't fight with each other--and I mean really fight--they don't have controversial opinions or do problematic things. they don't ever question your authority over their lives and why you're the guy in charge. they are nice and perfect and their problems aren't really that serious and can be fixed by simply having a therapy session w rook (bc being possessed or gaining new magic isn't a big deal in a world where previously such events are Very distressing and hard to control). they are further proof that trying too hard to make something attractive has the complete opposite effect if your brain isn't the size of a pebble.

it's overall very frustrating that big game developers continue to be so spineless and I'm not giving anyone a pass for shallow writing, especially from a franchise that is known to have complex characters. none of this is impressive after the first three dragon age games, which were well loved and dissected and debated for years after their release. that isn't to say these games don't have kind characters, having that balance is why I personally like dark fantasy and liked what the dragon age games offered (whenever the writing was good..). it's not dark for the sake of being dark (see grimdark), there's a reason why these things are happening, and in this world no one is completely innocent even if they have good intentions. most people like when their characters aren't always kind or agreeable, bc it's extremely rewarding to finally find that middle ground (of course I have to bring up larian, who made bg3 and proved just how much people appreciate flawed characters, see astarion). conflict is the driving force of a story, no matter what it is. even the most sickeningly sweet cozy slice of life story will have some kind of conflict. it's unavoidable. that's life. taking that away is setting yourself up for failure and all that remains is a boring story full of boring people. no one cares about characters who have their lives together.

(the post is technically over but I wanted to put some final thoughts under the cut bc this got longer than I meant)

I want to go back to the statement real quick... like i do agree, it's true as writers we'll subconsciously (or consciously if you're insecure) try to make our characters appealing, but this is the common trap writers fall into by giving a shit about what others think and want from Their work (which btw I fully believe in writing what you want even if it's "bad" because something with genuine soul will never be as bad as soulless cashgrabs). romanceable characters can and should be as flawed as you'd make any other character, bc trust me there's an audience for everything. even a random npc with two lines will be attractive to someone.

the pressure of an imaginary audience is what pushes writers into a corner and prevents writers from writing and exploring what They want. it's the writer's story first, not the audience's. I think the romanceable companion trap can be easily avoided if writers just 1) grow a bit of a backbone and 2) ask themselves if this is even a necessary or insightful mechanic that will help develop a character further. ask themselves if this character even has the capacity to handle a romantic relationship bc everything else is subjective and it's impossible to appeal to everyone (which apparently this is a controversial take). I won't sit here and pretend that I don't appreciate a good romance, but sometimes all someone really needs is a friend.

obsidian is a good example of self aware devs. they tried to do romance for pillars of eternity 2 bc of fan demand, and it didn't work very well. now for avowed, they didn't explore romance bc they know it's not their strong suit and don't feel it's necessary for this story, instead that time and effort went to developing the characters in other meaningful ways. I have nothing but respect for such a decision bc they know what they want from their story instead of lying and trying to be everything at once. less is more as they say.

[sirsagrell]

So I literally created this account just to read people yelling about Veilguard on this website, and I'm predictably getting sucked into participating.

Disclaimer: I've always been the "it's good enough to hook me hard, but now I have to mentally rewrite the story in my head to really enjoy it" BioWare fan. I'm self-aware enough to realize, that when I think something should have been done a certain way to do justice to the story told so far, that story told so far may not have been there in the games that BioWare actually made.

I will, as such, try to stick to the Dragon Age that exists and not the one in my head, when writing about Veilguard. Will I succeed? No idea.

With that out of the way:

There is a lot of valid criticism going around about the sanitized/whitewashed/shallowly inoffensive writing. I agree with a large portion of it, and don't have much to add. A lot of the writing fell flat in a lot of the ways it never did in BioWare games before. Not all of it, though. There were moments of brilliance here and there.

But I think my actual main problem with this game boils down to something that isn't talked about much in the critiques that I read.

Specifically, that Veilguard should have been the ending of this series.

But instead, they tried to make Dragon Age yet another one of those fictional universes that they wouldn't fucking let go of.

I think it is very important to let stories end. It is very important to let go of entire settings, especially the most beloved ones. Because if you don't, they fossilize under the requirements of nostalgia and the need to stay recognizable and quickly turn into this hopeless cycle of increasingly warped self-repetition where everything always comes back to the status quo and engaging with the setting in any way leaves a taste of existential dread in your mouth.

(I'm looking at you, Star Wars. I will insist that KOTOR II was the best thing ever written in that setting because it broke the fourth wall, pointed a finger at this exact phenomenon, and said "look what you're doing to us")

(Or maybe that's just how I remember it, because that's how I overwrote it in my head)

(I think there's a profound point about possessive love to be made here somewhere, but it's late and I'm too tired to look for the right words)

Anyways.

If Veilguard was the ending of the series, it would have at least set itself and all of us free from that.

It could also have attempted to say something more meaningful than world is good and always worthy of being saved. Like, people complain that Veilguard couldn't handle variable world states going in, and I get that, but I think the even bigger missed opportunity is that, having to account for more games in the setting, BioWare couldn't afford having varied world states coming out of it.

We save the world from mad tyrants, and a blind broken man, and that's it.

But there was setup for so much more here. I'm sure I didn't hallucinate it.

We're never asked what it actually means to save this world, and if it means the same thing for everyone.

We never have to wonder if it could possibly be us who are the blind and broken ones here, unable to turn from a dead-end path, because it is the only one familiar to us.

We never discuss what specifically it means for the Veil to go. It just defaults to DEMONS, BAD, and all the interesting foreshadowing for the Veil maybe coming down that we previously had goes completely out of the window.

And so we're never given the choice of what to do with this world. And we can't stop to really contemplate how fucked up it actually is for flawed individuals such as us, or Solas, or the Evanuris or whomever, to have the power to make decisions for a whole world to begin with, no matter how good we think our intentions are.

Just now realized how apt Veilguard is as a name for this game. Makes me wonder what it was, before it got that name.

It will be ironic if, despite all the work they did to make sure there is room for more sequels, and all they had to throw out to get a clean simple world state, this will actually become the last one in the series.

[awesomecitys-blog]

While I will say that most Jedi are good, and the Jedi ideology is mostly good, and I agree that the Sith as individuals are evil...

Not all Jedi are good. Ki Adi Mundi, especially, he treated his clones like objects, and there are certainly other Jedi who I feel fell short of their own ideal. I feel that Luke Skywalker is everything a Jedi should be, and that much of the Order came short of what he achieved. I also feel that Jedi ideology is just... not right for some people. And that's okay. I don't think there is any universe where Anakin would have truly been okay being taken in by the Jedi. He was broken in a way only deep, interpersonal connection could have solved and the Jedi tend to shy away from that for fear of attachment. In terms of my issues with the Jedi Code, there really is only one line I have issue with: "There is no Emotion, there is Peace." This line is psychologically harmful, I feel, and as we can see with people like Ki Adi Mundi there are some Jedi who interpret this line very literally. It's why it shocked when I discovered that there was actually an older version that was abandoned after a later Jedi philosopher decided it wasn't good enough. "Emotion, yet Peace."

This is much better, accepting your own emotions and choosing peace is much healthier than outright rejecting them, I feel. Anyways, sorry for the wall of text. I'd love to hear a response from you! I hope you have a good one, regardless.

Yea, individual Jedi aren't always good, but for me personally, I tend to focus on the Jedi because I find that nitpicking each and every Jedi's flaws for myself is personally taxing, and it's also easy or reasonably easy, imo, to find posts about the failings of individual Jedi. Asking out of curiosity, what do you mean when you say 'the Siths as individuals Sith are evil'? Is it that the Sith as a whole aren't as evil or really that evil, or am I looking at it the wrong way?

In regards to Anakin, the Jedi love interpersonal relationships, Anakin and Obi-Wan were considered, by themselves even, as brothers, the relationships between Master and Padawan is highly valued for the deep, personal relationship it breeds, and many Jedi had friends outside of the order, from Dexter to Chewbacca and Tarrful. The problem that arose was that the Jedi couldn't help Anakin as much as they would like because he wouldn't let them. Obi-Wan, Mace, Yoda, and many others maybe, knew or were at least very aware of how close Anakin was to Padme, and offered him the best advice, some with subtle hints that they knew, in regards to that relationship. Anakin wasn't ready to let go of the Jedi or Padme, so he bounced between them, and despite it being very easy to leave the Jedi Order if one so chose, he wanted to have both, and it was tearing him apart. The Jedi wanted to help, but when the person you wish to help won't let you into the relationship, there's only so much you do and so much advice you can offer.

I don't know enough about the Jedi code, so I can't respond to that one in a way that might help you. However, @short-wooloo might be able to help. (I hope it's alright to tag you, you're the only person I know who might be able to answer this more accurately than I can attempt)

No worries about the text wall, I'm an avid reader. Sorry this took so long, I've been busy with college. Take care!

[areiton]

I know you’re sick of the age gap argument but it’s never not going to be remarkable to me that so many men, especially men in Hollywood, can never seem to meet women their own age. There may not be a pattern with Chris, as perfect as we all think he is up there on his pedestal, but there is a pattern of young women being groomed and taken advantage of by older men. Am I saying Chris is doing this? No. But its a conversation worth having, even if the catalyst of this conversation this time is our untouchable, perfect, cinnamon roll Mr. Evans. 16 years is considerable. There is a power imbalance. They have always been at completely different life stages and always will be. Alba may not be a victim but to shut down the conversation just seems callous to women who actively get taken advantage of both in Hollywood and out.

There is a pattern and a problem in Hollywood of men in power grooming and preying on younger people, primarily women. That is not a thing I said anything about ignoring. I am talking about a specific pair of people. Chris who has no history of problematic dating or using sex/relationships to groom or create power dynamics. And Alba who is not a child.

You (and other fans) can project whatever issues you want onto them but there is not a power dynamic that I am aware of--him being older does not actually automatically create a power imbalance. CAN IT? Sure and when there is a standing history of grooming and problematic relationships (Leo DiCaprio. John Mayer. Jake Gyllenhaal. Joe Jonas.) then I'd be like oh hey we should look closer. There isn't in this case. An age gap doesn't mean the relationship is fatally flawed and doomed to fail, it means they have to work to make it work which--is true of any relationship???

But I am not and was not talking about OR silencing all discourse about Hollywood problems??

This. Case. Is what I'm talking about.

Do I know there are problems in Hollywood FUCKING YES because I pay attention. But Chris--who I don't think is perfect but tends to be fairly unproblematic--is not what you're talking about. They are apples and oranges. He has not dated a litany of underage girls or girls significantly younger than him. So. sure let's have the convo but lets do it in a separate place than a guy who just got married because making it about systematic Hollywood problems when it's mostly just fans pissed he married someone is...a stretch.

Also friendly little aside--fuck off with "i know you don't want this but" bullshit. It's rude. You come into my ask box trying to pick a fight, at least own what you're doing.

[heartbeatbookclub]

There's a lot of ambiguity present in DDLC, and although + does elaborate on a lot of it, it presents some new ambiguity, too. I've already discussed the Protagonist and his entire existence, but I think something people don't even really think about is Natsuki's home life.

In case that doesn't make it obvious, CW: this mini-essay is going to talk a lot about abuse. Take care of yourselves.

Within the original Doki Doki Literature Club, there's an inherent uncertainty in the actual degree to which Monika is personally manipulating the other girls. It's somewhat unclear whether or not Monika is directly manufacturing unappealing traits to give to everyone else, or if she's just exaggerating problems that were already there to the point of catastrophe. In other words, it's unclear as to exactly how much of the game from its outset was something which would happen naturally, or an element of Monika's manipulation.

I think that Plus simultaneously plays into this ambiguity and clarifies a lot of it. There are definitely gray areas left, but the Side Stories in particular answer a lot of questions.

I think what the Side Stories are intent on doing is showcasing all of the girls as characters independent of any potential 4th wall/Monika meddling, and it answers a lot of questions regarding the true depth of each of the girls independent of that manipulation. This includes Monika, actually, and I think what it displays is that Monika's manipulation is far reaching, but she worked with material which was already there.

I've already discussed how the Protagonist is implied to exist within the Side Stories, but vitally, the Side Stories indicate the raw personality (and problems, motivations, etc) of every one of the girls. This includes Monika, and I think makes for a very interesting character study for how Monika became who she is in the main game. That's something I played with a good bit in Coil, if you haven't read it. Monika isn't aware she's being watched and in fact isn't aware of any of the nature of her reality, and thusly puts significantly more of who she actually is as a flawed person on display.

I'm digressing, but only a little bit. Something else this clarifies is the question I asked earlier regarding whether or not Monika was explicitly adding negative traits to the other girls, though it isn't an exact answer: Sayori does have a lot of the same mental health issues displayed in the main game, though clearly not to the same degree. Yuri clearly demonstrates a more obsessive personality, but it's in more of an autistic hyperfixation "I am incredibly passionate about my interests and will talk about them for hours if you don't shut me up" kind of way. I think there's definitely still some factors which are up in the air about Yuri (knives...that's all I'll say), but I think it's clear to see the basis of what was done to her here.

And Natsuki is, well...still pretty ambiguous.

I should be clear; Natsuki's raw personality is still very readily apparent here, and it does do a great deal of exploration of her character, showcasing the real depth of who she is and why she acts the way she does, but there is one critical question which isn't explicitly referred to.

The obvious thing you're thinking of, probably because I mentioned it at the start. Any reference to Natsuki's home life is absent, and it was all I could think about throughout the entirety of her story.

What it's instead "replaced" by in this instance is bullying from a toxic group of mean girls esque "friends". I put replaced in quotes because they are clearly what the emphasis is placed on in lieu of an explicitly bad home life, but I'm not sure I'd call them a one to one replacement. (I put friends in quotes, because...well.)

To be more specific, I'm not sure they're a replacement at all. I think what they are is more a suggestion of deeper issues Natsuki has.

I think Natsuki's behavior and overall attitude when talking about her other friends is very telling with regards to how she views relationships in general. Her immediate knee-jerk reaction whenever anyone says anything negative about them is to, in the first place, minimize anything they did or said as "just playing around", or "making fun of something stupid". Her next response is to immediately place the blame on herself for being so sensitive.

The way she immediately seeks to dismiss and push off any attempts to address any issues with how her friends treat her is heart-wrenching, and constantly blaming herself for responding poorly is doubly so. I think it's also behavior we'd commonly expect of people undergoing abuse, and I'll be frank in saying that I think that her relationship with these people isn't just toxic, it's outright emotionally abusive.

But being in one destructive relationship doesn't necessarily mean she's in another, does it? What is it about this entire situation in particular that leads me to believe there's something deeper here?

It's maybe a little bit of a stretch, but follow me here.

I think Natsuki demonstrates that she is attached to these people, despite their actions toward her. Her immediate defense of their actions, the particular way she chooses to defend them, and her intense fear to even the prospect of cutting them off tell me she doesn't want to let them go. Even further, I'd say her immediate response being to defend them when others attack them is multifaceted, and I think that one of those facets is that someone pointing out how her friends shouldn't treat her that way is probably giving voice to a feeling Natsuki herself has. I think one of the reasons she's so quick to defend them is in order to suppress her own urge to say something.

But why is she so hesitant to say something in the first place?

She doesn't want them to leave her.

This is something which, on the surface, might sound a little strange, but I think more than anything else, greater than any fear of the abuse she might endure at the hands of these heartless weirdos, is a crippling fear of being alone.

There are various things I think underline this trait, big and small (I mean, she outright brings it up when she talks about cutting them off), but I think her entire attitude regarding her friends is representative of someone who desperately wants attention from someone, anyone, whether positive or not. The reason she places all of the blame on herself and defends all of their actions is because she thinks if she brings it up at all, they won't want to hang out with her anymore. She's the problem, because she can't bring herself to put up with it, but she doesn't want them to leave her.

And I think that this, in conjunction with a lot of other elements to her personality, indicate that Natsuki likely doesn't have a very kind home life, either.

I think the biggest thing that illustrates this to me is her sheer willingness to treat the entire situation as normal. To everybody else looking at Natsuki's situation from the outside, particularly as she describes and defends a variety of their actions, it's blatantly obvious what's happening, and Natsuki finds herself confused not only over how other people respond, but how she herself feels.

The amount of time she spends excusing the emotional torment they put her through, and her constant insistence that this is normal, and that she's perfectly fine, she just needs to grow a thicker skin, demonstrate to me that Natsuki doesn't really have a good concept of what "normal" is. I don't think this is all just a conscious denial of reality; I think she genuinely has trouble understanding what's wrong with the situation, beyond that they're acting mean towards her.

"It's just the way things are!"

"I'm the only one who ever has a problem with it."

I think her ready ability to normalize this kind of abuse speaks volumes to how she views relationships in general. I think this is indicative that she doesn't have many good models for what a "normal", healthy relationship would be.

I think that a lot of Natsuki's broader personality, particularly in how she responds to the situation with her friends, and Monika and Sayori's attempts to connect with her, is a pretty fair indication that she doesn't really have a good space outside of her interactions with people at school.

I'm, rather ironically, finding it increasingly difficult to really express everything which showcases it to me in a way which all fits together nicely, but I think if nothing else, that's the point I really want to drive home. It really seems to me based on the way that Natsuki acts that at the very least, she doesn't have a good, safe space at home.

If she did, she would have a much better point of reference for all of this, and I don't think she would be so quick to trap herself in this situation. I think that a big reason she turns to the Literature Club and is so insistent on trying to be friends with everybody in it, despite herself, despite all of the problems and conflicts they have, is because she's desperately searching for a safe place where she can just be herself.

I think she constantly feels like she needs to be on the defensive--in my opinion, a big part of why she finds it so hard to just be nice, outside of something simple like baking for other people, is because her only experience is other people being mean to her, and needing to make a biting comment back. I think that's also why it's so difficult for her to accept others being kind to her: She is so used to just shutting out other people and ignoring them because they're mean to her, that when someone is nice to her, despite her desire to accept it and return it in kind, she instinctively snaps at it, because if she lets anyone in, if she shows any sign of vulnerability, someone will hurt her. Maybe she'll have to admit that the other things people said hurt her, too.

It's like a feral kitten instinctively clawing and biting at the hand of someone just trying to pet it. It's so unusual to them that someone could touch them for any reason other than to hurt them that they feel the need to strike first, until they eventually realize there's nothing to be afraid of.

I think that all of this, in conjunction with how everything else in the Side Stories is presented in reference to the original game, suggest that Natsuki likely doesn't have a very good situation at home.

I think it's vitally important to acknowledge that most people's perception of Natsuki's home life, if it's at all fleshed out, is based on fanon, not canon, similarly to how this whole analysis is really just fan theorizing, and not necessarily 100% accurate. While there are certainly some things explicitly said in the main game, we don't know all of the particulars which go into her home life, and I think this is another example of intentional gaps left by canon that I talked about in my blurb on the Protagonist.

In this case, from what we're able to glean about Natsuki's home, her father is the main parental figure in her life (At the very least, there is no mention of her mother {to my knowledge, it's been a while since I played it}), and from Act 1, he's implied to be extremely strict. Details here are actually one of the reasons I assume this to be correct, because explicitly, Natsuki keeps her manga collection in the clubroom because she doesn't want her dad to find it. In Act 2, this is pushed even further, which is where we get a certain famous line about him physically abusing her, but of course, it's more likely that this is Monika's doing.

I think it's virtually impossible to get an actual understanding of Natsuki's home situation in the Side Stories, because...well, they don't bring it up, but I think it's safe to say that there is reason to believe it's not good. I think it isn't as bad as it is in Act 2, but judging by how things play out in Natsuki's story across the Side Stories...well, let's just say I'm glad she has the Literature Club.

I think excluding any mention of this is probably intentional too, and not because it's an intentional gap being left. I think it would be incredibly out of character based on what we've seen of Natsuki here for her to bring it up at all, both because of her warped sense of normal, and because she wouldn't want everybody around her worrying about it.

This is a subject for fanfiction, I think. Is that foreshadowing? Who knows.