#who arguably has Better morals - if better is defined by not directly doing the MOST heinous shit?

[starlooove]

Call me jaded bitter and black but I’ll never care about the nuances of the police fill in on tv. Like we already have to deal with the ‘my dad is a cop :(‘ or ‘my broke brother joined the military’ irl why the fuck am I wasting my brain power on Caitlyn or vi. Like we know materialistically the authority of being a cop can get u what u want faster and that emotionally u either need strict routine with an outlet for ur violence or ur so used to it that u have to be a cop. I still fucking hate u tho like idc about how sad u are about being privileged and I said cop fill in but it’s really every kind of that character on tv like Zuko esque sorry I genuinely have less empathy for you than I do for other people idc

[vitospaghetta]

What makes you say remake Leon puts an emotional barrier with people? I haven't been long in this game's story so i don't know much of the difference between the OGs :/

Both interpretations of Leon struggle with this to a degree, but I'd like to make it clear that I do not mean this in the sense that Leon is shy or otherwise reserved. What I mean is that his perception of the world and how he chooses to deal with his issues influences how he effectively communicates with those around him.

Leon is an amazing communicator when it comes to everything but that which makes him most vulnerable — that being his trauma, and the unprocessed feelings he has regarding it. He intentionally places a certain degree of distance between himself and others when it comes to authentically expressing his distress, so much so that the only times we ever see him directly disclose how he genuinely feels are in Infinite Darkness (the scene between him and Jason) and Vendetta (the hotel scene with Chris and Rebecca). One day I'll get to writing my deep dives on both scenes, but for now I'll say that it's worth noting that both of these displays of authenticity are arguably somewhat involuntary, which says a lot about how much of a charade Leon puts on to suppress his feelings.

When I see RE4R Leon, I see apprehension to get too close, burdened by the resentment over the lack of agency he has over his life. He has so much to give others, so much compassion and kindness, but still skirts around his own feelings in the same way he avoids bear traps. His perception of the world is warped due to trauma, as is his perception of himself. You can't convince me that he actually believes Ada when she tells him that he hasn't changed. Something interesting about that scene is that when he talks about how he perceives himself as different from who he was prior to Raccoon City, he means it in a derogatory way. Though when he's asking Ada if she's changed, he's asking it with tentative positivity. It's as if he's clinging to the hope that Ada isn't who he thinks she is, that just maybe her morals aren't as skewed as he's come to understand, despite the better part of himself not believing it.

Another good example in RE4R is how quick he is to judge Luis once he finds out he was a researcher for Umbrella — how justified he feels in that anger until further along in the game after genuinely getting to know him. He doesn't let on why Luis' employment with Umbrella bothers him so much, but he doesn't hesitate to project his feelings onto him and instantly dictate his perception of him regardless. He sees him as untrustworthy, as a liar, and is unwilling to hear him out. Compare this reaction to Luis to his reaction to Krauser. This is someone who played a significant role in the life he lives now, who actually is a liar, and Leon still has a bias towards him. Which is because Krauser was not involved with Raccoon City, and that's where Leon defines his 'before' and 'after.'

Leon doesn't view the world the way others do, and the beliefs he has about the life he's living now vs the one that he feels was taken from him makes him unable to conceptualize normalcy as being a part of it. This and his inability to allow himself authenticity (which would mean being vulnerable and sitting with thoughts/emotions that upset him) is what ultimately what causes his breakdowns in communication.

[kanohivolitakk]

Random thought I had: While most members of the Brotherhood of Makuta can be seen to have behaviors that are the antithesis to the Three Virtues (much like pretty much all the villains that were actual characters rather than mooks), I feel an argument could be made that some of them are perversions of the Three Virtues, and act as example of the negative effects clinging extremely to a virtue can have.

Unity is by far the trickiest since like many Bionicle villains most of the BoM dont really get along with each other and in fact are at each others throats, but I feel that Gorast and/or Antroz is the most fitting. Both of them are fanatically loyal to Teridax and are devoted to his cause. Their loyality towards Teridax ends being a major flaw however, as they didnt see how their leader was just using them and would discard them til it was little bit too late. Gorast is arguably the better fit since she is more defined by her loyalty towards Teridax and her blind loyalty directly led to her death as she refused to listen to Krika or Icarax warning her about Teridax, instead believing in Teridax and the Plan til the very end. That said either are good fits in my opinion.

While he isnt technically a Brotherhood member anymore, Miserix definitely fits the best as pervesion of Duty. I have spoken about this before, but I believe Miserix can be read as being largely defined by his loyality towards his duty as a protector of the Matoran Universe. To Miserix, duty isnt just his purpose in life bit rather his whole identity, it's everything he stands for, everything he is. So, when Teridax strips him of his duty, Miserix loses all his sense of self and personhod. He was so tied to his duty, he became nothing. Is it wonder the guy snapped and became a ragefilled murdeous monster by the time we see him in the actual story? But not only that, it could be argued that Miserixs fanatical devotion to his duty was his downfall as I wouldn't be surprised if thats a big reason Teridax wanted to overthrow him in the first place. Sure, Teridax was a powerhungry controlfreak with a god complex and desire for total domination of the MU, but I wouldn't be surprised if part of the reason for his coup had to do with his disatisfaction in how Miserix ruled things. I also wouldn't be surprised if Miserix one tracked way of viewing duty affected in how he ruled the Brotherhood, especially when considering what the canon tells us about his rule. So yeah, in more ways than one, Miserixs devotion to his duty led to why he became what he became.

Lastly, Krika can be read as the pervesion of Destiny. Krika is a fatalist, who believes that he is doomed to be evil because of his nature as a Makuta. While Krika does rebel against Teridax and the Plan to an extent, he never tries to change his own Destiny. Instead, Krika has accepted his lot in life: sure he laments it but ultimately he doesnt do anything to change it. Krika believes his role and purpose in the universe is set in stone, and thus doesnt do anything to revolt it. Interestingly enough, Krikas last act of warning Gorast is a act of defying his destiny as he actively tries to warn his kin of their death. Though in a cruel twist of fate, when Krika tried to defy destiny and be a good person, he faced his own death. Its as ironic as it is poetic.

All in all I find these three (technically four) characters representing the logical extreme of the Three Virtues really fascinating. It makes Bionicles moral framework much more complex, as it shows that its virtues aren't automatically good, and in fact can lead to distrasrous results if acted to extreme. All these characters ultimately fall because of how extreme they are with the virtue associated them:Gorast and Antroz fanatical loyalty to Teridax is what leads to them being betrayed him without even realizing, Miserixs devotion to his duty is why he gets overthrown and goes mad after loosing his sense of purpose and identity and Krikas fatalist worldview is why he refuses to change his ways and redeem himself in spite of hating his role as a villain. Its all so poetic in a tragically ironic way and just one of the many things that make Bionicle so fascinating to analyze and re-examine in spite of its seemingly simplistic writing.

[redphienix]

I was having dragon ball thoughts a second ago and wanted to say stuff because I love dragon ball. just spur of the moment thoughts that could be refined a million times over but that's not why I'm here- I'm here to ramble!

But basically I really really love and appreciate that throughout OG dragon ball, through all its emphasis on fun and jokes (as is expected from a manga made for kids) the core "moral" I guess is just Goku's kindness.

It ain't preachy, it's a fuckin' joke haha fight manga about a super strong kid with a monkey tail, but it really is the core moral because from the very beginning Goku's defining characteristics are "Naive as all hell, even more naive than a normal child" and "Nice."

Like, it's that simple though, the star of the show, the guy we follow the entire time, is naive, and nice, and I just really like that because of how it's handled.

He falls for shit, he gets tricked, he makes mistakes (all the time), he fails social cues, but from moment one to the last he's nice to strangers and likes his friends and that's what motivates him to defeat the various evils of the world- be that "Mean monster wants to eat a stranger I met on the road" or "evil army wants to take over the world" or "Assassin killed my friend's dad"- it's a series about a naive kid being granted (by the author) the strength to resist the evils of the world, and his core motivation isn't directly to make the world a better place, it's not some higher calling "I must be like a comic book hero" motivation, his entire motivation is just, "I like my friends- hey those guys are dicks."

And this is shown to be admirable, Goku is presented as incredibly likable and as a genuinely good role model for kids because it's a simple, attainable goal.

Be nice. Kinda just that, man.

But what makes it stick is that this never ends. Goku grows up, we get Z, the stakes rise, his friends are threatened and killed, his family as well, the WORLD, the UNIVERSE- and Goku grows and matures but never changes his core values.

He's Naive because the world intrigues him at the simplest level, he finds joy in the simple pleasures- yes he's lacking understanding on a million things- but this characteristic isn't a 1 to 1 aspiration for viewers- it's just who he is and seeing the good it does- like his willingness to find happiness in simple things- these are the parts that are most important.

And he's Nice because it's how he was raised by his grandpa Gohan and being nice has never once steered him wrong in life.

Even during events as recent as the tournament of power his motivation is to save those he loves- he's gone from being the silly kid who couldn't comprehend the greater evils of the world but kept finding himself fighting them because he had care in his heart for those around him- ironically becoming the hero despite his motivations being so grounded- to being a silly adult who doesn't fully comprehend the evils and risks around him but still, after a million fights and losses, finds himself being the hero STILL, because his motivation and simple core characteristic of being nice keeps putting him there, and he's happy for that, he likes fighting for his friends :)

I usually enjoy media with intense themes and morals, things that make you think or cry, and dragon ball arguably stands out as a favorite piece of media because it's not a particularly "challenging" piece.

But I don't need every story to be challenging, and I really do find the underlying moral to be just as good despite being so simple.

Dragon Ball is about fun. It's about big fights and silly characters. Cool big attacks dreamt up purely because it's cool and that's that. But it's also about being nice, as ludicrously silly as that is to say, and honestly? I really like that :)

Goku is a fantastic protagonist.

[holden-norgorov]

I gotta say it. For all the issues there are in the show, my biggest disappointment is with the absence of Per Haskell, and Inej's freedom being directly dependent on Kaz. This altered the entire foundation of the Kanej dynamic that was present in the books and, as far as I can tell, there's no way it's not going to end up portraying either Kaz or Inej as incredibly OOC at some point. Another huge let-down is also Kaz's main drive and motivator being his love for Inej rather than personal revenge (which is something Freddy himself also confirmed in an interview, other than being contextually evident during the whole season). These two elements combined will lead to unescapable narrative or logical contradictions in the long term.

I was really hoping, until the last minute, that the show would come up with a clever justification as to why Per Haskell was kept out of the picture, without ending up sacrificing the core of Kaz and Inej's relationship. But it doesn't. And Kaz being directly responsible for granting Inej's freedom is a new, giant ethical dilemma that was never present in the books, and whose absence there gave moral context and permission to a lot of what happened in their shared backgrounds.

Inej's freedom being independent from Kaz was PIVOTAL in the books. The nuance and beauty of their relationship vastly came from the fact that Kaz had no actual means for estinguishing Inej's debt, and that her work for the Dregs was not something he could absolve her from performing in any way. At least, not until the giant, life-changing offer of 30 million kruge they got at the beginning of SoC, which was kind of the whole point. Until then, the narrative had made abundantly clear that Inej's agency was entirely dependent on Per Haskell holding her contract, and that despite having played a pivotal role in liberating her from the Menagerie, Kaz really couldn't do anything to absolve her from the criminal life she had decided to dive into in exchange of escaping Tante Heleen's whip. This is what absolved Kaz from any moral judgment, on the part of the reader, when it came to forging the myth of the Wraith and teaching Inej how to fight, kill, pick locks and steal. By having no leverage on her freedom, turning her into a weapon meant helping her staying alive and providing her with a better chance at solving her debts. It was not something he could spare her, only something he could help her master.

But in the show, with Kaz becoming the one and only obstacle standing between Inej and her freedom, the ethical dimension of their dynamic entirely shifted, loosing breadth, depth and complexity. They couldn't afford to make this shift and still keep Dirtyhands' main decision/action motivator being his own revenge against Pekka Rollins without turning Kanej into an abusive relationship. This is why Kaz was softened and why his own motivator became his love for Inej. They just couldn't portray Inej being in love with the one person who was directly holding her back from her freedom and whose character was also mainly fueled by personal revenge, completely utilitarian and without conscience, and perfectly willing to strip agency from his investments as soon as they proved to be useful to his cause, without for the relationship to become morally corrupt and abusive (and kind of Stockholm Syndrome-y). Pre-SoC Kaz not being burdened by the responsibility of Inej's agency and freedom in the books absolved him from moral condemnations on our part when it came to viewing Inej as a mere investment, or naively wishing for her to be tied to him and become Kings and Queens together, because he could not liberate her in any way. Inej was the only one responsible for paying her own debt, and none of the things she had to do to achieve that end were ever optional. This gave Kaz plenty of ethical turf to navigate that enriched their dynamic a lot without stripping Inej of her own agency (whose beholder was Per Haskell), and without having to compromise his own vengeful objectives.

So, what are we left with here? We are left with Kaz inevitably having as a character-defining motivator his love for Inej in order to avoid the glamorization of abuse (which is what this version of Kanej would be otherwise), which is not something workable for the integrity of the characters in the long run.

One of the things I loved the most about Kanej in the books was that the narrative established that they would do anything for each other, without for them to even need to (or arguably, be able to) talk out loud about it. That their bond was almost entirely fueled by introspection and internal monologues, and most importantly, that what they felt for each other never defined them as individuals. Inej's main decision drive was never her love for Kaz, but her own freedom and the newborn purpose of hunting slavers (which is, in its own way, a form of revenge for what was done to her). Kaz's main decision drive was never his love for Inej, but his own vendetta against Pekka Rollins that could silence Jordie's voice inside him and strip him of that feeling of shame that had been slowly eating him whole for years (which is, in its own way, a form of revenge for what was done to him). And they help each other out in achieving those ends by the end of CK (Kaz by bying her a ship, Inej by threatening Pekka's life), but their individual backgrounds still bear too much trauma to lead either of them to be comfortable enough in defining themselves according to what they feel for each other. Still, at the same time, it's established by the end of the duology that both of them are willing to try again, and that gives a hopeful note to their ending.

In the show, instead, Kaz ends up doing everything having Inej's freedom as a main motivator, because it's entirely dependent on him, and the romantic tension between the two would be toxic if this was not the case. But pre-SoC Kaz, Dirtyhands in the making, would spend 0.2 seconds in indulging Inej's complaints, would find himself another spider, kidnap Alina with no remorse or second thought and cash in the million kruge prize to build up his name and reputation, with the downfall of Pekka Rollins in mind.

In S01E02, when Inej is about to kill Arken to be freed from the Menagerie, she turns to Kaz and asks "so you choose him over my freedom?" and he replies "you assume it's one or the other". But this narrative doesn't add up. If Kaz is truly in need of Inej's skills but at the same time is motivated by his feelings for her and is willing to bet the entire Crow Club on her liberation from Tante Heleen, while Inej's main desire is to be reunited with her own family, find her brother (whose addition was completely pointless) and gain her old life back... how can the show make Inej stay with the Crows to, you know, carry out the plot of SoC and CK, in any convincing way? Why would we believe that she would give up her independence and newly-gained freedom to remain a criminal out of personal will?

As far as I can tell, the ending of season 1 left us with two alternatives. Either Kaz keeps his promise to her, gives her her own freedom back, and Inej decides to keep working for him instead of looking out for her family, or Kaz betrays her trust and keeps her under his own authority as the ultimate beholder of her contract, thereby making her own involvement in the Ice Court heist mandatory.

And I'm sorry, but both of these alternatives are deeply OOC and absurd for both characters, whose relationship has been taken into an entirely new direction thanks to the absence of Per Haskell and its narrative implications.

I just can't see how the writers can find their way out of this conundrum without utterly cheapening or entirely deforming the core of what Kanej is in the books.

[caffeinatedseri]

The Significance of Sunsets

We’re introduced to the significance of twilight during the Cannibalism Arc via the Tripartite Tactic. 

The essence of the Tripartite Tactic supports 3 core themes of BSD: moral ambiguity, the cyclical nature of life, and the beauty of humanity. 

First, the Tripartite Tactic establishes the moral balance of the BSD universe through the government, PM, and ADA’s interactions with one another to ensure the balance of Yokohama.

Day and night are binary opposites, similar to how the government and mafia operate on opposite sides. That would imply that the government and mafia are always at war with one another, working to bring the other down, but the Tripartite Tactic suggests otherwise.

Both the government and mafia’s survival are necessary to secure the balance of the city, just like how day and night, good and evil have to coexist in a state of balance.

However, there is a middle ground that bridges these opposing concepts together: twilight — as represented with the agency. 

As the evening acts the neutral point from day to night, the agency acts as a morally neutral organization between the government and mafia. They don’t necessarily abide by the laws and rules of “justice,” but they still work to establish a semblance of “good” in this world. 

We’ve seen the government act in suspicious ways, we’ve seen the mafia act in good natured ways, and we’ve seen the agency do both of the sort. Even though the government and mafia are supposed to represent “good” and “evil”, the fact that they break these molds serves to once again prove the moral ambiguity within the BSD universe. 

Twilight also symbolizes another important idea — the cyclical nature of life. As the passing period between day and night, it represents the end of a day, which will always lead to the start of a new day.

This cyclical nature lends itself to a feeling of hope that drives the journey of redemption — the hope that the night will pass and a new day will begin encourages our characters to persevere and hope for something better. 

Cycles also show themselves through character interactions throughout the generations.

Mori abused Dazai → Dazai abused Akutagawa → Akutagawa abused Kyouka, In this case, the cycle of abuse is born (although it fortunately stops at Kyouka). 

In parallel, Oda helped Dazai → Dazai helped Atsushi → Atsushi helps Kyouka, For this, the cycle of redemption is born. 

As twilight is a time for sunsets, sunsets are an inevitable motif for these themes. The arrangement of colors in the sky, characteristic of a sunset, tends to evoke feelings of awe or admiration for the beauty of such sunset. The beauty of a sunset symbolizes an appreciation for the beauty of humanity, aligning with the theme of accepting human nature as is. (think Dazai)

Keeping in mind these 3 aspects: moral ambiguity, the cyclical nature of life, and the beauty of humanity, the significance of every scene with a sunset becomes more prominent. 

Sunsets in BSD always appear at important points of the narrative, with my favorite being:

This scene’s significance is primarily Dazai’s transition out of the mafia as represented through the light shining through the window — as if light is being shined on the darkness that had surrounded his life.

This scene happens to be one of my favorites because it touches upon all three themes that the twilight-esque light represents.

Moral ambiguity: Oda knows that Dazai doesn’t care about justice or evil, or defining aspects of morality, so Oda argues Dazai should work for justice. Oda doesn’t try to argue that justice is morally correct, but he simply says it is “better” in an extremely vague way. 

The idea of Dazai joining the side of justice with no strong moral conviction opens up the concept of moral ambiguity. Is it important for him to have a moral code if he wants to find the purpose of his life? Can he help others if he doesn’t believe it’s the “right” thing to do? Does it matter? 

Most importantly, does saving others whilst not believing in the standards of morality place you within the boundaries of justice or evil? Or are there no such defined boundaries? 

Cyclical nature: Oda pushes for Dazai to save people, instead of killing people, mirroring the actions of Natsume-sensei who helped Oda come to that same resolve. This starts the cycle of Dazai helping Atsushi, Atsushi helping Kyouka, and hopefully Atsushi getting to help Akutagawa as well. 

This scene also reflects the idea of the “end of the night”, or the start of a new day as Dazai abandons the PM, and starts anew in the Agency. 

Beauty of humanity: PM Dazai was arguably the most “inhumane” version of Dazai that we’ve seen, due to his heavily logic driven intellect and distrusting tendencies. 

However, in this interaction with Oda, we finally see his humanity shine through. Oda gives no reasonable, straight-forward explanation as to why Dazai should leave the mafia, but Dazai follows his advice regardless because of their trust. 

The ability to trust and love, an innate part of human nature, can be seen as foolish from the eyes of the logic-driven, but ultimately that’s what makes being human beautiful. 

I admit the last scene may have been a little vague with whether the setting was actually a sunset, but this one is more obvious!

This takes place after SSKK’s fight with Francis, and they regroup with Dazai, Fukuzawa, and Kyouka. 

Cyclical nature: As the finale of the Guild Arc, the sunset represents the end of a day and the start of another as they close this chapter of their lives. It also parallels Dazai’s “redemption” scene, as Kyouka finds her redemption in sacrificing herself for others and becoming part of the agency. 

Just as Oda was able to help Dazai in the previous scene, Dazai is the one who tells Kyouka exactly what she needed to hear in order for her to survive and find a home in the agency. 

Beauty of humanity: Being human means to be compassionate, and I’d argue that Kyouka was uncompassionate in the past, just because no one had shown her what compassion was like. However, Kyouka grows from that — with the help of Atsushi and Dazai showing her empathy and kindness, she’s able to reciprocate that feeling and be willing to give up her life for the sake of others.

Dazai also praises Akutagawa for a short moment in this scene, which is also an act of compassion from Dazai although Akutagawa deserves more than that.

This scene follows the party at the end of the Cannibalism Arc, as Dazai and Atsushi have a nice heart-to-heart.

Dazai’s toast here is technically an anime-only moment, but obviously all of the sunsets are anime-only. Regardless, I’ll be discussing his entire talk with Atsushi here, along with the toast. 

Moral ambiguity: Akutagawa’s promise to not kill anyone for 6 months mirrors that of Oda — a mafia member who doesn’t kill. By doing so, he directly challenges the morality involved with being a mafia member (what would be “bad”) and breaks away from the black and white labels of “good” and “evil.”

If we followed the code of justice, presumably the morally “right” way, then it would dictate that Akutagawa would need to be punished for the crimes he committed. However, Atsushi’s decision to form that promise with Akutagawa gives him an opportunity to grow and redeem himself, even if Akutagawa fits with the “evil” label. 

Akutagawa and Atsushi are obviously foils — they’re different in almost every way, which you could use to define Atsushi as the hero and Akutagawa as the villain, but it’s undeniable that they also share many similarities. As the line between “good” and “evil” blurs, moral ambiguity is developed. 

Cyclical nature: Once again, this scene closes out the Cannibalism Arc, with the sunset symbolizing both the end and beginning. 

Atsushi’s promise with Akutagawa parallels that of Oda’s dying wish to Dazai; they’re both founded on the basis of trust, and they push towards a brighter future for Akutagawa and Dazai respectively. Thus, the cycle of redemption repeats itself once more. 

Dazai’s “To the stray dogs” statement also parallels his toast with the Buraiha trio (Dazai, Ango, Oda). It could be just a callback to Oda, but it also expresses Dazai passing on the toast to Atsushi, from one stray dog to another. Nevertheless, this still represents a cycle of actions in which the previous generation affects the present. 

Beauty of humanity: Dazai toasting to Atsushi with the phrase “stray dogs” offers a sense of compassion and hope. Dazai and Atsushi have undoubtedly grown closer to one another throughout the entire series up to this point, so it makes perfect sense that Dazai shows that he cares by sharing a piece of his past with Atsushi.

Toasting directly to the stray dogs implies a celebration of sorts for these dogs, who are stray but ultimately not alone. The toast is indicative of a hope for a better future whilst also acknowledging how one can feel lost in life (and how that’s okay). 

Atsushi’s promise with Akutagawa also serves as an attempt to teach Akutagawa the beauty of humanity, since Atsushi believes that Akutagawa doesn’t see the value of life (which is preventing him from getting Dazai’s approval). I would argue that it should be the other way around, but Atsushi has good intentions here.

After Atsushi discovers the death of the Headmaster of his orphanage, Dazai gives some comforting advice.

Moral ambiguity: Atsushi struggles with his conflicted feelings towards the Headmaster’s death, which is perfectly understandable. 

The Headmaster can’t be defined as completely good or completely bad, because he did impact Atsushi’s life in a way that led him to where he is today (once again, no definitive black or white answer as to whether that’s good or not).

Atsushi struggles with the thought that he has to pick whether to feel glad or upset, in order to fit within the neat labels of black and white, happy and sad. In response, Dazai (the definition of a morally ambiguous man) simply says: 

Although Dazai says “There’s no one who can fully grasp the deepest feelings of another person,” in the anime, I think the meaning of that is better stated in the manga. Dazai reasons that he can be both glad or upset, his feelings can be mixed, and there is no clear cut answer for how to feel (as Dazai only gives a general piece of advice). 

Cyclical nature: Dazai’s statement, “when someone’s father dies, they tend to cry”, could honestly be interpreted in a multitude of ways. 

Dazai’s reference to a father figure suggests that this “father” is simply a person who impacted their life greatly and made them who they are today. (since both of their fathers are unknown).

Following this definition, Oda is the father figure to Dazai in the same way that the Headmaster was to Atsushi. Although their methods of “helping” Dazai and Atsushi differ very drastically, the same cycle of this “father” figure impacting the life of their metaphorical son repeats.

Oda giving advice to Dazai, and Dazai giving advice to Atsushi is also another cycle — the cycle of reaching a hand out to someone in need. (which is the more sensical of these two conclusions)

Beauty of humanity: Dazai’s ability to be compassionate truly shines in this scene and shows just how much he’s grown from his time in the PM.

In contrary to PM Dazai’s unfeeling self, Dazai is able to empathize with Atsushi on a personal basis; just as the Headmaster was a integral part of Atsushi’s past, Oda was the same for Dazai. 

Dazai’s growing ability to understand others demonstrates his willingness to grow more accustomed to human nature, and love it for what it is. 

Atsushi’s confusion in dictating what he should feel also speaks on the nature of humanity; his feelings don’t have to make sense for him to feel them. In fact, the more illogical his emotions are, the more human he is.

[hellsbellschime]

idk if you already have one (if you do link pls), but could you do a meta on how dany and sansa compre as rulers?

Well shit, honestly I know my inner Sansa stan is going to come out here and it’s going to sound like I hate Dany. However the fact that I love Dany as a character doesn’t negate the fact that she was an absolutely terrible leader, and I feel like the fact that every time she was in a situation (typically one of her own making) that was too difficult to handle her reaction was to essentially toss up her hands and say “soz guys this isn’t working out, DEUCES” is pretty irrefutable proof that she was just an absolutely awful queen. 

This might seem minor in the grand scheme of things, but one of the earliest learning experiences for both Sansa and Dany I think represents how they learn and behave towards everything going forward. For Sansa, the riot is a huge turning point for her. She’s already been abused and mistreated on a level she’s never experienced before, but she genuinely can’t understand why some men she’s never met before wanted to rape her and likely kill her. The lesson that she learns here seems to be that, regardless of the fact that in the moment Sansa is completely powerless, as a member of the ruling class she has more power over the common people than they will ever have over their own lives and that they’ll ever have over anyone else, and so when those rulers don’t have a good handle on ruling and if they’re ignorant of the experiences of those below them, then they will inevitably suffer and often times die. But it of course is extremely telling that Sansa’s reaction to Shae’s explanation is that she would have given them bread if they had it, and it’s an interesting contrast to Dany.

I think Dany’s kind of defining moment as a leader is with Mirri Maz Duur. Although these incidents aren’t really that similar on paper, the life lesson to be learned behind them is, but Dany and Sansa take entirely different things from it. Unlike Sansa in the riots, Dany is actually almost completely directly responsible for the suffering of Mirri Maz Duur. No, she wasn’t the one doing the raping, but the Lhazareen are being pillaged, killed, and sold into slavery to fund Dany’s conquering of Westeros. Mirri seems to do what she can to hurt Dany, and obviously Dany burns her alive in return. But Dany’s perception of herself, her righteousness, and her ability to do whatever she wants as queen seems to be cemented here. Mirri actually gives Dany a much more clear and understandable explanation of why she did what she did, but Dany’s internal reaction to it seems to be that the suffering of the Lhazareen were an unforeseen and unintended consequence, and that it’s only the fact that she didn’t intend for it to happen that matters. Instead of trying to understand what other people are going through or coming from, Dany essentially decides the opposite, that everyone should understand where she’s coming from and that she has good intentions, so anyone who acts out against her regardless of their reason is deserving of her wrath. 

Another defining element of their leadership styles seems to be “I am the blood of the dragon” vs. “the lone wolf dies but the pack survives”. In a broader sense, the whole blood of the dragon obsession represents the absolutely insane level of Targaryen exceptionalism that the Targaryens believe, honestly Dany probably even more than the rest of them. The Targaryens literally think they’re gods among men, and the fact that Dany became the mother of dragons only cemented that idea in her mind. So then, she considers anything below godly exaltation to be blatant disrespect. Ironically, she hates ruling, but she wants everyone in the world to acknowledge her as their ruler because she sees literally everyone else as her inferior, and she cares much more about symbols like the title of queen or the Iron Throne than she does about anything else. Dany is willing to completely destabilize the world and to let anyone suffer so long as they call her queen while they do it, and she has shown time and again that anyone who doesn’t respect her position as ruler or acknowledge her claim to the throne will die. She’s completely injudicious when it comes to who she kills because literally all that matters is how they feel about her. FFS, “ending slavery” was a huge focal point of her storyline and she indiscriminately killed slavers who weren’t of use to her, but almost her entire army is made up of the Dothraki who were a key component of the slavery economy in Essos. In a weird way she has always demonstrated her “I know what is good” mentality in the sense that she literally just judges whether or not someone is good or bad based on whether or not they defer to her and call her queen.

And it would be disingenuous to say that Sansa doesn’t care about titles or rank, clearly that is something that has always been a priority to her and was especially when she was younger, however her perception of power and how it works is very interesting. She actually has an unfair advantage here because she has “role models” for kingship and queenship in people like Joffrey and Cersei. Especially with Joffrey, she obviously learned that being called king or queen says nothing about how much power you actually have, and having that title says nothing about whether or not people defer to you or whether or not you truly rule them. And more importantly, Sansa’s arc with Jon as the King in the North and even when Bran came home demonstrates that she understands what a necessity stability is, and that she’ll prioritize stability over her own superiority. Like Dany, Sansa actually has a pretty strong claim to the Northern throne, she could have very easily pressed that claim when Jon was named King in the North, and that claim is something she likely would have won. She also immediately tried to put Bran in the position of Lord of Winterfell even though in name that would have weakened her own political position, because she understands that destabilizing the North would be dangerous, would cause people to suffer, and because she truly understands that changing her title and having people call her something different would have zero effect on the actual power that she had within the country.

It’s kind of weird to say it, but Dany was almost at a disadvantage because she had no real experience learning how politics worked or how to rule or lead. Drogo was arguably the only real ruler she ever saw, but he didn’t really rule. Just like Dany ultimately wound up doing, he went to certain places, yielded whatever benefit he could find from it, and left. She never got to see why people like Joffrey and Cersei failed as leaders, or why people like Ned and Robb failed as leaders, and because she is the only person in the world with WMDs she’s never had to learn how to do anything through any other means besides overt force. And I mean, killing everyone who opposes you is certainly a way to gain power, but it’s clearly not effective leadership. 

And on the other hand, Sansa has literally never been able to do anything alone. She’s always been a helpless girl who had to rely on the people around her, which has given her a lot of very good and clear life lessons on the fact that not only do rulers have to cooperate with others in order to succeed, but cooperating with the right people is as important as learning to work with others in general. Also a hugely important distinction here between her and Dany is that while Dany believes that the only moral choice for a leader is her and that anyone who chooses her as a leader is inherently moral, Sansa learns the opposite. She understands that a lot of the people who try to connect with her or earn her favor may be ill intentioned, and that it’s extremely important to distinguish between who is on her team for the right reasons or wrong ones. She also cannot bulldoze her way through problems so she has to actually solve them, and she understands that she can solve them much more effectively if she has other people around her to work with. If she needs food, she can’t just fly on a dragon somewhere and take it. If she needs men, she can’t just find a city and kill all of the leaders and tell everyone there that she’s their queen now. And that makes her job infinitely more difficult than Dany’s, but it also makes her position of power far stronger in the long run. 

That’s not to say that Dany isn’t someone who has good ideas or good intentions, honestly when it comes to the status quo in Planetos it’s safe to say that it should be challenged, and although Sansa values stability over change that doesn’t necessarily mean that that’s the best course of action for a better world. But Dany’s problem when it comes to her big ideas is that she won’t put in the work to execute them properly. She doesn’t like the work of ruling and if we’re being real, she doesn’t have to put in the work because her dragons and her army the size of a city can do it for her or silence any dissent or opposition. And that is what makes her enormously dangerous. She looks at it as her right instead of her duty, and instead of ever trying to convince anyone of her competence she takes it as a personal insult if everyone she meets doesn’t immediately fall all over themselves to do her bidding. But of course why wouldn’t she, and why would a god ever have to prove themselves to mortals?

Sansa and Dany are meant to be foils for a lot of reasons, but one of the most intriguing to me is the fact that Sansa comes from a family of people who are just as super special as the Targaryens, but she’s not super special (I think it’s extremely likely that she is a warg, but when you compare her experience to that of Bran, Jon, or Arya, obviously she seems like the ordinary one in a family of superstars), and more importantly she was never raised with the idea that she was super special. Yes, she was an extremely highborn lady, but Ned Stark didn’t raise any of his children to believe that they were the chosen Kings of Winter who had ruled the North for thousands of years and done magical things that no ordinary human could ever dream of (and that difference always stands out to me so much, because frankly the Starks have even more reason to believe that they’re super special snowflakes than the Targaryens do, but they don’t), and that attitude obviously carries over into her leadership. She doesn’t look at being queen as her birthright because it quite literally is not, but she understands that it is first and foremost a duty and responsibility instead of an entitlement, and that shines through in the fact that she diligently does all of the scut work that the position requires. 

[tipsycad147]

Why do people become Pagan? The top ten reasons

by Michelle Gruben

“Why are you Pagan?” If you were to ask this question of a dozen people, you would probably get a dozen different answers. For Christians (and others who believe in one true God) the revival of polytheism may be confounding. For others, it is hard to understand why a sensible modern person would seem to turn their back on science to worship the gods of old.

Before we get too far along, let's cover some background info. Paganism is defined broadly as non-Abrahamic religion that is Nature-based, polytheistic, or both. Wiccans, for instance, generally worship a creator Goddess and a God who is Her consort. The Wiccan cosmology does not acknowledge the existence of the Christian God (or the concepts of Satan and Hell).

Wicca is the best-known of modern Pagan religions, but there are many sub-groups and branches of Pagan belief and practice. Druidism, neo-Shamanism, Greek/Roman reconstructionism, and Norse Heathenry are just a few. There are also eclectic Pagans who combine elements from various traditions to make their own “flavor” of Paganism. While occult practices (e.g., divination and spellcasting) are common in Paganism, not all Pagans participate in these practices. Conversely, not everyone who is involved in the occult is a Pagan.

Most Pagans are polytheist, meaning they recognize the existence of more than one God. But there is more to Paganism than “the more, the merrier!” Here are some general traits of Pagan religions (keep in mind that not every religion will have them all): Rejection of Judeo-Christian cosmology, observance of seasonal rites, reverence toward Nature, rejection of religious authority and focus on individual experiences, paranormal/psychic beliefs and practices, emphasis on personal responsibility over sin or evil.

Not surprisingly, a preference for one or more of these traits is what attracts many people to Pagan religions—but we’ll get to that in a moment.

At the risk of stating the obvious, religion is a choice. If a person follows a Pagan religion, they are expressing a preference for Paganism over another religion, or no religion. Thinking about the reasons why people choose to become Pagan can lead to better understanding of Pagan friends and family. If you are Pagan, you may even learn something about yourself!

For the record, I’m Pagan in a mixed-religion household. This (totally unscientific) list is based on my own observations within the Pagan community. I’ve tried to present them in a way that’s inclusive and fair. Without further ado, here are some of the most common reasons why people choose to follow a Pagan religion:

1. They were raised Pagan.

Contemporary Pagan groups began forming in the 1930s, and achieved breakthrough status with the emergence of Wicca in the 1950s. Before that time, very few people in the West were raised Pagan. If you wanted to be initiated in a Pagan tradition, you had to seek one out—often at great expense to your personal or professional reputation.

Nowadays, that’s not the case. Neo-Paganism as a social/demographic phenomenon is in its third generation. It’s fairly common to find adults who were raised Pagan, or even whose parents were raised Pagan! It’s also possible to find those who were raised Pagan, but left Paganism. “Mom used to go out in the woods with her friends and do weird stuff—I never really got into it.”)

Some Pagan clergy will participate in the general blessing of infants and children, such as the ritual of “Wiccaning.” However, most Pagan paths do not have formal initiation for children. Pagans also overwhelmingly value religious choice. If someone continues their Pagan practice into adulthood, it is likely because they found something meaningful in it.

2. They want sexual acceptance and/or sexual freedom.

Of all the world religions, Paganism is arguably the most tolerant of the varied expression of human sexuality. Sex is considered a divine gift and a sacred rite. Lusty Gods and fertile Goddesses appear in all the major pantheons. (Along with gender-bending, raunchy stories, and other sexy fun.) For most Pagans, sex is just no big deal as long as it’s between consenting adults (or deities).

Pagan groups almost universally accept gay members, and some traditions even have queer or queer-leaning branches (Radical Faeries, Dianic Wicca). Pagan activists have been on the forefront of the struggle for equal rights. Compare that to the sluggish response of churches—even liberal churches—to embrace LGBTQ members and clergy, and you’ll understand why sexual minorities have been so attracted to Paganism. For people who are used to hearing their sexual desires called dirty, sinful, or shameful, the difference can be life-changing.

It’s not just queer folks who embrace Paganism as a safe­­ haven. Horny folks do, too. In most Pagan belief systems, sex is not considered a sin but a morally neutral act. Sex for fun is fun, sex for magick is magick. It’s not how much sex you’re having, but your intention that characterizes the act. The only moral imperative is in how you’re treating yourself and your partners.

Partners? Oh, yes! Polyamory, group sex, and (legal) exhibitionism are accepted within some Pagan communities. That’s an undeniable treat for people who want to enjoy these activities without religious shame.

3. They don’t care for dogma and/or authority.

There is no holy book, no central governing body, and no real priestly authority within the mass of related beliefs filed under Paganism. This is great news for people of a certain temperament—religious rebels and militant agnostics. (“I don’t know, and you don’t either!”)

As a social movement, neo-Paganism is deeply indebted to the Transcendentalist writers of the 19th century. Their poems and essays held the germ of the idea that fuels Pagan practice: That God speaks directly to everyone—often through Nature—and not only to a specially qualified few, inside special buildings.

Some Pagan groups do have ordained clergy. But there are still significant differences between Pagan clergy and those of more established organized religions:

First, Pagan titles like “High Priestess” are usually self-conferred or passed along from student to teacher. This does not mean that they’re not “real” clergy, but it does mean that their power is limited outside their own group or coven. (A Pagan leader may also be ordained as a minister by another organization, such as the Church of All Worlds or the Unitarian Universalist church. This allows them to receive certain legal privileges that independent Pagan clergy usually do not enjoy.)

Secondly, Pagan clergy tend to function more as community leaders than authority figures. Pagan priesthood does not confer any real power over others, either temporal or spiritual. Most Pagan leaders encourage discussion and self-study by their students and congregants. Certainly a dedicated Priest or Priestess will have more experience working with their deities than a beginner. They may have the skills to do rituals or advanced deity work that a novice does not. In a sense, though, every Pagan is their own Priest or Priestess—and the best Pagan clergy respect that. This makes Paganism very attractive to those who don’t want to experience God(s) secondhand.

4. They long for a connection to Nature.

The earth, the trees, the sky, the sea—most world religions recognize these wonders as the work of a mighty creator God. And yet, most leave it at that.

Not so with Paganism. Pagan religions are sometimes described as “Earth-based”—meaning the Earth and its cycles are central to what Pagans hold sacred. Most Pagans profess a deep reverence for natural places, the seasons, the web of plants and animals, and the processes of birth, aging, and dying. While it’s not technically required, many Pagan services are held outdoors. “Skyclad” (nude) rites are another way that Pagans shed the trappings of modern society and get back to the core of being.

Some people come to Paganism as an extension of their environmentalist or eco-feminist views. Others simply want to reconnect with Nature as an antidote to the alienation that comes with busy, digitized lives.

5. They’ve had negative experiences with other religions.

It’s a sad but undeniable fact. People who turn toward one religion are often, with the same movement, turning away from a religion that has hurt them. If you spend enough time in Pagan communities, you will certainly meet some of these displaced folks.

Perhaps a certain religious doctrine—such as the prohibition against homosexuality—is causing the person emotional pain. Maybe they’re frustrated with persecution, corruption, or hypocrisy within the religious group they came from. Or maybe they’re rebelling against the religious beliefs of a parent or spouse. Whatever the case, Paganism appears to offer a chance for a fresh start, one with less restriction and oversight than they may be used to. Pagans don’t evangelize—which may make them seem more trustworthy to folks who have been burned.

As with all life choices, there are right and wrong reasons to become a Pagan. And you can’t ever really know someone else’s motives. The best thing that Pagans can do is treat religious refugees kindly, answer their questions honestly, and wait for them to figure out if Paganism is right for them.

6. They have trouble with the concepts of sin and evil.

Of all the barriers between Pagan beliefs and Abrahamic religion, the idea of sin is the thorniest. Original sin is a tough doctrine to swallow, even for many Christians. Who wants to suffer for something that happened before they were born? That Paganism has no equivalent concept to sin and sinfulness is one of its biggest selling points, so to speak. (Pagan beliefs about the origin/existence of evil are so diverse I won’t even try to tackle the topic here.)

As mentioned earlier, there’s no single Pagan concept of God. Still, one idea you see over and over in Paganism is the doctrine of non-dual immanence. God/Goddess existing here and now, and not in some distant place or kingdom to come. Lack of meditation or participation or acceptance can distance us from the sacred, but God/Goddess is always there. Furthermore, divinity is present within the material world, and the world is inseparable from its creator.

All of this is pretty difficult to reconcile with Judeo-Christian ideas about original sin and the fall of man. (Some Hermetic Pagans do accept them as metaphorical/alchemical truths—but that’s a whole other beaker of worms.) In Biblical cosmology, the world is created by God, but separate from God. The world we know is basically fallen and can only be redeemed through God’s intervention. In Paganism, the world we know is basically holy and does not require redemption. (Only observation and celebration, if we want to be happy and—perhaps—please the Gods.) The other worlds are holy, too—not more, nor less.

As for behavior? Paganism emphasizes individual freedom and responsibility over moral absolutism. Most Pagans live by an individual moral/ethical code, but shun universal behavioral codes. Pagan ethics have been heavily influenced by the Wiccan Rede: “An it harm none, do what ye will.” This in turn derives from Aleister Crowley’s “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law”—possibly the most mis-interpreted eleven words of all time.

It’s not that Pagans believe that you can or should do whatever you want. On the contrary, Paganism teaches that actions (and even thoughts) reverberate through the universe to affect oneself and others. There’s no real concept of sin, but Paganism is not amoral. In encouraging moral behavior, Paganism substitutes concepts like karma, duty, interconnectedness, for a paternal god figure keeping score.

7. They yearn for representations of the Divine Feminine.

Dion Fortune wrote “A religion without a Goddess is halfway to atheism.” Women’s bodies are the carriers of life. And yet, many world religions downplay or denigrate the contribution of women. In Abrahamic religions, women can be vessels and saints, but are rarely prophets and never God. Many people yearn for distant time—real or imagined—when women’s bodies could also be a representation of deity.

As a social phenomenon, the rise of Wicca and Goddess spirituality has coincided pretty neatly with the expansion of women’s rights. As long as women are to be regarded as equal to men in society, there are those who feel that patriarchal religions can never be wholly legitimate.

Everyone has an earthly mother and a father. If you believe in God, it makes a kind of intuitive sense that everyone has a divine Mother and Father, too. Yet religions that include a Goddess are usually labeled polytheist and Pagan automatically.

8. They want explanations for psychic and paranormal events.

Out-of-body experiences, premonitions, telepathy, ghost encounters—weird stuff sometimes happens. If you haven’t had an inexplicable experience, then you likely know someone who has. Pagans aren’t alone in experiencing the paranormal, of course. But they tend to be better equipped to talk about it than the average person.

Imagine a person who has recurring paranormal experiences, or experiences they believe to be paranormal. Mainstream science tells them that these experiences are illusory. Mainstream religion—when it’s not condemning them as evil—seems mostly too embarrassed to talk about occult happenings. It’s no surprise that the person would be drawn to a Pagan community where psychic stuff is openly discussed, accepted, and even encouraged.

Don’t get me wrong—mental illness and paranormal delusions do occur, and can cause great harm. But the not-crazy among us still yearn for a safe haven to discuss our psychic lives without condemnation. I believe—though I can’t prove—that so-called paranormal experiences are actually quite common among the general population. I’ve also observed that persistent psychic curiosity is one of the major reasons that people turn to Paganism.

9. They’re attracted to the power and control offered by magick.

I once read an academic paper that was trying to explain the rise of Wicca and witchcraft among teenage girls. The conclusion was that when a young women lacks a sense of control in her life—i.e., economic, sexual, or social autonomy—a religion that offers a secret source of power is immensely attractive. (Who wouldn’t want to be able to cast a love spell on a crush, or curse a bully?) The author observed that many teen girls become practicing Pagans in junior high and high school. They tend to lose interest after finding another source of personal power (a job, a relationship, a better group of friends).

As a young Pagan woman, I found the tone of this particular paper to be condescending, bordering on insulting. But one thing is obviously true: Occultism purports to offer power to the powerless, esoteric means to an end when exoteric means have come up short. Why else would there be so many people interested in fast answers—love spells, get-rich-quick spells, and the like?

Lots of people approach witchcraft and/or Paganism because they want to learn to use magick. They see it as a way to fix their lives in a hurry or achieve undeserved success. Many of them move along when they realize that real magick is real work.

10. They’ve been called by a God or Goddess.

A burning bush, a deathbed vision of Christ, a miracle from the Virgin Mary—these are the types of religious experiences that are familiar to most people. But Pagans have religious epiphanies, too. Although most of us don’t talk about it outside of trusted circles, our Gods and Goddesses call to us in dramatic and in subtle ways.

Like any other type of religious conversion, some people drift gradually toward an acceptance of Paganism, while others are thrust toward it by a single epiphany. Some people may scoff at the idea of elder Gods asserting their presence in the 21st century. But it's certainly no wackier than what other religious people believe. (And it's hard to be so cavalier when Odin’s keeping you awake at night with a to-do list.)

For most Pagans, one or more of the above reasons has contributed to their finding their religious path. There are certainly other reasons that aren’t on this list. Of course, the best way to find out why a particular person is Pagan is to (respectfully) ask!

https://www.groveandgrotto.com/blogs/articles/why-do-people-become-pagan-top-ten-reasons

[leahazel]

More about my morally-grey heroines and their messed-up relationships

I wanted to elaborate on this post I wrote about D&F and BFS, but it turns out that adding readmore links to reblogs is a PITA, and I just now that this is gonna turn into a fucking novelette. 

So here we go.

Time to go into some detail about this!

Let’s define our terms:

“Decline and Fall” is my 120K+ series of loosely chronological, interconnected short fics, set in a tiny fandom for a visual novel that’s been in alpha development since 2015. For the record, the word count disincludes unfinished drafts, and stories that I’m holding back because they’re based on canon spoilers.

“Blood from Stone“ is my 100K unfinished Skyrim WIP, which began as a response to a kink meme prompt, and is not so much a rarepair as a non-existent one.

Both of these stories centrally feature young female protagonists and their sexual relationship with a much older man. Both heroines are... “grey” to say the least.

Let’s compare our fandoms, shall we?

Skyrim is a juggernaut fandom for a super-popular RPG which is part of a 30-yo franchise. The setting is moderately dark and casually sprinkled with murder cults, cannibalism, secret police death squads, and the prison industrial complex. The player character can be a thief and a murderer and everyone just learns to be okay with it because the only alternative is a fiery apocalypse. They also rob graves for the lulz.

Seven Kingdoms: The Princess Problem is a pinkie-toe-sized fandom for a hybrid RPG and dating sim where attractive young people flirt and date for the purpose of brokering world peace. The setting is one where you can actually broker world peace effectively. The player character can perpetrate a fair amount of proxy violence, but maintaining a good reputation dishonestly is legitimately difficult.

Now, let’s compare our heroines:

Corinne is a 24-year-old bounty hunter who became a folk hero, a soldier, and a cult assassin. She’s living alone and working for a living since she was 18. She’s never been in love, but she’s had multiple sexual and romantic relationships in the past. I deliberately wrote her as being very sexually confident and self-assured. She also has combat training, magical training, her special Dragonborn powers, and an incalculable amount of social clout. By every metric, she’s a powerful character. Though she can talk her way out of a tight spot (all my favorite characters can), she can also fight her way out.

Verity is (at the beginning of D&F) not yet 18 years old. She’s a princess from a very conservative kingdom who was raised to become a barter bride in a diplomatic marriage. The values that were passed to her were duty, tradition, and absolute obedience. Her primary skills are social, charisma, eloquence, and persuasion. Then she was dropped into the deep water of a diplomatic summit and had the weight of future history put on her shoulders, without ever having been taught how to make her own decisions or live with her regret.

To sum up, we have one hyper-competent, confident, and independent badass, universally recognized as powerful and dangerous, and then we have someone who’s basically a deconstruction of a traditional fantasy princess.

Okay, what about the more specific setting within the game world?

BFS is set in Markarth, arguably the most corrupt city in Skyrim, and the site of a localized war, on top of the 2-3 other wars that Skyrim has going on. The city is controlled by the cartel-like Silver-Blood family, and their enemies are swiftly and brutally eliminated. The rule of law is a joke. When the player character arrives at Markarth, they witness a chain or murders and are drawn into a conspiracy that sees them sentenced to life in prison for a crime they didn’t commit. The ruling elite suppress the native underclass by a variety of inventive methods. The roads into the city are controlled by the remnants of a violent but failed uprising, and this uprising is actually the origin story of Skyrim’s entire civil war storyline.

D&F is set in Revaire, explicitly the most violently war-torn of the seven kingdoms. Once the epicenter of a conquering empire, it was a country full of arts and culture, until a bloody coup slaughtered the entire royal line and instituted a new and more brutal regime. The new regime is on shaky grounds and foresighted people predict its imminent fall to rebel forces. So much, so canon. In D&F, I made a point of developing the new royals and their small coterie of supporters, as well as illustrating their constant struggle to conceal how widely reviled they are by the populace, and most of the former nobility. Their apathy to the plight of the common people is underscored in contrast to Verity’s compassion, which is ridiculed as a sentimental feminine affectation.

I’m attracted to certain themes, as you might have noticed.

Now, we get to talk about love interests.

Thongvor Silver-Blood is rather anemically characterized in Skyrim’s canon, so much of the information that I include in BFS is inferred. From his limited number of dialogues in the game, we know that he’s politically ambitious, a Stormcloak supporter, easily angered, and that he has one legitimate friend in the city. Like most Skyrim characters of his age bracket, he served in the Great War. He’s defined by his relationship to his generational cohort. In BFS, he’s def8ined in contrast to his brother. Thonar is comfortable being thought of as a villain. Thongvor still needs to believe that he’s the good guy. And I’m gonna get more into that in later chapters, too.

As a love interest, he’s initially in awe of Corinne, and always genuinely adoring, but more than a little jealous and possessive. BFS is not a story about love redeeming bad men (don’t get me started), but Thongvor shows different sides of his personality to different people, and the side that Corinne gets to see is much nicer than what most people do.

Hyperion Asper is a character of my own devising, whose existence in 7KPP canon is purely implied. We know his children, Jarrod and Gisette, and we knew that he organized a coup to seize the throne. I posit him as a tyrant and unrepentant child-killer (not directly stated in D&F, at least not yet). He’s ruthless and manipulative and his sole purpose is maintaining a sense of personal power. I structured him as the bad example that Jarrod tries -- and fails -- to live up to.

As a love interest... look, he’s a man who’s cheating on his wife with his son’s wife. He seduces Verity and manipulates her, and takes a special delight in pushing her buttons. All his compliments to her are mean-spirited and back-handed. He’s also jealous and possessive... which is especially pathetic, since he’s jealous of his own son, whom Verity doesn’t even like. His rage is a constant implied undercurrent in the narrative.

And the relationship dynamics themselves?

Corinne kisses Thongvor, proposes marriage to him, and then sleeps with him before riding off into mortal danger. She’s fond and affectionate, but she shies away from intense emotions, whether negative or positive. Since they spend most of their time apart, their marriage has been defined by Thongvor yearning like a sailor’s wife, while Corinne ran around doing violence and crime. They only just had their first fight. It will change when they get to spend some more significant time together... but on the whole, their marriage is fairly happy, and the emotional dynamic favors Corinne -- so far. It’s not a pure gender reversal, but that element is definitely dominant.

Hyperion starts seducing Verity on their very first meeting, and relies on a combination of magnetic attraction and Verity’s inexperience in life to keep her coming back, against her better judgment. Their relationship is mutually defined by a combination of attraction and resentment of that attraction. The danger of the situation is an essential element, to the point where it’s hard to imagine their affair would survive without it. It’s a puzzle and a battle, a source of fascination but not of comfort. There’s lust involved, and curiosity, but not a shred of love or even like. The closest thing to genuine affection is when Verity briefly imagines that there could be a version of Hyperion she actually liked, cobbled from his various, hidden good qualities. Any trappings of a genuine relationship are deliberately discordant.

I have tried, more than once, to imagine an alternate universe in which these two could be happy. It can’t be done. they are a study in dysfunction.

So where’s the similarity, with all these differences outlined?

Corinne’s choice to marry into the Silver-Blood family makes her complicit in their rule of the Reach, corrupt and reactionary as it is. Her reluctance to accept being called by their name reflects a reluctance to confront unpleasant truths that’s fundamental to her character. Choosing to be one of them affects and will continue to affect how other people see her, mostly negatively, and mostly without her being aware of it. Being Thongvor’s wife has gained her enemies. The fact that she doesn’t share his more reactionary views is something that they’ve both chosen to elegantly ignore, but the rest of the world won’t be so generous.

Verity’s choice to marry into the Revaire royal family makes her complicit in their violence against the forces rebelling against them, albeit in a more subtle way. Her personal dislike of Jarrod and the fact that their marriage was purely political will not absolve her in anyone’s eyes. Neither will her compassionate and charitable character, which can only be seen as a fig leaf to the Revaire royals’ general brutality. She has lost at least one good friend -- who will never see her the same way, since she chose to throw her lot in with his enemies. She will go down in history as an Asper wife -- but if she’s lucky, not just as that.

Both Corinne and Verity choose to accept some of the violence of the system that they live under, in order to serve their own lofty, long-term goals. Both of them are more image-driven than they care to admit, and though they are genuinely caring and compassionate, they will readily sacrifice compassion in service on their goals. They are queens (or queen-like figures), one-degree-of-separation members of the ruling class, implicated but not directly in control.

And their relationships serve to highlight what they are willing to accept, even though it goes against their conscience.

Is there a conclusion to be drawn here?

Sort of. I want to write about power, compromise and complicity. For whatever reason, it turns out that yw/om relationships are... a really good vehicle for exploring that. I can’t really explain why that is, just yet. I just... have had these thoughts floating, unstructured, in my head for months on end. I needed to get them out on paper, and give them some semblance of order.

I don’t even know why anyone but me would read this, as long and meandering as it is. But having it accessible might be of use to me.

[thegoodomensdumpster]

ABOUT SHADWELL AND TRACY

OK so. This is probably going to be the meta nobody asked for + the meta that has already existed for 30 years ( I read a bunch of it before the show came out, but I never found one tackling what I’m going to talk about, so chances are it exists but I missed it and now it’ll be impossible to find ). I’ve been wondering, a lot, how exactly the relationship between Tracy and Shadwell was narratively useful. (Especially Shadwell, what is up with Shadwell, really??? Why did he have to be ... the way he is???) Don’t get me wrong : I know perfectly well how nearly everything / everyone in Good Omens mirrors something / someone else. The Four Horsepersons / The Them obviously, a perfect mirror of humanity’s problems (self made be it for Death ) and how to fix them ( with hope, courage, love, and proper education for newest generations who are dealing with passed mistakes… )

And then all the duos echo each other and act as informations about every character . Crowley / Aziraphale Newt / Anathema Tracy / Shadwell So I had the nagging suspicion that Tracy and Shadwell would, perhaps, make more sense to me if I started comparing them to each other and to their counterparts.

After all, that’s how me (and dozens other meta writers) have managed to understand Newt and Anathema.

Newt is reasonable and rationnal, and he is also free and questionning. Anathema has lived a life devoided of surprises, all according to the Great Plan prophecies of a long dead ancestor she can not directly talk to.

Newt and Anathema get together because of the prophecies, but STAY together because they chose to, and Newt is the one to bring that choice to Anathema. Do I need to say which of them echoes Crowley and which of them echoes Aziraphale ? What about Shadwell and Tracy then ?

Welp. Let’s dissect them, shall we ?

Madame Tracy is, arguably, the most formidable character of the lot. OK, I may be a bit bias, I adore the woman. But with good reasons !

Deep down, she’s got one of the – if not the – strongest moral compass of the whole characters cast. She has confidence in her morals and ethics enough to trust a supernatural entity who just invaded her body( after being rightfully offended and scolding him a little ) AND to then go against said entity, an angel of the Lord, when he’s about to do something reprehensible. 

Badass. But on the surface, what is she ? She’s a marginal, a prostitute, a con artist (something that I’m not entirely happy about as I find it morally reprehensible, but it is very likely she pretends to be a medium to be some sort of cheap psychiatrist to people who can’t afford it so… I’ll allow it. But anyway, it is also important that she’s not a parangon of pure unaltered virtue, so this makes sense). She is all the things Shadwell says she is, and in his mouth ( as well as in the eyes of society) they are insults. Worse : she exudes femininity, she is comfortable in her sexuality, she’s a businesswoman, she’s self-sufficent and financially independant (she’s even the one who gives money to Shadwell…). None of this is bad, but most of it is (or, hopefully, was) regarded as bad.

Ok, we got Tracy figured out. Let’s try to understand Shadwell now. Shadwell… Is also a marginal, in a way (he has been to prison, after all, if we include TV Omens canon). But he’s another kind of marginal.

He is not financially independant (again, see : asking money to Tracy, and also, scamming Crowley and Aziraphale for years, which is a way bigger and morally reprehensible con than whatever Tracy is doing with her fake medium act. But tbh, I’m so impressed he scammed not one, but two supernatural entities for funding the same useless organization, I can’t be mad at him. Not for that, I mean.) He isn’t nice, he isn’t polite, he … seems to be everything Tracy isn’t. And, as Tracy is a beacon of light and kindness, it makes sense Shadwell would be a rude blackhole of hatred. But, more than being a lightsucker, Shadwell’s opposition to Tracy makes sense if we shift the way we look at them. Tracy is what society deems morally reprehensible but she isn’t immoral, and more than that, she is very modern. Confident in herself. Taking her fate into her own hands. Turned towards the future.

Meanwhile, Shadwell is entirely turned towards the past, so much so that his traditionnalism is too much by present’s standards, and that is the bit that makes him the most marginal. He wears his sexism and his homophobia as badges of honor, and runs A WITCHFINDER ARMY. A very definitely outdated organization that has for goal : BURNING WITCHES. And gays, too, but mainly witches. This is an activity that was once considered ethical, necessary, ultimately good, but isn’t anymore. Heaven approved of the Witchfinders’ Army on these « morally good » premisses, and Hell approved of it on the cruelty and horror it was actually responsible for. Society has moved on. Shadwell hasn’t. At least in surface . Because, just like Madame Tracy’s activities as a prostitute and self-made woman can raise eyebrows but ultimately don’t define her as a moral person, Shadwell… hnnngh, this is more difficutl to say this about him, but when time comes for him to act on his rotten outdated thrown in our face moral principles, he is actually siding with Tracy. He protects her, he refuses to shoot Adam, he chooses to do what he finds to be morally good, and he and Tracy share the same morals. 

(Also the one time Shadwell thinks he has killed someone he is genuinely shocked, so he is far from being a cold blooded killer. Only when he wants to protect Tracy or prevent Armageddon - and after Aziraphale has shown he isn’t really dead - does he threateningly raise his finger again. ) ((But homophobia and sexism aren’t a good look on him. Or on anyone else, for that matter. It’s not charming. Tracy, why were you charmed ???? WHY ???? ))

And we can only suppose that Tracy, beacon of light that she is, able to see the best even in the scum of the Earth, already knew that Shadwell and her agreed about what was ultimately important. They’ve had, possibly, years of interactions before the plot of GO kicks in, and maybe Shadwell hasn’t been so consistently horrible all this time and showed her a better side ? I hope ??? But, anyway, the thing is : these characters, Tracy and Shadwell, are made to mirror some of the best and worst things coming out of humanity. Tracy being kinda the worst possible carreer and personnal choice for religious bigots, and Shadwell being so deep into bigotry that it made him terrible even by bigots’ standards. Shadwell’s speech would have made him a hero a few centuries ago, now he’s just a lunatic. Tracy would have been burnt at the stake for her life choices. Now she’s… well, not in danger, at the very least, and besides Shadwell, all the GO characters seem to respect her. ( Or fear her, as is the case for Newt. ) ((I’m joking, I think he likes her, but confident people intimidate him.)) So. We’ve got Tracy who has built herself her own moral compass and is confident in the choices she made despite the hostility and difficulties she may have encountered, and Shadwell who lives according to a bunch of bigotted outdated rules he doesn’t actually believe in all that much. HA. Why does that ring a bell, I wonder… For the sake of not letting any ounce of ambiguity floating in the air, I’m going to spell it out :

Shadwell and the Witchfinders’ rules echo Anathema and her prophecies, and Aziraphale and Heaven’s indoctrination. Meanwhile, Tracy echoes Newt and Crowley for their marginality and self-made moral code (ok it’s less obvious for Newt especially if you haven’t read the book but he is the kind to question stuff constantly, to the point he hesitates a lot and has troubles finding his place in the world, but his – tiny - character arc is that he becomes able to question correctly and make decisions and help others make decisions).

The interesting thing is, in a way, Shadwell embodies the worst surface aspect of being a bigot blindly obeying outdated rules, while Tracy is the best possible outcome of a marginal making a life for themself. Newt and Anathema place somewhere in the middle, Anathema being able to let go of the thing that was ruling her life, and Newt is in the process of learning who he is, getting comfortable with that person and finding a place for himself in the world.

As for Crowley and Aziraphale, their long lives has thrown them in morally grey areas for a looong time, but at the end of GO, once freed from Heaven and Hell -but especially Heaven as Aziraphale has the most work to do to also get rid off his endoctrination completely- they are free to join Tracy, Shadwell, Newt and Anathema into finally becoming the most blooming versions of themselves. It is not too late, no matter how dark or how far back they’re coming from.

But !!! I am not entirely done.

The sword. And the gun. Both weapon given - more or less – to humanity by Aziraphale. The flaming sword, given at the very beginning to Adam and Eve hoping they’d use it to protect themselves, and that ends up in the hands of War. The thundergun, not given but required by Aziraphale to be put to use, right as the Armageddon is about to put an end to humanity, and to be used, this time, to kill someone. And, as I mentionned, both Shadwell and Tracy refuse to shoot.

Aziraphale cannot make humanity obey him, now can he ? Because that’s what it is, ultimately. Humanity. And, as always, free will. Because Tracy and Shadwell represent certain extremes and a lot of grey areas of humanity’s morals and diversity of personnalities, they are -almost- perfect ambassadors of humanity as a whole. Good and Evil bear no meaning around them, they refuse to fit neatly into any category, especially when scrutinized through the lenses of different places and eras as ethics shift constantely. Shadwell shows that even garbage trash men can show empathy, Tracy is the most merciful and kind person, which doesn’t prevent her from being surprisingly strong and adamant when needed. Shadwell and Tracy are part of each other’s life, against all odds, and even if it might have been just because they were neighbours at first, they ultimately chose to remain together. All duos chose to stick to their counterpart in the end. All of them represent the many contradictions of humanity, and how love is the ultimate way to live along together. And they use their free will for love. And while I would not, ever, EVER want to interact with a Shadwell IRL, I now see why it was important to make him the way he is depicted. From a narrative point of view, it was important to make him seemingly irreedemable, only for the one character he harrasses the most to trust and love him, because Tracy knows he, actually, isn’t as bad as it may seem. Because people who might seem horrible are not necessarily the ones who are. Because even Shadwell can love and be loved. And because everybody can improve.

Now, I do not know why the sexism and the homophobia had to be the main choices to convey how much of a bigotted idiot Shadwell was (No, I mean, I think I know why: probably because killing witches and gays were the Witchfinders’ Army main goals, but still, it’s tough on modern audiences - whether this should be taken into account by authors is... quite a debate to have, and maybe the main reason it bothers me? idk idk, I’ve already thought too much at this point). Because despite the fact that some of his lines and his excellent actor made him nice to see on screen (or read in the book for that matter), I have a very hard time liking his character. But that might be the point. I don’t know. Only Tracy can love him. But at least now, it makes more sense to me.

[frumfrumfroo]

I don't know wether it would be better to discuss this privately but I don't want to waste your time.After Adam said that Kylo has done nothing wrong,our fandom is full of such takes as resistance is bad,why does he need the light side,it would be detrimental for him to go back to the light side and like what's the purpose of everything then?I'm not a resistance fan either but they're not f villains!And sometimes I think people don't remember that it's wishful thinking.Sorry for bothering you.

People are ridiculous. Adam didn’t mean it that way, if you read the rest of what he said he’s clearly saying Ben the character isn’t thinking about his own redemption or that he needs one. AKA when he reaches a turning point and chooses the right thing, it’s just because he realised it was the right thing- he’s not thinking ‘I must redeem myself’, he just changes his mind. Redemption isn’t some ritual you perform, it doesn’t need to be this ordeal, you just see the truth about your worldview and start making different choices.

He challenged the interviewer to define terms because the interviewer was being a twat and clearly isn’t thinking about the films as a story and these character elements as metaphors. Also, he can’t actually talk about it more directly because anything he could possibly say of substance is a spoiler.

The Rebels/Resistance are the good guys, flat out. The good guys are not perfect but they are ‘the right side’ of the war. Star Wars isn’t morally grey and was never intended to be, it’s black and white, it has absolute right and wrong. Ben isn’t morally grey. He’s traumatised and misguided and thinks the ends justify the means, he thinks the Dark side is inevitable and he can’t escape it. He’s wrong. Morally grey means there is no right answer and it’s arguable whether your actions can be justified, whether what you did was the ‘most ethical’ option and how acceptable the consequences were. It doesn’t mean ‘a little bad’ or ‘not a perfect cinnamon roll’. It means a character who may or may not be justified depending on your point of view.

There is no argument anyone could possibly make to say Ben murdering Han was justifiable or the ‘best thing’ he could have done in the circumstances. There is no argument that he’s right to use the First Order, a military dictatorship, to gain a sense of control over his own life. The point of redemption isn’t to say ‘don’t worry, your crimes weren’t that bad’ or ‘it wasn’t your fault’. It is his fault, he’s a victim but he also has agency and is responsible for his choices. If he didn’t have agency then sure it wouldn’t be his fault, but he also couldn’t be saved because he couldn’t choose differently. Redemption is choosing differently.

It doesn’t and has never meant ‘become a paragon superman who has no flaws and makes no mistakes and never again has a less than saintly thought’. It means that a person who was on the wrong path, hurting others, hurting themselves, and generally being destructive realises they don’t want this and fully internalises that what they have been doing is wrong. It’s the moment of ‘I don’t want to be the source of suffering any more- whatever cause I thought was worth this, it’s not, the ends don’t justify the means’. It doesn’t mean ‘erasing’ their past and becoming a different person- it means healing to your true self and wanting to do your best to choose good in the future.

There is nothing morally grey about murdering your unarmed father who is doing his best to make up for failing you as a child. That is Bad, he did a Bad Thing. Ben was wrong to do that and did it because he has bought into a twisted worldview where both his normal human frailties and his best qualities (compassion, loyalty, lovingkindness) are unforgivable weaknesses. That’s the Dark Side: selfish pursuit of power and gratification at whatever cost. Snoke has convinced him he needs to destroy everything he loves in order to be free, to stop hurting, and he’s doing his best to follow through. He’s doing his best to ignore his own better nature and he’s hurting a lot of people along the way.

He needs to be redeemed from that. This is not an okay way for him to view the world and it’s not a worldview which allows for him to ever have a healthy relationship with anyone. He seeks power because he’s afraid, he feels abandoned and vulnerable, and that makes his fall sympathetic- but that doesn’t make it RIGHT or ~equally valid~. It’s not. It’s wrong, he’s wrong, and he can’t go on like this. It’s killing him exactly because this isn’t who he is, he’s a deeply sensitive, compassionate person who wants to give love, he doesn’t belong on the dark side.

He doesn’t need to suffer further, he’s suffered his whole life, but he needs to make the decision to reclaim his identity and agency.

[cowtale-utau]

Oh I would absolutely love to learn more about human magic!! And for a soulmate, would an S/O’s magic match their skelly soulmate? Or would it be unique to them?

So I can probably make several decently large posts on magic, both human and monster, but for now I'm going to try to do a concise (ish) post on where I'm pulling my HC's for magic from, how it works, and what it can do. I'll also probably include a bit on some known existent mages (cough Frisk/Chara cough), and you asked for some info on soulmates so I'll see what I can do with human souls, soulmates, and monster/human soulmates. (in my drafts I called this the “short version”, it will not be short)

So I'm largely basing human magic off the Mage system from the table-top pen-and-paper rpg Mage, part of the World of Darkness franchise. The Wiki for it has lots of good info and interesting lore if you wanna read into it.

It works in 'spheres' or nine branches/types of magic/facets of reality. Now I'm bending a lot of the lore so don't assume this is a perfect match for the Mage RPG. I used it as a template to work from, and have incorporated some of the lore, but I've also dismissed and altered other large chunks of Mage RPG canon. (basically if you play Mage or read the wiki, don't @ me, I know it's “wrong” ok, I wanted it that way ;p)

Correspondence Essentially the “space” half of time/space. Covers things like teleportation, levitation, flying, and remote viewing. Combines with other spheres to create distance/ranged/area effects. Also allows for the creation of sub-space. It is limited however, in that it only covers space. To move a body, one must combine it with Life. For an object, Matter. Correspondence is a sphere that is fairly easy to learn the basics, and extremely difficult to master.

Entropy Chaos, Order, Luck, Destiny, Creation, Destruction. The natural order of things. The ability to sense and manipulate probability and patterns. Allows one to tap into the natural entropic cycle. The more complex an “object” the easier it is to break. Much like Correspondence, one must be able to use the other applicable sphere(s) to achieve an effect. A tricky sphere to use and control. It tends to be a bit resistant to manipulation by most Mages.

Forces The sphere that allows manipulation of “energy”. Light, heat, vibration, radiation, gravity. While this can be done instinctively, that tends to be sloppy and dangerous. The more one understands about the energy/force they're trying to manipulate the better off they'll be. However one should be mindful that they do not allow the knowledge gained to restrict them. Magic cares not for what human science says is or isn't true. How easy the sphere is to work with depends largely on how much effort one puts into learning the background knowledge. Or how how willing they are to risk brute forcing it.

Life Anything living, or with life energy. Can be used to heal, or unheal. Modify biological entities. Create disease or grow plants. Restore youth. Life as a sphere has many wonderful, helpful applications, and just as many horrifying ones. One can heal and cure and fix, but also cause untold damage. To fully grasp and master life, one must understand how life connects to itself, and the cycles in which it exists. The chain between predator and prey. How simple it is to learn is largely dependent on how much understanding you already have of the subject you're trying to alter.

Matter Non living/inorganic things. Also covers all the elements on the periodic table. Works very well when combined with other spheres. Entropy to break an object, Forces to animate inanimate things, Correspondence to move objects, Time to alter them temporally. Allows the Mage to alter but also to see and understand the make up of an object. Arguably one of the easiest to learn and use, given that it inherently allows you to pick up understanding of what you're working with on the go.

Mind Covers consciousness and how a person perceives reality. Knowledge, imagination, emotion. Can be used to alter memory, thinking, emotions, perception, and concentration among other things. Mind is a bit different from other spheres in that one does not need an understanding of how the “mind” works to utilize it well. Talent in this sphere comes down to mostly practice and natural inclination.

Prime Primal Energy, the raw magical force of the world. Often considered an almost Holy Power. A Prime Mage can detect/sense magic, enchant objects or living things, cut off another Mage's access to magic and it is often used to bolster or power other magics. Prime is the source from which all other magic springs. Having skill in Prime is tricky as there's no deeper understanding to help you, beyond the understanding that you can't understand. That it is a power beyond you, and can strike back at any moment.

Spirit Something connected to but separate from the concept of souls. The culmination of hope, emotion, and thought. A skilled Spirit Mage can touch or even pass through the wall between the tangible world, the void, and what lies beyond. Allows one to reach out, speak to, and interact with spirits lost to the physical world. A Mage less morally inclined could even, with enough power, subjugate those beings. Using and mastering the Spirit sphere requires a strong understanding and sense of self, while also being able to release physical/material ties and limits.

Time Time is sort of self explanatory. Though time as a concept is not a straight forward as many assume. Very much subjective to the observer. A Time Mage is more aware than most that while time naturally moves forward (mostly), it contracts and dilates, whirls and twists. It jumps, and branches, and curves back on itself. A Time Mage can know the exact time at any time, and sense distortions in the time line. They can slow time, rewind or loop, create anchor (save) points, and with enough skill they can outright time travel or exist outside the timeline entirely. To master Time is to understand it as an esoteric and inexact science.

Humans pull their magic externally. This is both more freeing and more restricting than monsters. They can do just about anything they can imagine, assuming they can figure out how, have the respective understanding and magical inclinations, and the world allows it. Sometimes whatever source, force, whatever, the magic comes from, disagrees with a Mage. And the backlash can be catastrophic. And while a Mage cannot “drain” themselves to the point of death, they can over channel, and over load. The end result is the same.

Related Side Note ; Monster magic is much more free form and almost entirely “intent” based. This means technically any monster can learn any magic type. However some souls are better suited for certain types than others. Some just can't muster up the intent needed. They also tend to not be able to do things quite on the scale that Mages can. Monster magic is pulled from themselves. It's a part of their soul, and fueled by their soul. They have a much more limited pool. Mind you, some monsters still have immense pools of magic they can pull from, and high regen rates, but still ultimately are more limited than humans. (Side note, if a monster uses up their “pool” the can continue using magic, but its a good way to die very quickly as it drains on their souls directly)

As for existing Mages, the obvious would be Frisk/Chara. Correspondence and Time. Possibly Prime. I'm actually unsure on Spirit, but leaning towards no. If you want more on that lemme know. I could discuss it a fair amount I think.

The other part of your question ; Soulmates.

There are essentially three types of bonds that fall under what most would consider “soulmates”. Kindred Spirits, Soul Mates, and Twin Flames. Any of these bonds can be platonic, romantic, or anything in between. Friends, lovers, rivals.

Kindred Spirits – Compatible. Someone with who you find forming an easy, comfortable bond. Often very similar to ourselves in a comforting way. Someone to whom we easily relate and connect to.

Soulmates – Complementary. A near perfect resonation. The traditional idea behind most soulmate lore. One can meet multiple soulmates in their lives, though they're not quite as common as Kindred Spirits.

Twin Flames – Twin Flames are the other half of an incomplete soul. A perfect mirror. Both the same and opposite in everywhere. Twin Flames rarely exist in the same world at the same time. When they do they are often both drawn to and repelled by one another. It is a bond existing beyond defining, beyond platonic/romantic labels. You're greatest ally, worst enemy, deepest love, your Twin Flame, is undeniable bound to you no matter what.

While Kindred Spirits and Soulmates won't necessarily have “matching” magic, their magic is often compatible/complementary to some degree in it's natural leanings.

If you want more info on anything specific, let me know. 💜

[archer3-13]

My Poor Thoughts on The 3H Lords:

in no particular order

Byleth: the best functional avatar of the series, if the least interesting as a character in many regards. which is a bit unfair because they do have a personality and sense of growth as an individual, it just so happens that the personality and growth is tied into being emotionless. Regardless they remain my favorite of the avatars since they do what avatars are suppose to, provide a vessel for the player to interact with the world of the game and story from something of an outsiders perspective well providing a feeling of pride and accomplishment. That way if you need to explain something to the player, you can do so without it being to weird because you arent talking to a character but rather to the player directly. That said character wise, they rank near the middle being below kris and corrin and above mark and robin, for me personally anyways. their arguably speaking cannon personality works just fine for me as does their character history, but their responses and especially some of their alternate gag ones are bizarre and stupid in a bad way and there is little in the way of actual consequences for your decisions aside from making characters occasionally upset and choosing a route on the BE path. If avatars are just going to be a thing from now on, this is closer to how i feel they should be done but it would also be a good idea to cut out the wank and make decisions actually matter more rather then pander to lame dating sim mechanics.

Dimitri: best written of the bunch undeniably, his character never reaches incredibly lofty heights in terms of quality but he clearly had the most thought and planning put into who he is and where hes going as a character. plus hes fairly unique as a protagonist in the fe series as a whole, and is arguably even something of a deconstruction of the average fe lord of both the soft marth and loud alm variety. Hes not my fave of the series, but he gets to be high up there.

Edelgard: intentionally contentious or not, taking a step back from her fuckability/waifu qualities which the game wants you to pay more attention to then anything else arguably her characters something of a dropped ball. Cobbling together elements of arvises backstory and emperor hardins visual motifs, she has a strong foundation in there as both a well written female character and villain protagonist but then presumably someone became scared and decided she needed to be more sympathetic less anyone not want to fuck her and thus drive down sales. either that or it was a failed and mishandled attempt at making things more morally grey. regardless what should have been a tragic figure whos past trauma causes them to develop into an aggressive authoritarian with an ends justify the means mentality that pushes them over the line multiple times and whos attempts at gaming the system ultimately backfire due to who they ally with leaving their dreams of peace shattered by their arrogance thus teaching the valuable lesson that the ends dont always justify the means and be careful who you make bedfellows with in pursuit of power, is instead a figure who stupidly allied with the people most directly responsible for their suffering went and attacked someone else for incredibly shaky reasons and sat on in silence well their tormentors did horrific acts with only a shaked fist and stern warning in response well doing their own morally dubious acts on the side and who managed to get away with it all because she pouted a bit. and as a villain on the other routes i dont find her particularly engaging either. which is a shame because she does rock a sweet emperor hardin cosplay.

Claude: third wheel, but not an awful one. he basically does the standard fe routine really with a bit more playful sass then normal. not the best of the lot in that regard in my opinion, sure hes more tactics then some of the others but he also feels fairly static and ill defined at times, and he feels like hes only there out of contractual obligation to have three lords instead of two. he has a story, but its not particularly his story outside of a few beats and is more so the settings story then anything else. remove him and spread the important lore bits to the other routes and you wouldnt be missing much. Hes fun but hes less complicated then he pretends to be and thats what i resent about him if anything. Basically, i feel he needs a better narrative to his name then what he ended up getting.

[angstywritingpromptsforwriters]

Active and Passive Character and How Narration Supports Them

Introduction

A rather important but oftentimes not named aspect of a character’s position inside the story can already be decided on during the development of said character. Namely, whether the character is an active, or a passive character.

There are two types of characters. Active and passive.

The active character is someone who actively chooses their path inside the story, the actions they take and therefore oftentimes lead the plot or at least contribute to the continuation of the story. Either into a “negative” direction or a “positive” direction, both paths are possible and oftentimes the path they are taking is only truly defined by their moral basis.

The passive character is someone who is led by the plot of the story, who reacts to certain events or plot points but doesn’t actively influence the story through decisions or actions and who does not willingly choose to take certain paths in order to change or influence their own future. It could probably be said that this character is rather lead by the plot, than that they are leading the plot in any way.  

 Active Character

An example for an active character would be The Joker in the DC Universe.

Because he actively makes decisions, he actively contributes to the plot by redefining said plot through the actions he takes. Whether or not those actions lead the plot into a morally positive direction or are making it harder for the protagonist of the story to bring the plot forwards themselves in a way they see fit, is unimportant. The important part is, that he is taking actions and is making decisions. And that those are influencing the plot and the character’s own future.

He however rarely takes passive characteristic actions, since he does not seem to be reflecting or reacting much throughout the film The Dark Knight for example. Some of his actions might seem like a reply to actions Batman took, but I would argue that those decisions mostly serve the purpose of bringing himself forwards and not to react or reflect on actions taken by Batman against him.

At least there are no scenes in the film where he obviously does that. (I would probably argue that the comics are describing him more often to react or reflect, but I will not combine two different characterisations of him now.)

 Passive Character

As an example, for a passive character I will name Bella Swan from the Twilight book series, even though I will say that she is probably the most boring example for this.

But that is mainly because she is a character who exclusively reacts. There doesn’t seem to be a single moment throughout the story where Bella actively makes a decision that would influence her future, or where she takes actions herself to change her fate or to steer the plot into a direction that would benefit her.

Though, I do not want to say with this that passive characters all have to be boring, but their influence on the story itself is less obvious and they are therefore more often perceived as “weaker” characters, rather than “stronger” characters.

 Mainly Active Character, Partially Passive Character

Another example from a comic book series would be Tony Stark from the Iron Man films/comics by Marvel.

He however, while still being an active character, shows also signs of a passive character. Which is important for someone who reflects on their actions. You can see at the beginning of the first film how all he does is to act, to make decisions and to take paths without much considering the consequences of those actions. He is also shown to either not care or only care very little about other people’s actions and opinions, meaning he does not react like a passive character would.

But in his case, that changes after he is traumatically confronted by the consequences of his own actions. After that, he does not completely let go of his active personality, he still very much makes life changing decisions and still leads the plot by his actions, but he spends more time reflecting on the world around him and actually reacting to it. As is seen later on, when he decides to name Peppa Potts as CEO of his firm, therefore reacting to people saying he is not suited for that position.

He would therefore be a character who is still mainly active in nature, but develops the passive part in order to better connect to his surroundings and the story line.

 Mainly Passive Character, Partially Active Character

While Tony Stark could be named as an example of an overly active character developing a passive side, Harry Potter could probably be named as a mostly passive character developing active characteristics.

While Harry starts off in the book series as a mainly passive character (though, this is arguably due to his lack of knowledge, magical abilities and age), he starts showing more and more own initiative throughout the following books.

In the first book, Harry mostly reacts. He does take a few daring actions and makes decisions, though most of his actions are direct reactions to something happening in his environment. That however changes once he, for example actively goes against school rules at the end of book one.

His still rather passive personality continues throughout the whole book series, though, here I would argue that this is largely due to the narration forcing Harry to rather react, than giving him room for own actions.  

 Influence of Narration on Character Dynamics

Whether or not a character would be defined as active or passive however is not limited to the character development itself, but is also influenced by how the narration works the character into the story and how much space it is given for them to either react or act.

A character’s personality definitely plays a big role in their own dynamics; If a character is outgoing or short tempered, they most likely will take action into their own hands and make decisions fast and without much hesitation. If a character is shy or submissive, they most likely will react to other character’s actions and reflect more consciously on their actions. Hence, personality influences dynamics.

However, the narration decides on how many of those influencing character traits will be shown throughout the story. Depending on how much time is given the character to come up with ideas, decisions and actions, they might be more active than their personality alone would make them. Or depending on how many events are thrown towards the character with barely any time in between, they will most likely spend their time reacting instead of acting themselves.

As stated above, in the Harry Potter book series, the protagonist Harry is mostly occupied with reacting to the several events and situations that he finds himself in, usually even without breaks in between. Therefore, he seems more like a passive character because he only rarely makes decisions on his own without being rushed or pushed into those.

For example, in book three, The Prisoner of Azkaban, most of Harry’s actions are directly caused by situations. Like his friend being dragged below a tree. Or fighting off the Demetors on the field because they attack him and he has to defend himself. Because the evens are set in a rather short time frame, there is barely any time for Harry’s curious and reckless character to properly show.

However, in for example the fifth book, The Order of The Phoenix, Harry makes the conscious decision to train Dumbledore’s Army. This is possible because the plot of the book processes rather slowly and not as intensely as the books beforehand. (Which is one of the reasons a lot of fans saw it as too slow and boring.) And those decisions and own actions turn him into a more outgoing and active character than in the books before.

 The later example can also be found in Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings. Since all three books progress rather slowly in their story, opening up new side plots every few pages and giving multiple characters a lot of screen time each, the characters have time and opportunities to make decisions and take actions themselves. Which is why most characters seem like very active characters, since they keep pushing through the lands and situations towards their goal and don’t just react to the enemy’s actions, but actually counter act.

I argue that if Harry Potter’s character would have been placed into the Lord of the Rings universe, he would have been a much more active character and showing his in the books hinted towards rather reckless and curious personality. ~ Taliesin-Joan Please do not repost or copy without giving me proper credit.  For reading in a better quality and to support me through clicks: https://medium.com/@joan.runkel/active-and-passive-character-and-how-narration-supports-them-658cea0cf206?source=friends_link&sk=7c794c25bb09c02b43c4c28a3d2543aa

[roxannepolice]

I’m curious on what you think balancing would actually mean. I always get get caught up on the light = good and dark = evil dichotomy. George Lucas has said you need both for the Force, but that kinda rubs me wrong way if Light and Dark are good and evil. I don’t know it’s like saying evil is necessary. I guess that why I think the Dark isn’t necessarily evil, but of darker feelings/emotions that those with evil intent like to use. -Wanderingspacedragon

Alright, so this grew into a longish meta that ended up exceeding the confines of GFFA and touching upon real world philosophy. But, I guess this is what Lucas asked for when he first came up with the force. So here goes nothin'.

Master Carl-Gus Jungobi's wisdoms

First of all, reaching to LF themselves, Brian Young defines light as the suppression of ego and dark as its amplification. So far so good. However, from jungist perspective (and a nice intruduction to how C. G. Jung fits into GFFA as well as mythology in general done by crash course can be found here) any juxtaposition like day-night, sun-moon, angel-demon, heaven-hell also quicksilver and sulphur but that's a different level of symbolism are all metaphors of conscious and unconscious. Conscious mind is a socialized, clear and immersed in the norms of the community while the unconscious is individual, animalistic and shapeless - and imo, that's rather simple to reconcile with what Young wrote on twitter. Existing only on the level of consciousness always puts the community before the individual whereas being guided only by our unconscious reduces the outside world to the level of tools to satisfy our needs. Because of that, Jung points out that unconscious has been throughout the ages identified as evil (this is why those needs had to be repressed in the first place, hence producing the shadow archetype in the unconscious), which leads us to some really intriguing topics.

Because the question of nature, cause, purpose and possible necessity of evil is nothing short of one of the most important questions of any religion and moral philosophy - and it seems well into 8th millennium we're nowhere closer to a definite answer. The statement good and evil are abstract concepts tends to cause very negative reactions, because it appears like denial of their reality, but I think it's misunderstanding of what an abstraction is. When I say numbers are abstract concepts, the matter seems clear - there is no independently existing number two, yet it exists in the sense of quantity - but no one seems to protest that I don't believe in maths or sth. There's an anecdote about Einstein's student years where he compared good and evil not to binary opposites, but rather to temperature. We simplify the issue to the point of warm and cold, but is there some absolute border between them? What is the polar opposite of -1°C, +1° or +30°? There exists an absolute zero, at which all atom movement ceases, but is there an absolute plus? But even though there is no physical impossibility of life in too hot surroundings, like there is in the case of absolute zero, yet we earthlings feel extreme warmth isn't that good either, don't we? And then there's a matter of subjective experience - someone living in Siberia has different ideas of warm and cold than someone living in the rainforest - but it doesn't change the fact that objectively speaking 20°C is warmer than 9°C and both of these people will recognize it. So regardless of whether it was Einstein who made this comparison, I think it's a pretty good metaphor.

Leaving philosophy and coming back to psychology, the basic point that Jung makes about conscious and unconscious is that individualized, integrated self needs them both in order to lead a creative, meaningful life. Either of them alone limits the person, the unconscious to the purely biological life, fulfillment of one's wants, but conscious to the self repeating sustenance. Arguably, life on the purely conscious level (in pure light, so to speak) is a safer, better choice - but it results in changelessness, in mindless recreation. Yes, it's not as selfishly destructive as that of pure unconscious, but it's an unproductive as life of Adam and Eve in Eden, arid like Tatooine and Jakku and, at worst, dogmatic like the prequel jedi. Both conscious and unconscious are infertile when kept strictly separated, hence the ever present symbols of female and male - and marriage as a metaphor of integration. Now, the important point is that the integration has to be on conditions, so to speak, of the conscious - but unconscious has to be accepted for what it is, it can't be forced to become overall conscious, only this way the shapeless mass of our imagination can keep its vital powers.

Mircea Eliade, an intellectual: holy marriage and coniunctio oppositorum; me, a fangirl: smut hut and thigh grab

Using the jungist metaphor, the general story we hitherto got in SW presents itself as follows: we start off in strict consciousness repressing the unconscious (jedi fighting siths in every form) - and so it finally got itself a psychotic flooding of the psyche with the unconscious content (a nigredo, blackening, using alchemical terminology Jung studied) in form of Anakin’s fall into his shadow persona of Darth Vader and republic becoming the empire. Jung would venture as far as to say that a psychotic episode is necessary to the growth, though I would argue that's mostly because he lived in very repressive times. Regardless, the first flooding of the unconscious is almost always depicted as violent and terrifying, with one of the most visual metaphors being a total eclipse when the moon blanks out the sun completely.

Thus, the originals are basically the painstaking process of the psyche overcoming the psychotic episode and consciousness regaining control. One might argue that the individuation process is actually completed on the individual level - Luke appears to have accepted Darth Anakin for what he is, and thus integrated his own shadow as well - which is why old EU would have Leia accept her father too, eventually, and for some the sequels are straight up redundant rehash of the originals. Far from thinking the bottom line wasn't that DLF want to make money, the apparent narration fits pretty well with the idea of re-repression: the shadow isn't integrated, ex-imperials are banished and the Skywalkers accept Anakin only by rejecting Vader - and so nigredo repeats itself, and will continue to repeat until the shadow is integrated. Additionally, it can be argued that Luke committed a mistake of thinking the individuation is a static goal and as such refused to reenter the spontaneous life (refusal to rebuild the jedi until it was really necessary). This is a frequent temptation and if it rings a bell with a difference between a buddha and a bodhisattva, bingo - buddha was considered by Jung one of the metaphors of the integrated self.

Which brings us to our current holy marriage and where they left off at the end of tlj. Viewing Rey and Ben as avatars of light (conscious, communitarian, idealistic) and dark (unconscious, individual, emotional) makes much more sense than when we view them as plain good vs. evil. Now, while no one seems to have any problems grasping the problem with Ben's actions (integration on unconsciousness’ condition is simply another nigredo), from a psychoanalytic viewpoint Rey isn't that much more in the right. She isn't willing to integrate the shadowy unconscious, only wants the unconscious to become conscious, if not downright negates the existence of the shadow (yeah, she’ll cross the galaxy to help Ben turn - only she never asked if he even wants to turn). So while most reylos want to see her as determined to wait for Ben and an/is as having given up on him completely, I would say her current state is closest to Luke's then my father is truly dead in RotJ. She isn't determined to save him in as much as do the right thing and it's likelier to mean sparing him. That being said, she needs to undergo her own violent nigredo if she is to accept him the way Luke accepted Vader by the time he threw away the ls.

*Aggressively hums Hans Zimmer's 503*

An interesting side reflection occured to me while writing this answer and thinking of how abstract ideas of good and evil get framed by different moral philosophies and religions (to get something straight: I analyze religions from a purely social/cultural sciences pov, so I'm not evaluating them in any way - and regardless, Jung saw all religions are basically metaphors of individuation. I'm also not arguing what is Lucas's preferred interpretation of the force - I'm just discussing the discourse within the trilogies). So I think the force has always had strong vibes of some form of divinity ever since it was first discussed by Obi-Wan and then by Yoda. However, it appears to me the conceptualization of it, as well as its two sides, has altered throughout the subsequent trilogies, counting OT, PT, ST.

In the originals the vibes are definitely closest to East Asia’s religions/moral philosophies, with main connotations being dao and yin-yang. There isn't much talk of force having a will of its own but rather being a general flow of reality that one can be attuned to or not - Luke's compassion for Vader isn't shown as qualitatively more correct, more of what the force wants, than Yoda's and Obi-Wan's condemnation. The prequels are much more Mediterranean/Middle East in tone, with Anakin's fall being framed as a greek tragedy but also force being shown as having a much more concrete will, definite plan for the galaxy and directly interfering in the history. This constitutes what Mircea Eliade considers the crucial feature of judeo-christian-islamic tradition: God has a will similar to human and a linear plan for humanity. And because of that I'd say the prequels are very First Testament in tone. There's absolutely no way to prove that destruction of the jedi, including the youngling massacre, wasn't a part of Anakin's purpose in bringing balance to the force - and when we look at the First Testament then we get passages like the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, egyptian plagues (including death of the first borns!) or the Book of Job. None of this disproves God's benevolence, but destruction is a frequent part of God's plan.

In contrast the sequels (and Disney era in general) got very close to the New Testament and christian theology. Light and dark are no longer equal elements of the universe, just as God and satan aren't equal opponents, there would be no evil if Lucifer hasn't rebelled, force is its light side and dark an aberration, so to speak. Rey and Kylo Ben are framed as equally powerful, but the force prefers her because of her allegiance to the light. The downsides are that trusting the force and keeping up hope (faith and hope being two of the three theological virtues) are themes brought up ad nauseam and the public plot is infuriatingly predictable - angels are going to win no matter how numerous and technologically advanced the halls of hell get. There is no Battle of Evermore in christianity, there's only the Last Judgment, so the only interesting battlefield is each individual soul. The upside is Prodigal Sons, Lost Sheep and Adulterous Women galore - as well as despair understood as loss of faith in God's mercy and possibility of one's salvation as one of the sins capable of forfeiting the soul.

But anyway, the bottom line of this prolonged rambling (what can I say, I could deliberate on the dichotomies of the force for ages) is that light and dark side symbolise conscious and unconscious and the balance means integration of the self. It definitely fits into the jungist reading and would give this trilogy a narrative value.

Though obviously, this topic wouldn't be so interesting if there was a definite answer.

[inumbro]

a collection of some of the ama answers, all the twitter posts, and all of red posts on the boards about zed & some related topics that I can find from the last ~1.5 years (with a few exceptions), so that I have all this info in one spot for reference

organised based first by topic, then by rioter

if anyone has any jhin / xayah / rakan / vastaya related information that I missed I’d appreciate a link so I can add it bc there’s not nearly as much not-officially-canon-canon information on those connections as I remember there being!

Morals:

WAAARGHbobo said:

No. He is, if anything, a hardline nationalist and federalist.

WAAARGHbobo said:

Zed is, indeed, much more complicated than you think. But he is definitely not a nice person.

@miketmccarthy said:

At the moment, [Akali] does not align with [Zed’s] philosophy. He killed Shen’s father and master. Although they are both aggressive, Akali is inherently good and Zed, well, notsomuch.

Shadow magic:

WAAARGHbobo said:

...A wizard has a different, more studious, and analytical way of accessing magic — but arguably a shaman has a more inate connection to spirit magic. While warriors like Zed, Shen, and Kayn have studied a different way to access magical power—

The strenght of the connection, the control, and the narrowness of focus are all important variables...

@LaurieGolding said:

... but Shadow Magic had not been practiced in Runeterra for a long time, before Zed started. Jax hasn't had time to master it in the ~10 years since then!

Kayn:

Scathlocke said:

Kayn's principal conflict is almost not with Rhaast at all, but Zed. It is very likely that his master sent him to retrieve the weapon knowing that it would be the ultimate test for his protege - either it would destroy him, or he would conquer the Darkin and become a worthy new leader for the Order of Shadow.

Basically, Kayn and Zed have a super-complicated "adopted father" type of relationship going on. Rhaast is more like Lady Macbeth, in this current situation.

@LaurieGolding said:

I think [Kayn’s] shadow-form is what Kayn and Zed both hope the outcome will be - he's been given a near-impossible task by his master, as a true and final test of his worthiness to one day lead the Order of Shadow. If he fails, the weapon will consume him.

It's interesting, because both Zed and Swain seem to have engineered their plans for succession into their own rise to power. Both of them seem to say "You can have my job... IF you can take it!"

@LaurieGolding said:

Kayn is a singularly gifted student, but Zed gave him the hardest test imaginable - to withstand the power of a Darkin. ...

Jaredan said:

I wouldn't take the horror of Kayn's experience as typical of Noxus's approach or attitude to recruitment. The Ionia conflict saw some very strange things happen within the Noxian military and beyond. I can't talk about them yet. But that day will come.

@miketmccarthy said:

I think a lot of that will come out later... Zed has had a complicated run in his life, he wants a successor, and I believe he hopes Kayn is 'the one' and time will tell whether or not he can be that. Zed saved Kayn from certain death, trained him, raised him. He cares.

Interlocutioner said:

Link to Zed: Functionally, they're master and apprentice. But in truth, I think they have a deeper relationship than that. Zed sees himself in Kayn. An orphan with a gift and a drive that others can't control, no matter how much they try. No matter how much Zed tries, in Kayn's case, lol. I think Zed might also see something he could never be in Kayn. Kayn's link to the shadow is deep, for whatever reason. Maybe Zed hopes this is a sign that Kayn could do better than him? Ultimately succeed him? And he may have other, darker motives as well.

I think Kayn's respect for Zed is just as deep. Unfortunately, he's in the process of convincing himself that the only way he can prove himself to his father figure is by becoming something more than Zed wants him to be. Stronger than Zed. Strong enough to defeat him, if necessary.

They have a bond, but it will be tested.

...

I just mean their bond will be tested by Kayn's possession of Rhaast, if nothing else.

Kinkou + Jhin:

Jaredan said:

The characters you mentioned [Shen, Zed, Jhin] are very important to each other's lives going forward...

Jaredan said:

Shen, Zed, and Jhin, sitting in a tree. K. I. L. L. I. N. G.

In their history, Jhin is absolutely an antagonist. But Shen doesn't look at Zed with any kind of fondness, only with betrayal. The man he thought was his brother murdered his father, the person that Shen defined himself by.

However, it's true that Shen can't give into his own immediate, visceral anger. Perhaps he even tells himself he doesn't hold that anger against Zed. His job does require him to hold that inner balance to perform it. It's a role that he does partly in honor of his father. Still, if Shen told you he isn't angry, would you believe him?

When he has two worlds balanced on the edge of a blade, how long any man keep his hand steady?

I'm not going to talk about where their story might be headed in specifics, but those are the things that are involved in our thinking.

Jaredan said:

Yup, though Shen and Zed's relationship is a bit more complicated than Tobias and Malcolm's. Zed and Shen also have more complicated personalities and responsibilities than TF and Graves (that's not a challenge when it comes to Graves especially, he's a to-the-point kind of fellow).

Scathlocke said:

Shen is most likely seeing quite a few parallels between Zed's path, and Akali's. There is some significant crossover in their ideology, and they both rejected the Kinkou Order in some way... but Zed rejects the notion of "balance" as weak, and is more than happy to use any/all means at his disposal. Akali is certainly not there, yet!

Thermal_Kitten said:

Akali knows the cost of Zed’s break with the Kinkou. Zed was training alongside Shen, but after their first run in with Jhin, Zed began to have second thoughts. (We updated Zed’s bio to add more context and details surrounding this.)

...

As far as the Order of Shadow and the Kinkou, they don’t exactly work together, it’s more they tend to keep out of each other’s territory and see to Ionia’s future in their own ways. If it came to a direct disagreement, it could come to blows.

WAAARGHbobo said:

Jhin give us a chance to show that Ionia is in transition. The attack on their nation changed them. They are embracing technology they had previously thought unnecessary, and they are questioning their morale foundations. Jhin is the true villain of Zed and Shen's story-- and he represents everything that could go wrong for Ionia.

The Noxus-Ionia war:

Scathlocke said:

Seven years since Swain seized power and commanded the Noxian armies to leave Ionia.

@LaurieGolding said:

Noxus has a HUGE military presence off the main coast of Ionia - the First Lands are so concerned with restoring balance after they "won" the war, they've failed to notice that Noxus hasn't actually abandoned the island of Fae'lor, for example...

@LaurieGolding said:

The Great Stand at Navori was about ten years ago, and she was something like 14 then. Swain seized control of Noxus roughly three years later and ended the war in Ionia.

@LaurieGolding said:

Noxus was originally supposed to be persuading Ionia to join the empire, which of course became an occupation, then a war. They didn't intend to pillage/destroy... But it seems Darkwill was actually looking for magical stuff to extend his life, so who knows? (LeBlanc, maybe?)

@LaurieGolding said:

The death toll was catastrophic, certainly. But also, Ionia has been marked with a big, bloody Noxian handprint that they'll never be able to wash away - the soul of the First Lands has been changed forever... Was that Swain's plan all along? It's hard to say.

Vastaya:

Q&A:

Why is there a rebellion? Is Zed doing something with magic that affects the vastaya and are they dying as a result?

Not dying, but magical essence sustains their continued existence. The less magic there is, the fewer resources there are to support vastayan life and tradition. Other humans tap into or twist up the same magic source that the Lhotlan vastaya need to survive. This is not necessarily a moral thing, good people do bad things for good reasons, unaware of the consequences it causes others. Zed and his people are unknowingly or uncaringly accelerating the drain of the magical energy though they are absolutely not alone in doing this. This is aggravating the growing tension between humans and some vastayan tribes in Ionia - and directly violates the agreements that were forged between species.

Miscellaneous:

In response to:

Then Zed decided to pull a Sasuke because he couldn't deal with someone being better/picked over him.

Jaredan said:

Zed's issues run a bit deeper than that.

WAAARGHbobo said:

[referring to the wild magic video] It is not a part of the timeline. Promotion team just takes inspiration from the lore-- they do not make stuff within the timelines. Because... uh.. Reasons? Well you'd have to ask them.

WAAARGHbobo said:

So as the guy who did this, and Jhin’s lore...

The character you love hasn’t changed.

This simply expands the timeline and shows how Zed’s descent can be understood from his own perspective.

This timeline was actually done during Jhin, and the goal was to give Zed’s fall a slower, more human, less arch, trajectory.

Timeline (rough from my phone):

Shen and Zed are students together and bros. Zed is clearly the better, more talented student.

Kusho takes the two young teenagers undercover chasing “the golden demon”

Jhin crime scenes traumatized zed. (And shen)

Zed begans to struggle with his studies.

Kusho catches but refuses to kill Jhin. Zed loses respect for his master.

Zed begins to study forbidden shadow magic. —gets in trouble.

Leaves.

Noxus invades —zed witness war crimes. Kusho’s refusal to help the war effort is the last straw, Zed is no longer sympathetic or allied to the kinkou. While not directly opposed to them— he begins to view the kinkou as rivals.

Zed forms his own order— related to the Navoi militia group. (Spelling?)

Some vastaya tribes looking for a better deal, ally with the Noxus. Others fight for Ionia. Zed begins hostility with non- humans.

The war is tough, zed returns to the take the last of the shadow magic. Kusho tries to stop him.

Zed kills his master, shen’s dad.

Shen becomes the eye of twilight.

Kayn.

The war ends.

Zed begins consolidating power. Trains kayn. (He continues hostility with noxus, growing hostility with many Vastaya tribes.)

Harrowing mists begin to bother the southern Ionia sea ports.

Kayn gets raaast (around here i think)

Jhin is frees.... by someone

Zed finds out jhin is free. contacts Shen.

Jhin heads to zaun.